Human Relations Commission - Minutes

Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

Human Relations Commission - Minutes - 06/12/1997

/ 3

Entry Properties
Modified	7/2/2023 11:02:58 AM
Created	7/20/2020 6:22:06 PM
Template
Boards and Commissions
Fields
Board Name	HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
Meeting Date	06/12/1997
Year	1997
Document Type Boards and Commissions	MINUTES
Destruction Year	PERM
Scan Date	04/06/2006

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2/7/2013 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - P&Z Final Agenda PacketSPECIAL HEARING AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD -- CITY OF FORT COLLINS Interested persons are invited to attend and be heard at the time and place specified. Please contact the Current Planning Department for further information on any of the agenda items at 221-6750. DATE: Thursday, February 7, 2013 TIME: 6:00 P.M. PLACE: Council Chambers, City Hall West, 300 LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, CO A. Roll Call B. Agenda Review: If the Thursday, February 7, 2013 hearing should run past 11:00 p.m., the remaining items may be continued to Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall West. C. Citizen Participation (30 minutes total for non-agenda and pending application topics) D. Consent Agenda: The Consent agenda consists of items with no known opposition or concern and is considered for approval as a group allowing the Planning and Zoning Board to spend its time and energy on the controversial items. Any member of the Board, staff, or audience may request an item be “pulled” off the Consent Agenda. None E. Discussion Agenda: Specific time for public input has been set aside for discussion on the following items: The Planning and Zoning Board is the final authority on the following items: 1. Foothills Mall Redevelopment Project Development Plan, # PDP120036 This is a request for a mixed-use redevelopment of the existing Foothills Fashion Mall. As proposed, the project contains a commercial/retail component, a commercial parking structure and 800 multi-family dwelling units on 76.3 acres. The site is zoned C-G, General Commercial and is located within the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District (TOD). Applicant: Alberta Development Partners, c/o Bryan McFarland, 5750 DTC Parkway, Suite 210, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 The Planning and Zoning Board provides a recommendation to City Council on the following items: 2. Eastside/Westside Character Study This is a request for a recommendation to City Council on a package of Land Use Code changes to address the impacts of large new single-family house construction and house additions occurring in the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (N-C-L) and Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (N-C-M) zoning districts, which occur in the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods near Downtown. Applicant: City of Fort Collins F. Other Business G. Adjourn PROJECT: Foothills Mall Redevelopment, Project Development Plan, PDP #120036 APPLICANT: Alberta Development Partners c/o Bryan McFarland 5750 DTC Parkway, Suite 210 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 OWNER: Walton Foothills Holdings VI, LLC c/o Don Provost 5750 DTC Parkway, Suite 210 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a mixed-use redevelopment of the existing Foothills Fashion Mall. As proposed, the project contains a commercial/retail component, a commercial parking structure and 800 multi-family dwelling units on 76.3 acres. The site is zoned C-G, General Commercial and is located within the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District (TOD). The project proposes to deconstruct portions of the existing Foothills Fashion Mall and renovate the original structure, for a 388,084 square foot, one-level, enclosed shopping mall. In addition, various free standing buildings including the Commons at Foothills Mall buildings, the Shops at Foothills Mall buildings, The Plaza at Foothills Mall, The Corner Bakery, Christy Sports and the Youth Activity Center building would all be deconstructed. In their place, eight new retail buildings are proposed along South College Avenue, ranging from 9,300 square feet to 31,715 square feet in size. Internal to the site, five new retail buildings are proposed to be located northwest of the existing enclosed mall. These five buildings range from 7,636 square feet to 12,000 square feet in size. To the southwest of the existing mall, four new restaurants are proposed ranging in size from 8,088 square feet to 14,000 square feet as well as a new, two story, 24,000 square foot Foothills Activity Center to replace the Youth Activity Center. Additionally, a new 86,754 square foot entertainment and theater building is proposed, located southeast of the new restaurants. The large east green area and smaller west green plazas anchor the pedestrian network. The commercial component provides a Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 2 total of 3,581 parking spaces via a six level, 84,663 square foot parking structure and surface parking spaces. In terms of the residential component, the project proposes 800 multi-family units distributed among five buildings that will include a mix of studio, one, two and three bedroom units. The unit mix would be divided in the following manner: 59 studio units; 395 one-bedroom; 319 two-bedroom and 27 three-bedroom, for a total of 1,173 bedrooms. For the residential component, 1,422 parking spaces are proposed via three separate subterranean structures (858 spaces), an above ground structure on lot 6 (472 spaces) and 92 open surface parking stalls located on lot 3. Moving along Stanford Road from north to south, Buildings 1A and 1B are primarily three stories in height transitioning down to two stories on the north elevations; Buildings 2 and 3 are four story buildings and Building 4 is a five story residential building wrapping a parking structure on the northwest corner of Stanford Road and East Monroe Drive. RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The site is located within the Midtown Urban Renewal Plan (adopted, 2011) area and is identified as a targeted activity center of Community-wide importance in City Plan (adopted, 2011). The Project Development Plan (PDP) demonstrates compliance with the applicable Land Use Code (LUC) standards in conjunction with the requested modifications and conditions of approval. The recommended conditions of approval can be summarized as follows:  The vacation of a portion of East Foothills Parkway (partially a public street) is a separate procedure subject to approval by City Council. A condition of approval is recommended ensuring proper completion of the vacation of this public right- of-way.  The applicant proposes to relocate the portion of the Larimer Canal No. 2 on the site as a part of their project. Wetlands have been identified around the base of the canal and the Code requires the lost ecological value of these wetlands to be mitigated. A condition of approval is recommended to ensure the completion of a separate agreement with the City’s Natural Areas department regarding off-site wetland mitigation for this project.  The elevations for the 86,754 square foot entertainment/theater building are preliminary in nature and do not provide enough specific details, such as proposed materials, to evaluate it under the Large Retail Establishment standards of Section 3.5.4. As such, Staff recommends a condition of approval Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 3 requiring more detailed elevations be provided at time of Final Plan that illustrate compliance with all relevant provisions of Section 3.5.4.  In order for the PDP to meet adopted Transportation Level of Service Standards, a west bound right turn lane on Horsetooth Road at Stanford Road is required and recommended as a condition of approval.  The applicant submitted a sign package as part of this PDP. However, as proposed, the sign requirements of Section 3.8.7. are not satisfied. As a result, a condition of approval of the PDP requiring compliance with Section 3.8.7, Signs, is recommended. The Applicant is also requesting a Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.4(C)(b)(4). Large Retail Establishments, relating to the requirement of an 8’ wide sidewalk width connecting large retail establishments (in this case the entertainment/theater building) to the public sidewalk on Monroe Drive. Staff recommends approval of this Modification of Standard finding that the 6 foot sidewalk width meets the requirements of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards and the portion of the sidewalk that is not 8 feet in width could be considered nominal and inconsequential when taken in context of the larger PDP site. COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: M-M-N, R-L Single family and Two-family residential S: C-G; Various commercial uses, the Marriott E: M-M-N; R-L Multi-family residential, Windmill Apartments, Oakbrook Apartments, Aspen Leaf W: C-G; Various commercial uses. The majority of the PDP was included as part of the larger 155 acre Spencer First Annexation and annexed in July of 1969. The southern part of the PDP was part of the Strachan Second Annexation in August of 1971. The property was platted in 1972 as Southmoor Village, Fifth Filing. The Foothills mall opened in 1973. An expansion to the existing Foothills Mall was approved in 1988 for anchor stores J.C. Penney, Mervyn’s and Sears. In 1995, the existing plan was amended to provide for an expansion of Foley’s (now Macy’s). Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 4 In 2007, the City obtained the services of a private consultant to develop an Existing Conditions Survey for the Foothills Mall area. The Existing Conditions Survey was updated by the Urban Renewal Authority staff in 2011 with the Midtown Commercial Corridor Existing Conditions Survey. In September 2011, a Midtown Urban Renewal Plan was adopted by City Council, which included the Foothills Mall area. In January 2013, a minor amendment to the existing Foothills Mall P.U.D. for the deconstruction of the 1980’s addition (previously J.C. Penney’s) was approved. 2. Compliance with the Applicable Article Four, General Commercial District Standards: A. Section 4.21(A) – Purpose The Land Use Code states that the purpose of the General Commercial District (C- G) is: “intended to be a setting for development, redevelopment and infill of a wide range of community and regional retail uses, offices and personal and business services. Secondarily, it can accommodate a wide range of other uses including creative forms of housing. While some General Commercial District areas may continue to meet the need for auto-related and other auto-oriented uses, it is the City’s intent that the General Commercial District emphasize safe and convenient personal mobility in many forms, with planning and design that accommodates pedestrians.” The Foothills Mall Redevelopment PDP meets the intent of this zone district in its’ mix of uses and by providing an upgraded site design that better accommodates pedestrians than the existing Foothills Fashion Mall site. B. Section 4.21(B)(2) – Permitted Uses The proposed uses of the site are all permitted in this zone district as either a Type 1 (administrative) or a Type 2 (Planning and Zoning Board) public hearing. In this case, pursuant to Section 1.7.2 of the Land Use Code, the more stringent hearing type governs, as a Type 2. C. Section 4.21(E)(2) – Site Design This section requires the site to be designed in such a way as to provide for pedestrian-oriented outdoor spaces creating lively, inviting areas. The PDP meets this standard in providing the east and west lawn areas. The west lawn features a large fountain as a focal point; the east lawn provides a central outdoor gathering space with seating. 3. Compliance with the Applicable Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone District Standards: Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 5 The Foothills Mall Redevelopment PDP is located within the Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone, south of Prospect Road. As such, the following standards apply: A. Section 3.10.3- Site Planning The applicable provisions of this Section require buildings to provide frontages along public streets as well as outdoor spaces, to the extent reasonably feasible. The retail buildings on lots 12-15 provide frontage along South College Avenue. Multi-family buildings 1B, 2, 3 and 4 all provide building frontage with entrances along Stanford Road. The project features an east and west lawn area, providing an outdoor central feature and gathering space for the commercial component. The multi-family buildings each provide internal courtyards for residents. The project satisfies the standards of this Code Section. B. Section 3.10.4 – Streetscape and Pedestrian Connections The project will provide street trees along South College Avenue, Stanford Road and the public portion of Monroe Drive. There is on street parking on Monroe Drive. Enhanced crosswalks will be provided at South College Avenue and Swallow Road as well as Stanford Road and Swallow Road. The PDP meets the applicable provisions of this Section. C. Section 3.10.4(D) - Parking Structure Design The 84,663 square foot commercial parking structure contains six levels, internally located within the site on lot 8, with access gained at two points from internal drive isles along the northeast and southwest of the structure. The residential component also provides separate parking structures on lots 3 -6. The parking structures on lots 3, 4 and 5 are subterranean, located under the buildings. These parking structures gain access off of an internal private drive. An above ground structure is also provided on lot 6, serving residential building 4. This parking structure is “wrapped” by multi-family residential around the entire structure. This parking structure also gains access internally from a drive isle. This standard is intended to address access to a parking structure from public right- of-way. However, the proposed parking structures all gain access internally from private drive isles, so compliance is not required. Nevertheless, Staff is requesting the Applicant voluntarily comply with the design of auto entrances (3.10.4.(D)(3)) at time of Final Plan submittal. D. Section 3.10.5 – Character and Image Both the commercial and residential buildings of the PDP feature architectural articulation with recesses and projections that further subdivide long buildings into Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 6 aesthetically compatible proportions. The multi-faceted roofs of both the commercial and residential buildings break up the massing into more human-scaled and visually interesting volumes. All commercial buildings are over 20 feet in height, meeting the requirements for height. For the commercial component, materials include a combination of stone, brick, stucco and wood paneling, highlighting the base and articulation of the structures. The colors proposed are low-reflective, earth-toned hues. The multiple store fronts along South College Avenue are unified with a repeating pattern of fenestration. All new commercial spaces have large display-type windows, with stone veneer façade accents, all within the parameters of the standard. The multi-family residential buildings feature a similar material program, employing stone veneer and brick at the base of the residential buildings. This treatment assists in establishing human scale. The color palette for the multi-family draws upon similar earth-tone hues as the commercial component, unifying the PDP and meeting the relevant provisions of the standard. 4. Compliance with the Applicable Article Three, Supplementary Regulations: A. Section 3.8.30 – Multi-family Dwelling Development Standards It is important to note that multi-family developments located in the TOD Overlay Zone are specifically exempt from the mix of housing types requirement, access to park, central feature or gathering place requirements and the building requirements. The multi-family buildings are not exempt from meeting the block or design standards. B. Section 3.8.30(D) – Block Requirements The block requirements mandate multi-family developments to feature a series of blocks, made up of public streets, private streets or street-like private drives, no more than 7 acres in size. The standards in this code section can be satisfied by creating a “street-like private drive.” Street-like private drives are required to be designed to include travel lanes, tree-lined borders, detached sidewalks and crosswalks, similar to a public street. In addition, 40% of each block side or 50% of the total of all block sides must consist of building frontage plazas or other functional open space. There are 4 potential “blocks” within the development plan, each defined by the following features:  Block 3: This block is 4.37 acres in size. It is bounded by Stanford Road to the east and an unnamed street-like private drive to the south. This block contains residential buildings 1A and 1B. The frontage along Standford Road and long the street-like private drive is greater than the minimum 40% required. Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 7  Block 4: This block is 3.044 acres in size and contains residential building 2 on Lot 4. 7. Stanford Road is to the east and drive isles make up the other three sides. More than 50% of the total of block sides has building frontage, meeting the standard.  Block 5: This block is on the west side of Stanford Road and is 2.790 acres in size. Block 5 contains building 3 and is similar to block 4. Block 5 has more than 50% total of all the block sides consisting of building frontage.  Block 6: This block is 3.842 acres in size and contains residential building 4. It is bounded by public streets; Stanford Road and East Monroe Drive to the east and south (respectively) as well as by two private drives to the north and west. Block 6 has more than 50% total of all the block sides consisting of building frontage, meeting the standard. No block is over 7 acres in size. Given the utilization of a street-like private drive design standards, the PDP complies with the block size and structure standards. C. Section 3.8.30(F) – Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings This Section of the LUC addresses architecture and site design as it relates to multi- family developments. Moreover, this Section is intended to promote variety in multi- family buildings and enhance visual interest, reinforcing architectural elements Buildings 1A and 1B on Lot 3 are abutting existing single-family residences and provide a 25 foot setback, meeting the standard. Two different building designs with variations in color are required and provided. Buildings 1B, 2, 3 and 4 all have entrances visible from Stanford Road. The rooflines of all buildings are flat; however all roofs have cornice treatments and are vertically articulated with parapets, providing sufficient detailing to meet the standard. Each multi-family building is subdivided by vertical modulations and articulated with recesses and projections, effectively mitigating their length and mass. The multi- family buildings also feature architectural embellishments such as canopies and balconies, providing an interesting façade. The multi-family buildings feature variations of stone and brick at the base, assisting in establishing human scale. The color palette of the buildings on lots 3-6 are a range of muted earth-tone shades, providing individuality among and variation between buildings. Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 8 D. Section 3.8.7 – Signs The Applicant submitted a sign package with a Modification of Standard request as part of this PDP. Typically, a project’s signs are submitted separately from the PDP to the Zoning Administrator and then referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals if variances are needed. However, the Applicant requested the consideration of the sign package in conjunction with this PDP. After reviewing the sign package as proposed, Staff identified numerous issues as it relates to compliance with the sign regulations. The Applicant is collaboratively working with Staff on resolving these issues. As a result, a PDP condition of approval requiring compliance with Section 3.8.7, Signs, and/or future modification or variance requests is recommended. 5. Compliance with Applicable Article Three, General Development Standards: A. Section 3.2.1 – Landscaping and Tree Protection The PDP provides “full tree stocking” in accordance with this Section. The stormwater detention pond in the southeast corner of the site is landscaped with trees. Foundation shrubs are included for each building. It is important to note that Foothills Mall Redevelopment project site contains a portion of the Larimer Canal No. 2 on the western boundary of the project. With this site plan, the applicant proposes to relocate the Larimer Canal No. 2 in a box culvert along the South College Avenue frontage. While canopy trees are provided along South College Avenue, there are concerns regarding the separation distances between the existing water utilities and the proposed trees. That being said, the landscaping plan illustrates general compliance with applicable standards. As the details of an underpass and its feasibility have yet to be finalized, the Applicant has made a commitment to consider an alternative site plan at time of Final Plan, incorporating an underpass under South College Avenue. If the ditch were to be relocated, Staff feels there would be few barriers at time of Final Plan for the applicant to meet the applicable provisions of this section. B. Section 3.2.1(D)(3) – Minimum Species Diversity This standard requires that no one species of tree (deciduous or evergreen) will exceed the allowable 15% of the total number of trees on the landscape plan. While the proposed landscape plan does not provide a specific plant schedule detailing plant quantities and species, Staff believes the standard is met. At time of final landscape plan submittal, the Applicant intends to provide specific documentation regarding all plant species quantities in accordance with this Code section. Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 9 C. Section 3.2.1(E)(3) – Water Conservation Standards Water conservation techniques and materials are incorporated into the Foothills Mall Redevelopment PDP landscape plan by the use of drought tolerant trees and moderate water use plant materials where practical. An automatic, underground irrigation system will be designed to address specific needs of different plan species, soil conditions, as well as the slope and aspect of the different hydrozones. An irrigation plan will be provided by the Applicant concurrently with their building permit application. The water budget chart provided by the Applicant calls out that the average water usage for the site is 6.35 gallons per square foot. The project meets the water conservation standards. D. Section 3.2.1(E) – Buffering Between Incompatible Uses This standard requires that specific buffering measures be taken where the uses or design of the buildings do not adequately mitigate conflicts reasonably anticipated to exist between dissimilar uses or buildings. The most pertinent application of this standard is along the shared property line to the north with the abutting single and two-family residential. In this instance, three story multi-family residential transitions from three stories down to two stories. The closest portion(s) of buildings 1A and 1B on lot 3 are two stories and setback 28 feet from the shared property line. The height of these two residential buildings at the point which they are closest to the property line is approximately 38 feet at the ridgeline. Buffering and screening is provided by a 6 foot cedar fence and transplanted mature evergreen trees, meeting the standard. E. Section 3.2.1(E)(4) – Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping The parking consists of surface spaces, and is mostly located internal to site and screened from public right-of-way by the retail buildings on lots 12 -15 along South College Avenue. The parking is also screened from view along Stanford Road by multi-family buildings 2, 3 and 4. Along the north side of Monroe Drive, the commercial parking lot is primarily screened by 5 foot wide evergreen shrubs. With regard to the 90 multi-family surface parking spaces on lot 3, the surface parking lot is screened from the abutting single and two-family residential to the north by a 6 foot cedar fence and evergreen trees. The perimeter of all parking lot area is adequately landscaped and meets the standard. F. Section 3.2.1(E)(5) – Parking Lot Interior Landscaping Parking lot areas dedicated on the site plan are required to devote at least 10 percent of the area of the parking lot to landscaped areas. There are no rows of parking that exceed 15 spaces. As illustrated on the landscape plan, the proposed parking lot areas provide adequate landscape islands featuring canopy trees. Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 10 G. Section 3.2.1(F) – Tree Protection and Replacement As expected with an infill redevelopment site, there are a high number of existing trees. The Applicant used a private consulting arborist to conduct an inventory of the 822 existing trees on the site and determined a mitigation schedule. A tree survey and mitigation report has been submitted and reviewed by the City Forester. Of the existing trees on site, 136 are currently shown to remain in place and 686 are to be removed. A transplanting plan is under evaluation by the City Forester that could reduce the number of trees to be removed. The mitigation schedule has been reviewed and approved by the City Forester for 825 mitigation trees. The project is proposing to provide 1,172 new trees (this number includes the 825 upsized mitigation trees), and to retain 136 existing trees for a total of 1,308 trees on the project. H. Section 3.2.2 – Access, Circulation and Parking The site is served by three public streets and one proposed private drive (Foothills Parkway). Currently, there are existing gaps in sidewalk along South College Avenue. The project proposes a detached shared pedestrian and bicycle walkway that is ten feet wide along South College Avenue. This exceeds the required width for shared bicycle and pedestrian walkways by two feet. Internally, the site features a tree lined Foothills Parkway, with 5 foot walkways providing internal pedestrian circulation. With this project, Monroe Drive will be restriped from four lanes down to two in order to accommodate on-street bicycle lanes. The PDP complies with the provisions of this Section by providing direct, safe, and continuous walkways and bicycle connections to major pedestrian and bicycle destinations in the surrounding area. I. Section 3.2.2(L) – Parking Stall Dimensions For portions of the commercial surface parking lot, the Applicant has requested a modification to the standard parking stall length of 19 feet to 18 feet for their 90 degree parking stalls. The proposed design includes a 56 foot bay dimension that maintains the 20 foot drive aisle and provides a stall length of 18 feet. Staff finds this modification request not to be necessary due to the vehicular overhang provision located in Section 3.2.2(L)(4), allowing the stall length to be reduced to 18 feet, thus satisfying the standard. J. Section 3.2.2(C)(4) – Bicycle Facilities This standard requires shopping centers to provide 1 bicycle parking space per 4,000 square feet of building with 20 percent of these spaces enclosed and 80 percent as fixed racks. As proposed, the project provides 281 bicycle parking spaces total for the commercial component. Of these 281 spaces, 56 of these spaces will be enclosed in the parking garage and 225 spaces provided via fixed bicycle racks distributed throughout the site, meeting the requirement. Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 11 Multi-family residential is required to provide 1 bike parking space per bedroom with a minimum of 60% of these spaces enclosed. The PDP proposes 1,173 bedrooms and the project will provide 1,176 enclosed residential bike parking spaces, located within the internal parking structures and exterior bicycle lockers. The project meets the standard. K. Section 3.2.2(C)(5)- Walkways This standard requires the PDP to provide continuous walkways that directly connect street sidewalks to building entrances. The PDP provides these required walkways, all of which are a minimum of 6 feet wide, linking the public sidewalks with building entries through the parking fields, meeting the standard. L. Section 3.2.2(E) – Parking Lot Layout This Section of the LUC requires parking lots to provide logical, convenient and well- defined vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle routes as well as to mitigate large surface parking fields by segmenting them into smaller components via landscape islands. The PDP provides landscape islands with raised curbs, defining parking drive aisle entrances and ends and mitigating the redevelopment sites’ existing constraints. Further, this definition facilitates multi-modal circulation routes. The surface parking lots are segmented into smaller fields of less than 200 spaces, meeting the standard. M. Section 3.2.2(K)(1) - Required Number of Off-street Parking Spaces The site is located within the Transit-Oriented Development Overlay District in which there are no minimum residential parking requirements; however there are parking maximums for nonresidential uses. For shopping centers, the LUC allows 5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial space. The project proposes 734,790 square feet of non-residential square footage and therefore is allowed 3,674 parking spaces maximum. The project provides 3,581 parking spaces (parking structure and surface combined), meeting the standard. If the project were not located in the TOD, the residential component would be required to provide a minimum of 1,294 parking spaces. As previously stated, the multi-family units are not required to provide any parking, however they provide 1,422 parking spaces via four subterranean structures (858 spaces), an above ground structure on lot 6 (472 spaces), and 92 open surface parking stalls located on lot 3. The combined commercial and residential parking spaces totals to 5,003. N. Section 3.2.2(K)(5) – Handicap Parking The code requires 46 handicap parking spaces for this project, which includes one van- accessible parking space. The proposal complies with Section 3.2.2(K)(5) by providing 76 handicapped parking spaces, 25 located within the commercial parking structure on Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 12 lot 8 and 51surface spaces. The project has approximately 15 van accessible surface parking spaces distributed around the site. O. Section 3.2.3(D) - Shading This section sets a maximum shading standard, similar to the standard provided in Section 3.5.1(G). The applicant has provided a shadow analysis. Multi-family buildings 1A and 1B located on Lot 3 will cast shadow on to adjacent property. The shadow analysis illustrates that the shadows cast by Buildings 1A and 1B would not have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of light on adjacent property more than three months over and above that of a hypothetical 25 foot wall. P. Section 3.2.4 – Site Lighting The Land Use Code states that the purpose of the Site Lighting Section is: “to focus on the actual physical effects of lighting, as well as the effect that lighting may have on the surrounding neighborhood. Exterior lighting shall be evaluated in the development review process to ensure that the functional and security needs of the project are met in a way that does not adversely affect the adjacent properties or neighborhood.” The Applicant is proposing an Alternative Compliance (LUC 3.2.4(E)) method of lighting the site, as the lighting plan employs some fixtures that are not fully shielded and down directional pursuant to the requirements of this Section. The proposed alternative compliance request is to be “considered based on the extent to which the proposed design protects natural areas from light intrusion, enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity, fosters nonvehicular access, and demonstrates innovative design and use of fixtures or other elements.” Taken as a whole, the commercial component has soft, decorative lighting that will not negatively impact surrounding neighborhoods. The up-casting fixtures shine on commercial buildings, producing ambient light that does not seem to diffuse onto adjacent properties due to the buffering of the proposed multi-family residential. The multi-family residential does not employ any up lighting. Please see the applicant’s alternative compliance request letter (attached). Staff finds that the proposal for alternative compliance accomplishes the purposes of Section 3.2.4 equally well as lighting plan which complies with the standards of the section. It complies with previously mentioned review criteria, in that the lighting plan protects natural areas from light intrusion because there are no natural areas near the site, enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity, and fosters non-vehicular access by providing softly lit sidewalks and plaza space for pedestrians, and demonstrates innovative design by the quantity and design of fixtures as well as the means in which it softly reflected off of commercial building walls. Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 13 Maximum on-site lighting levels will not exceed 10 foot-candles and there will not be any off-site spillage or glare into the surrounding neighborhoods. Q. Section 3.4.1– Natural Habitats and Features The Foothills Mall project site contains a portion of the Larimer Canal No. 2 on the western boundary of the project. While the irrigation canal does not serve as a wildlife corridor, 0.15 acres of wetlands have formed at the base of the canal, as confirmed by the Ecological Characterization Study. As the applicant proposes to relocate the Larimer Canal No. 2 as a part of their project, and per the standards set forth in Section 3.4.1 of the Land Use Code, this wetland will be mitigated in a manner that replaces the ecological value lost from its disturbance. Based on site visits, staff discussions with Natural Areas staff, and the project’s Ecological Characterization Study, the existing wetland is of a low quality, as it is isolated from other wetlands and its position within the City’s urban landscape. To meet the requirements of Section 3.4.1, 0.15 acres of wetlands will be mitigated through the creation of an additional 0.15 acres of wetlands. The Applicants are working with the City’s Natural Areas Department to mitigate the wetland within the Poudre River Corridor, where the 0.15 acres of wetlands replaced would exceed the value of the existing wetland. As this agreement has yet to be finalized, staff recommends that the commitment to mitigate these wetlands be made a condition of approval. R. Section 3.5.1 – Building and Project Compatibility The compatibility standards of this section require that the physical and operational characteristics of the proposed buildings and uses are compatible when considered within the larger context of the surrounding area. The Land Use Code provides the following definition of the term “compatibility”: “Compatibility shall mean the characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compatibility does not mean "the same as." Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development.” The definition of compatibility is unique as no single element of the compatibility definition is essentially equivalent to a compatibility test; rather it is a contextually driven notion and is derived somewhat independently based on circumstances on a case-by- case basis. 1. Section 3.5.1 (B) - Architectural Character Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 14 This standard requires new development to establish an enhanced standard of quality for future projects in the area when there is no definitive area character. Since there is no definitive architectural character of the area, the PDP sets an enhanced standard by providing architectural articulation, features and detailing with a mix of exterior materials such as stone, brick and stucco. The flat roofs are mitigated with cornice treatments and parapets providing vertical articulation. 2. Section 3.5.1(C) - Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale This standard requires the mass of buildings to be articulated and subdivided in a way that promotes compatibility with the surrounding area. The PDP complies with this standard in that the commercial buildings have projecting elements that mitigate the mass and help define pedestrian scale. Additionally, the proposed multi-family buildings are larger than the existing residential buildings in the surrounding area. As mitigation, the buildings are sub-divided into modules defined by their projecting and recessed components. The flat roofs with cornice treatments help lower the overall height. The mix of materials proposed assist in providing vertical relief and pedestrian scale. 3. Section 3.5.1(D) - Privacy Considerations This standard requires that the PDP minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining uses. At the same time, the standard requires that there be opportunities for interactions among neighbors without sacrificing privacy or security. This standard primarily applies to the multi-family residential component. The south elevations of Buildings 1A and 1B are three stories, transitioning down to two stories with the north elevation. Per the landscape plan, there will be evergreen trees planted between Buildings 1A and 1B and the north property line. The properties to the north are separated from the majority of Buildings 1A and 1B by a 25 foot buffer yard and a parking lot that is 49 feet wide. The combination of the height transition down to two stories, landscaping and distance provide sufficient considerations, ensuring the privacy of the existing residents to the north. 4. Section 3.5.1(E), (F) - Building Materials and Color These standards require that building materials shall either be similar to the materials already being used in the neighborhood or, if dissimilar materials are being proposed, other characteristics such as scale, and proportions, form, architectural detailing, color, texture shall be utilized to ensure compatibility. In terms of building color, the standard requires color shades that not only blend into the neighborhood context but also unify the development. Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 15 As mentioned, there is no defined architectural character in the immediate vicinity or in the General Commercial zone district. The proposed commercial buildings use a combination of stone, masonry and stucco as the primary exterior materials. Proposed building colors are natural, muted earth tones. These materials are similar to building materials used in the surrounding commercial area and provide an enhanced level of quality for future commercial buildings. The multi-family residential buildings employ materials such as masonry, lap wood siding and stucco in muted earth tone colors. These materials and color combinations can be found in the surrounding area. The arrangement of these materials and color, in combination with other features such as canopied entries, balconies, cornices and fenestration meet the Land Use Code requirements. 5. Section 3.5.1(G) - Building Height Review This Section applies to proposed buildings that exceed 40 feet in height and evaluates the potential impacts on desirable views, the distribution of light on adjacent property, privacy and neighborhood scale. In terms of views, the new multi-family residential buildings do not substantially impact views to the west due to the mature trees, existing mall, surrounding commercial buildings in tandem with the existing grade, already block views of the mountains from Stanford Road. The Applicant provided a shadow analysis. Section 3.5.1(G(1)(a)(2) states that adverse impacts include, but are not limited to, the casting of shadows on adjacent property sufficient to preclude the functional use of solar energy technology, creating glare such as reflecting sunlight or artificial lighting at night, contributing to the accumulation of snow and ice during the winter on adjacent property, and the shading of windows or gardens for more than three months of the year. As proposed, buildings 1A and 1B on lot 3 transition from three stories down to two stories as they approach the abutting single and two-family residential, which mitigate the impact of shadowing on the abutting properties. Residential buildings 2, 3 and 4 are separated from the adjacent Windmill Condominiums and Oakbrook Apartments by 61 feet of right-of-way (Stanford Road). Staff concludes that shadows cast by these buildings would not have a substantial adverse impact on the distribution of natural and artificial light on adjacent private property for more than three months over and above that which is the present condition. In terms of privacy, as previously mentioned, buildings 1A and 1B on lot 3 share a property line with single and two-family residential to the north. The south elevations of Buildings 1A and 1B are three stories, transitioning down to two stories with the north elevation. Per the landscape plan, there will be mature evergreen trees transplanted between Buildings 1A and 1B and the north property line. The properties to the north are separated from the majority of Buildings 1A and 1B by a 25 foot buffer yard and a parking lot that is 49 feet Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 16 wide. The combination of the height transitioning down to two stories, mature landscaping and buffer distance provide sufficient privacy considerations as it relates to the existing residential to the north. a. Section 3.5.1(G)(1)(a)(4) - Building Height Review, Neighborhood Scale This subsection requires buildings greater than 40 feet in height to be compatible with the scale of the neighborhoods in which they are situated in terms of relative height, height to mass, length to mass and building or scale to human scale. The table below outlines the height, length and width of the proposed multi-family buildings along Stanford Road. It should be noted that the LUC regulates the measurement of building height in Section 3.8.17, requiring the height to be from finished ground level to the highest point of the roof surface. That being said, the heights below are the highest point, and the buildings feature vertical articulation to break up the roof plain, so “average” height, as experienced by pedestrians or adjacent properties, may be perceived lower. Building /Lot Number Max Height Length Width Bldg. 1A, lot 3 48 feet 382 feet 64 feet (avg.) Bldg.1B, lot 3 43 feet 349 feet 64 feet (avg.) Bldg. 2, lot 4 54 feet 484 feet (east elevation) 154 feet Bldg. 3, lot 5 54 feet 554 feet 193 feet (south elevation) Bldg. 4, lot 6 64 feet 444 feet 300 feet (avg.) The adjacent Windmill Apartment buildings are three stories, or approximately 34 feet tall, with seven buildings ranging from 150 to 225 feet in length. Oakbrook Apartments, another apartment complex to the east is also three stories, about 38 feet tall and features two buildings, both 435 feet in length. To the west, the existing Macy’s building is approximately 27 feet tall and about 400 feet in length and width. While the proposed multi-family buildings are larger than most buildings in the area, the scale can be considered compatible given the relative height and mass of other existing buildings such as the mall and surrounding multi-family residential. The scale is further mitigated by the articulation of the multi-family buildings and the use of stone or masonry at the base of the buildings assisting with providing human scale. S. Section 3.5.1(H) – Land Use Transition This standard requires that project compatibility be achieved by consideration of scale, form, materials, color, buffer yard and operational standards. In this instance, multi- Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 17 family buildings 1A and 1B transition down from three stories (48 feet in height) to two stories (38 feet in height) as they approach the abutting single and two-family residences. In terms of buffering, in this area, the north property line will include a six foot cedar fence as well as transplanted (mature) evergreen trees. In addition, as previously mentioned, there is a 25 foot setback from the multi-family building and north property line. However, the majority of the building mass is separated by an internal parking area. With regard to operational characteristics of the multi-family buildings, trash dumpsters are fully enclosed within the multi-family buildings and no lighting spillover in excess of the lighting standard will occur. Overall, staff has considered the cumulative effects of the issues related to compatibility and pertinent issues have been addressed. In addition, it is important to note there is no one single standard in the Land Use Code that would be equivalent to a compatibility test. In fact, the definition of Compatibility specifically states that it “…does not mean the same as.” Rather, the Code breaks the issues down to number of specific standards that are intended to address potential impact mitigation. The PDP has been evaluated by these standards is found to be in compliance. T. Section 3.5.1(I) – Outdoor Storage Areas/Mechanical Equipment The Applicant has provided notes 4, 5 and 7 on the site plan stating that all rooftop mechanical, loading docks, electrical transformers, conduit, meters and vents are screened in accordance with this LUC Section. U. Section 3.5.2(C)– Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking This standard requires that every front façade with a primary entrance shall face the public street and be within 200 feet of a connecting walkway, or within 350 feet of a major walkway spine, to the extent reasonably feasible. A connecting walkway, as defined in Article 5, means “any street sidewalk, or any walkway that directly connects a main entrance of a building to the street sidewalk without requiring pedestrians to walk across parking lots or driveways, around buildings or around parking lot outlines which are not aligned to a logical route.” Buildings 1B, 2 and 3 all front on Stanford Road and have entrances along the street frontage connecting to public sidewalk. In the case of Building 1A, the building is oriented to a street-like private drive that provides a connecting walkway. Building 4 has frontage on both Stanford Road and Monroe Drive, with the entrance and connecting walkway on Monroe Drive. V. Section 3.5.3– Mixed Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings. The standards of this Section require commercial buildings to have a defined relationship with public streets by providing frontage and connecting walkways to building entrances. The buildings located on lots 12-15, provide building frontage along College Avenue with connecting walkways and sidewalks. The articulation of the buildings break up the volumes and are integrally related to entries, building structure and the organization of interior space. Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 18 W Section 3.5.3(D)- Character and Image The proposed project contributes to the uniqueness of the General Commercial zone district and sets a higher bar for future mixed-use projects in the area. The design’s emphasis on pedestrian spaces and more urban streetscapes are tailored to this site both in terms of its immediate context and its wider context within the zone district, especially in relation to the Max Bus Rapid Transit station. The walls of the new commercial buildings have defined bays, multiple changes in plane, materials and texture. All buildings have been designed with appropriate base and top treatments including brick and stone veneer bases and roof forms with cornice treatments and vertical parapets. X. Section 3.5.4 - Large Retail Establishments This section of the LUC addresses the design of retail buildings greater than 25,000 square feet in size, with the intent of providing an enhanced level of quality and ensuring that a ubiquitous prototype is avoided. Generally speaking, the mall itself could be considered one large retail establishment that meets the intent of the standards; having multiple entrances, connecting walkways, enhanced materials and a unique design aesthetic. More specifically in this instance, this Section applies to two buildings; the proposed 86,754 square foot entertainment/theater building on lot 7 and 31,715 square foot retail building located on lot 15. Since the elevations of the entertainment/theater building are still in flux, Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the Applicant to illustrate full compliance with the provisions of this section at time of Final Plan. 1. 3.5.4(C)(1)(a) – Facades and Exterior Walls This standard requires facades greater than 100 feet in length to have articulation greater than 3 percent of the façade length for at least 20 percent of the length of the façade. For the 31,715 square foot building on lot 15, the façade is 300 feet in length and is required to have a minimum articulation depth of 9 feet. The building has an articulated end with a depth of over 9 feet for over 60 feet of the façade, meeting the standard. For the 86,754 square foot entertainment building, the north façade is 278 feet in length and has recesses and projections of 8 feet for 95 feet of the façade, meeting the standard. The south elevation is 263 feet in length with recesses and projections of more than 8 feet for 86 feet of the façade, meeting the standard. The east and west elevation are approximately 170 feet long and are required to have a recess depth of at least 5 feet (3%) for 34 feet (20%). These elevations also meet the standard. Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 19 2. 3.5.4(C)(1), (2)– Aesthetic Character - Detail Features, Roofs, Materials and Colors, Entryways These standards require detail features such as material changes, color changes, architectural reveals, entryway details as well as speaking to roof proportions. Along the College Avenue frontage, the retail building on Block 15, provides a color, texture and material change, from a light stone to beige stucco, satisfying the standard. As previously mentioned, the entertainment/theater building in its preliminary form did not provide sufficient details for Staff to evaluate these standard(s), thus a condition of approval is recommended (please reference commercial elevation sheets A233 – A237). The applicant also submitted a Modification of Standard request to this Section as it relates to the Macy’s building facade. Staff has determined that this Modification of Standards request is not necessary due to the fact that Macy’s is an existing building and is not increasing its square footage with this PDP. Therefore, Section 3.8.20, Expansions and Enlargements of Existing Buildings, does not apply, and the existing building is not subject to Section 3.5.4. 3. 3.5.4(C)(4)(a) – Pedestrian Circulation This standard requires eight foot sidewalks along all sides of the lot that abut a public street. In this instance an 8 foot wide sidewalk is provided along South College Avenue and the public portion of Monroe Drive as it relates to the 31,715 square foot retail building located on lot 15. The entertainment/theater building is located on lot 7, which does not abut a public street. 4. Modification of Standard Request - 3.5.4(C)(4)(c) – Pedestrian Circulation, Internal Pedestrian Walkways The Standard at Issue This section requires that “continuous internal pedestrian walkways, no less than eight (8) feet in width shall be provided along the full length of the building along any façade featuring a customer entrance of all large retail establishments on the site. At a minimum, walkways shall connect focal points of pedestrian activity such as, but not limited to, transit stops, street crossings, building and store entry points, and shall feature adjoining landscaped areas that include trees, shrubs, benches, flower beds, ground covers or other such materials for no less than fifty (50) percent of the length of the walkway.” Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 20 This Modification of Standard applies to the walkway connecting the entertainment/theater building Modification Review Criteria The City may grant a modification of standards only if it finds the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the City's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. Applicant’s Explanation It is important to remember that the existing Foothills Mall was built before these standards were in place in the LUC. While the redevelopment seeks to bring the entire property up to current code wherever possible, due to the size of the site, and the configuration of the circulation patterns, in some areas it is not possible to retrofit the existing sidewalks to bring them up to code without creating major impacts to the rest of the site design. Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 21 The Application implements 8’ sidewalks at the perimeter of the site and 5’-6’ sidewalks throughout the interior of the site. The interior sidewalks are continuous and connect focal points of activity and feature adjoining landscape areas concentrated at the existing building frontages. The existing tree lawns, curb lines, and parking/ access alignments internal to the site require narrower sidewalks to offer adequate space for tree lawns and landscaping. These sidewalks feature adjoining landscaped areas where the existing site plan allows and concentrate pedestrian scaled elements at the building entries and facades. Thus the overall intent of the standard – to provide safe, connected, and aesthetically pleasing pedestrian experience – is still met. This modification would not be detrimental to the public good because the existing sidewalks in question generally have been in place since the original construction of the Mall without causing any detriment to the public good. Further, many of the sidewalks throughout the project site will be upgraded to the current standards reflected in the LUC, thus greatly improving the status quo with respect to the pedestrian environment. Additionally, this modification request meets several other criteria, as follows: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested because leaving some of the existing sidewalks in place does not detract from the overall significant improvement to the pedestrian circulation to and through the site as compared to existing conditions; and (2) exceptional physical conditions exist on the current mall site that prevent the strict application of the standard without a significant compromise in parking and circulation patterns; and (3) the plan as submitted will result in a nominal, inconsequential deviation when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. The majority of the sidewalks within the project site will meet the standard, and overall the plan significantly enhances pedestrian and vehicular circulation and wayfinding. Staff’s Analysis This modification request is in relation to the walkways leading to the entertainment/theater building (please see landscape plan set, sheet LA114). Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 22 As proposed, the 5 foot – 6 foot sidewalk width meets Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. This relatively small portion of sidewalk could be considered nominal and inconsequential when taken in context of the larger site plan as a whole. Moreover, allowing a 2 foot deviation from the standard for this portion of sidewalk Staff considers not detrimental to the public good. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the Request for Modification. Y. Section 3.5.4(C)(5) – Central Features and Community Space The PDP features the West and East Lawn Community areas. The West Lawn is the smaller of the two public greens and features a fountain with a pedestrian seating. The East Green is larger and also provides outdoor seating. The East Lawn anchors the development and provides a central feature drawing pedestrians in. Additionally, the PDP includes the Foothills Activity Center (FAC) located on Block 1E as a community amenity. The FAC will replace the deconstructed Youth Activity Center. The details of the Foothills Activity Center are still being finalized with the Applicant and the City’s Recreation Department. Z. Section 3.5.4(C)(6) – Delivery and Loading Operations The PDP will require that no delivery, loading, trash removal or compaction or other such operations shall be permitted between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. As has been past practice, a sign stating a prohibition on idling engines will be posted in the loading area. AA. Section 3.6.4 – Transportation Level of Service Requirements This section states that, “all development plans shall adequately provide vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the adopted transportation Level of Service standards for the following modes of travel: motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian.” The City’s Traffic Engineering Department reviewed the submitted Transportation Impact Study (TIS). The TIS addresses traffic impacts over the short range (2015) and the long rang (2035). The TIS presented the project in two ways; one contrasting the mall’s current condition to the mall as it would have been when it was a fully occupied and to the PDP (as proposed). The second scenario presented was the mall as it would have been when fully occupied contrasted to the proposed PDP. The City’s Traffic Engineer determined the second scenario to be most appropriate, due to the mall’s declining state resulting in the existing condition of reduced traffic on some of Fort Collins’ arterials. The TIS shows that the proposed project would generate about 9 -10 percent more weekday daily traffic than the Foothills Mall would have when it was fully occupied. Evening rush hour traffic would be about 2 percent higher, and Saturday peak hour traffic about 3 percent higher than a fully occupied existing mall. The TIS reviewed each Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 23 of the surrounding intersections plus two new College Avenue access points. The TIS determined that most locations will only experience mild impacts on existing traffic volumes. More specifically, two areas were of heightened concern: the South College Avenue and Horsetooth Road intersection as well as intersections along the congested stretch of Horsetooth between Stanford and College Avenue. TIS identified that dual north/south left turn lanes were needed at the South College Avenue and Horsetooth Road intersection. The City previously identified those improvements in the current Capital Projects Improvement Plan with a tentative construction date in 2015. Per City policies, the project is permitted to use those improvements in their short and long term traffic analysis. With these improvements in tandem with signal timing adjustments, the intersection of South College Avenue and Horsetooth Road will continue to meet City Level of Service standards, meeting the Code requirements. This information is provided in an addendum to the TIS. While the intersection of John F. Kennedy (JFK) Parkway and Stanford Road met requirements for the addition of west bound right turn lanes, the PDP is not required to construct the improvement at the JFK Parkway intersection. This is due to existing condition constraints, as the right turn lane and a west bound bike lane on Horsetooth Road cannot both be accommodated without acquiring additional land and impacting buildings along the north side of Horsetooth Road. It was determined that the bike lane was of greater need in that location and the addition of the Stanford Road right turn lane would assist in capturing much of the JFK Parkway turning traffic heading to the redeveloped mall site. With the recommended public improvements, the PDP adequately provides the vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities necessary to maintain the City’s adopted Level of Service standards. The TIS makes the following conclusions and recommendations related to the traffic impacts of the proposed development:  Restripe existing pedestrian crosswalks at signalized intersections and install pedestrian countdown signals to improve pedestrian access to and from the west;  Provide a west bound right turn lane on Horsetooth Road at Stanford Road;  Addition of two new right-in, right-out intersections on College Avenue;  Restripe East Monroe Drive between South College Avenue and JFK Parkway with bike lanes;  Vacate the existing Foothills Mall right-of-way, just east of College Avenue thru the mall site;  The City’s multi-modal Level of Service Standards can be achieved; and  The PDP is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint. Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 24 As a condition of approval, Staff recommends that the Applicant be required to provide a west bound right turn lane on Horsetooth Road at Stanford Road. BB. Section 3.6.5 – Transit Facilities Standards This standard requires new developments to accommodate existing and planned transit routes by providing transit stops and associated facilities. In anticipation of Transfort’s future transit service plans, the PDP provides three Transfort bus stop locations: one along the east side of South College Avenue, south of East Foothills Parkway; one located on East Foothills Parkway; and one on the west side of Stanford Road, north of East Monroe Drive, adjacent to multi-family building three. The project meets the standards of this Section. 7. Compliance with Applicable Article Two, Administration: A. Section 2.2.2 – Neighborhood Meetings A neighborhood meeting was held on September 21, 2012 at the Youth Activity Center, 415 East Monroe Drive. There was general public support for the overall project, particularly the economic component of the redevelopment. Some concerns were raised regarding the multi-family residential and associated traffic as well as the displacement of existing retailers. A summary from this meeting is attached. The Project Development Plan satisfies the applicable requirements of Article 2, Administration, as required by Section 2.2.8 of the Land Use Code. 8. Conclusion and Findings of Fact: In evaluating the Foothills Mall Redevelopment PDP, staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Foothills Mall Redevelopment PDP complies with the applicable standards of Article Four – General Commercial (C-G) Zone District. B. The Foothills Mall Redevelopment PDP demonstrates sufficient compliance with the applicable standards of Article Three – General Development Standards with exceptions. C. The Foothills Mall Redevelopment PDP demonstrates sufficient compliance with the applicable standards in Division 3.10, Transit-Oriented Development Overlay Zone District. D. The vacation of the public portion of Foothills Parkway is a separate process that must be properly completed in conjunction with the PDP and Final Plan. Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 25 E. A Request for Modification to Section 3.5.4(C)(4)(b) – Large Retail Establishments sidewalk width, has been evaluated and found to not be detrimental to the public good and determined to be nominal and inconsequential in context of the larger Project Development Plan in accordance with Section 2.8.2(H). F. The lost ecological value of the wetlands at the base of the Larimer Canal No. 2 can be appropriately mitigated off-site via a separate agreement. G. A west bound right hand turn lane on Horsetooth Road at Stanford Road must be constructed in order for the PDP to comply with adopted Level of Service standards. H. The submitted sign package will require additional development and revisions over and above its current form in order to comply with Section 3.8.7, Signs or obtain modification or variances. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of the Foothills Mall Redevelopment Project Development Plan and Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.4(C)(4)(b), subject to the following conditions: 1. The approval by City Council regarding the vacation of the public right-of-way portion of Foothills Parkway via a separate procedure. 2. Successful completion of off-site wetland mitigation via a separate agreement with the City’s Natural Area’s department. 3. Detailed elevations of the entertainment/theater building must be provided at time of Final Plan, clearly illustrating compliance with all the applicable Large Retail Establishment standards of Section 3.5.4 of the Land Use Code. 4. A west bound right turn lane on Horsetooth Road at Stanford Road must be constructed. 5. At time of Final Plan, all signs will be compliant with Section 3.8.7, Signs, or modification or variances be approved. ATTACHMENTS 1. Connectivity Site Plan A104 2. Site Plan A102 3. Site Plan A103 4. Landscape Plan 5. Commercial Elevations Foothills Mall Redevelopment, PDP # 120036 February 7, 2013 Planning & Zoning Board Hearing Page 26 6. Residential Elevations 7. Subdivision Plat 8. Photometric Plan 9. Lighting Alternative Compliance Request Letter 10. Traffic Study 11. Modification Request Letter 12. Modification Request 13. Parking Lot Monroe Landscaping Exhibit 14. Parking Site Plan Exhibit 15. Neighborhood Meeting Notes 16. Citizen Comments 17. Sign Package Exhibit SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION A104 CONNECTIVITY PEDESTRIAN EXHIBIT JAN 24, 2013 LEGEND * ENTERTAINMENT/THEATER ENTRANCE PEDESTRIAN ROUTE TRANSPORTATION NODE * PROPOSED HARD SURFACE MULTI USE MAX BRT TRANSIT HUB BUS STOP * * BIKE RACK LOCATIONS BUS STOP BUS STOP E. SWALLOW RD. S. COLLEGE AVE. STANFORD RD. E. MONROE DRIVE REMINGTON ST. MATHEWS ST. J.F.K. PARKWAY E. MONROE DRIVE *PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED 0’ SCALE: 1”=150’ 75’ 150’ 300’ FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PDP SUBMITTAL DEC. 28, 2012 A102 N 1 VICINITY MAP 20 CY 20 CY FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO SUPPLEMENTAL INFO. JAN. 24, 2013 A103 N 1 SITE PLAN 12047 LA - 129 L A N D S C A P E P L A N T I N G D E T A I L S FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT Do not scale prints. Use figured dimensions. LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PDP SUPPLEMENT 0 1 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 3 LANDSCAPE NOTES 1. The soil in all landscape areas, including parkways and medians, shall be thoroughly loosened to a depth of not less than eight (8) inches and soil amendment shall be thoroughly incorporated into the soil of all landscape areas to a depth of at least six (6) inches by tilling, discing or other suitable method, at a rate of at least three (3) cubic yards of soil amendment per one thousand (1,000) square feet of landscape area. 2. A permit must be obtained from the City forester before any trees or shrubs as noted on this plan are planted, pruned or removed on the public right-of-way. This includes zones between the sidewalk and curb, medians and other city property. This permit shall approve the location and species to be planted. Failure to obtain this permit may result in replacing or relocating trees and a hold on certificate of occupancy. 3. The developer shall contact the City Forester to inspect all street tree plantings at the completion of each phase of the development. All trees need to have been installed as shown on the landscape plan. Approval of street tree planting is required before final approval of each phase. Failure to obtain approval by the City Forester for street trees in a phase shall result in a hold on certificate of occupancy for future phases of the development. 4. Please add the Tree Protection Specifications found in the LUC 3.2.1 G. Equivalent specifications may be used and additional specifications are encouraged. 5. Please add a note on the plans that addresses code requirements for tree pruning DQGUHPRYDO³$OOWUHHSUXQLQJDQGUHPRYDOVKDOOEHSHUIRUPHGE\D&LW\RI)RUW&ROOLQV OLFHQVHGDUERULVWDVUHTXLUHGE\FRGH´ 6. Cut and remove the top 1/3 to 1/2 of the wire basket and burlap, and all the twine from before finishing backfilling. 7. Please add a detail and specifications for transplanting existing trees on the site. This could include time of year, method of transplanting, rootball size, guying, after care and irrigation schedule etc. It is recommended that specification state that an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist will oversee tree transplanting and shall inspect all transplanted trees at a regular interval over the first two years. Recommendation on care shall be provided to the owner. 8. Add forty feet between shade trees and City streetlights. Fifteen feet between ornamental trees and street lights. 9. Add twenty feet between trees and traffic control signs and devices. 10. Add ten feet between trees and water or sewer mains. 11. Add six feet between trees and water or sewer service lines. 12. Four feet between trees and gas lines. TREE TRANSPLANTING SPECIFICATIONS Overview There are numerous trees that will be relocated on the Foothills Fashion Mall site as a component of the redevelopment. All trees have been evaluated and graded for suitability for relocation on the tree survey report. It is understood that a variety of techniques and equipment will need to be utilized to complete the projects. Depending on tree species, size and location, methods and techniques may vary. Below are general guidelines and specifications of the project. Once the project scope is more thoroughly defined, with the precise list of trees to be relocated, locations and timelines, a more detailed plan can be designed and implemented. An International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist with demonstrated experience in moving large trees should monitor the tree relocation project. One arborist should be designated 12047 LA - 130 L A N D S C A P E P L A N T I N G D E T A I L S FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT Do not scale prints. Use figured dimensions. LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO PDP SUPPLEMENT 0 1 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 3 Shrub and Groundcover Planting D Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" LA-130 Ornamental Detail B Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" LA-130 Ball and Burlap Canopy Tree 4" Caliper or Smaller A Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" LA-130 Multi-Trunk Tree C Scale: 1/2"=1'-0" LA-130 LA - 131 12047 LA - 131 L A N D S C A P E H Y D R O Z O N E K E Y P L A N 00 100' 200' SCALE: 1"=100'-0" LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORK S. COLLEGE AVE. STANFORD ROAD E. FOOTHILLS PKWY. FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO HYDROZONE LEGEND: NORTH Do not scale prints. Use figured dimensions. PDP SUPPLEMENT 0 1 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 3 LA - 133 LA - 132 LA - 134 WATER NEED (gallons/s.f.) 2095160 LOW 299508 2993684 WATER BUDGET CHART HYDROZONE AREA (s.f.) ANNUAL WATER USE (gallons) MODERATE 209516 10 3 898524 TOTAL 509024 Avg: 5.88 LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORK LIMIT OF WORK FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO HYDROZONE LEGEND: NORTH SCALE: 1"=50'-0" Do not scale prints. Use figured dimensions. PDP SUPPLEMENT 0 1 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 3 12047 LA - 134 L A N D S C A P E HYDROZONE PLAN MATCHLINE LA - 134 MATCHLINE LA - 131 MATERIALS & ELEVATIONS FOOTHILLS A201 Project Materials & Finishes Code Manufacturer Product Number / Color Finish Size Location STONE S-1 TBD Buff Sandstone Main Mall S-2 Halquist Stone Castlestone Collection - Princeton Main Mall, Block 4B, Rest 1, Rest 4 S-3 Halquist Stone Stackledge Collection - Fond Du Lac Main Mall, Block 4A, Block 6, Rest 2, Rest 3 S-4 Halquist Stone Ledge Collection - Chilton Weatheredge Brown Block 5B, Block 4A, Block 7, Block 10 S-5 Halquist Stone Castlestone Collection - Hamilton Buff Block 3, Block 4A, Block 8 S-6 Halquist Stone Castlestone Collection - Waukesha White Block 1, Block 5A, Block 11 S-7 Boral Stone Profit Ledgestone - Platinum Block 4B, Block 9 S-8 Boral Stone Profit Ledgestone - Shale Block 2 S-9 Arriscraft Driftwood Rocked Face Main Mall S-10 Arriscraft Driftwood Smooth Face Block 4B S-11 Arriscraft Wheat Smooth Face Block 9 TILE T-1 Ceramic Technics Ltd. Ergon Alabastro Ultimate - Winter Haze Honed Main Mall T-2 Ceramic Technics Ltd. Ergon Alabastro Ultimate - Ground Coffee Honed Main Mall, Block 6 T-3 Ceramic Technics Ltd. Studio Cord Sandstone - Terra Block 4A T-4 Ceramic Technics Ltd. Pavimenti Fabula - Centere Block 2, Block 5B, Block 8 T-5 Ceramic Technics Ltd. Studio Marmi Limestone - Delorian Grey Honed Block 3, Block 9 CONCRETE C-1 TBD Precast Concrete - Medium Tan Sand Finish Main Mall, Block 2, Block 3, Block 5B, Block 6 BRICK B-1 Metro Brick 505 Monument Smooth Finish Main Mall B-2 Metro Brick 105 Fieldstone Smooth Finish Block 4B, Block 10 B-3 Metro Brick 107 Parkway Wire Cut Finish Block 3, Block 4B B-4 Metro Brick 507 Empire Wire Cut Finish Block 5B B-5 Interstate Brick Smokey Mountain 4x4x16 Atlas Structural Brick Trash Enclosures B-6 Interstate Brick Ironstone 8x4x16 Atlas Structural Brick Trash Enclosures WOOD W-1 Trespa Elegant Oak Matte Finish Main Mall, Block 1, Block 4A, Block 4B, Block 6, Block 9 W-2 Trespa Harmony Oak Matte Finish Main Mall, Block 3, Block 4A, Block 4B, Block 5A , Block 8 W-3 Trespa Italian Walnut Matte Finish Block 3, Block 6, Block 7, Rest 1, Rest 2, Rest 3, Rest 4 W-4 DNP America / Dry Design to match Abet Laminati 1722 Sei-Due Main Mall EIFS E-1 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Rockport Gray HC-105 Limestone Texture Block 2, Block 4B, Block 6 E-2 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Texas Leather AC-3 Limestone Texture Block 2, Block 3, Block 5B E-3 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Cape May Cobblestone 1474 Limestone Texture Block 2 E-4 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Cromwell Gray HC-103 Limestone Texture Main Mall, Rest 3 E-5 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Bleeker Beige HC-80 Limestone Texture Main Mall, Block 4A, Block 10, Rest 1 E-6 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Sandy Hook Gray HC-108 Limestone Texture Block 4A, Block 7 E-7 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Alexandria Beige HC-77 Limestone Texture Block 2, Block 6, Block 8, Block 11 E-8 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. 1477 Limestone Texture Block 4A, Block 9 E-9 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Copley Gray HC-104 Limestone Texture Block 5A, Block 9, Rest 4 E-10 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Brushed Aluminum 1485 Limestone Texture Block 9 E-11 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Brandon Beige 977 Limestone Texture Block 1, Block 4A, Block 10 E-12 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Fairview Taupe HC-85 Limestone Texture Main Mall, Block 4B, Block 5B, Block 6, Rest 2 E-13 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Eaglerock 1469 Limestone Texture Block 1, Block 5B E-14 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Graystone 1475 Limestone Texture Block 3 E-15 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Monroe Bisque HC-26 Limestone Texture Main Mall E-16 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Sweet Spring 1500 Limestone Texture Main Mall PAINT P-1 Matthews Paint to match B.M. 1477 Matte Finish Main Mall, Block 1, Block 2, Block 3, Block 4A, Block 4B, Block 5A , Block 5B, Block 6, Block 9, Block 10, Block 11 P-2 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Eaglerock 1469 Matte Finish Main Mall, Block 1, Block 2, Block 3, Block 4A, Block 5A , Block 5B, Block 6, Block 7, Block 10, Rest 1, Rest 2, Rest 3, Rest 4 P-3 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Alexandria Beige HC-77 Matte Finish Main Mall, Block 10 P-4 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Gettysburg Grey HC-107 Matte Finish P-5 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Glenwood Brown 1141 Matte Finish Block 3, Block 6, Block 7, Rest 1, Rest 2, Rest 3, Rest 4 A202 Bulding Elevations Main Mall - East W-1 Trespa Elegant Oak - Matte Finish T-1 Ceramic Technics Ltd. Ergon Alabastro Ultimate - Winter Haze Honed W-2 Trespa Harmony Oak - Matte Finish S-2 Halquist Stone Castlestone Collection - Princeton T-2 Ceramic Technics Ltd. Ergon Alabastro Ultimate - Ground Coffee Honed S-3 Halquist Stone Stackledge Collection - Fond Du Lac C-1 TBD Precast Concrete - Medium Tan - Sand Finish B-1 Metro Brick 505 Monument - Smooth Finish Driftwood Nutmeg Wheat S-9 Arriscraft Driftwood - Rocked Face S-1 TBD Buff Sandstone 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-7 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc- eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1 P-2 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Eaglerock 1469 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 147 P-1 Matthews Paint to match B.M. 1477 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texa alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockpor eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 P-3 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Alexandria Beige HC-77 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 da alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 ge eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape m E-4 A203 KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT Bulding Elevations Main Mall - East P-2 P-7 E-12 W-1 T-1 E-6 W-2 E-12 xx C-1 B-1 P-1 E-1 B-1 E-1 S-3 P-1 W-4 P-1 P-1 28’-0" 24’-0" 24’-0" 28’-0" 25 38’-4" 27’-3" 26’-6" 20’-6" 19’-0" 32’-0" Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground and gates along sides) Match Line S-3 S-3 P-1 W-4 E-6 E-7 B-3 E-5 E-4 P-1 S-3 T-4 P-2 P-1 27’-6" 39’-6" 26’-6" Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground) Match Line Match Line Match Line 3 Scale: East Mall 1/8”=Elevation 1’-0” 4 Scale: East Mall 1/8”=Elevation 1’-0” S-2 E-6 A204 Bulding Elevations Main Mall - East Match Line B-1 E-15 W-2 S-3 P-2 P-7 38’-4" 26’-6" 20’-0" Match Line Match Line Match Line 6 Scale: East Mall 1/8”=Elevation 1’-0” 5 Scale: East Mall 1/8”=Elevation 1’-0” S-2 E-6 B-1 E-16 E-4 B-1 B-1 S-3 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 E-1 B-1 E-1 S-3 P-1 W-4 E-6 E-7 B-3 E-5 E-4 P-1 P-1 W-2 B-1 E-15 W-2 P-1 S-3 T-4 P-2 P-1 S-1 S-3 P-2 P-7 39’-6" 38’-4" 26’-6" 20’-0" 27’-3" 21’-0" 19’-6" 27’-6" 39’-6" 26’-6" 20’-6" 19’-0" 32’-0" A205 Bulding Elevations Main Mall - East S-3 P-1 P-1 W-1 S-3 P-2 P-7 36’-0" 38’-4" 27’-3" Match Line 7 Scale: East Mall 1/8”=Elevation 1’-0” S-2 E-6 B-1 E-16 E-4 B-1 B-1 S-3 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 E-1 B-1 E-1 S-3 P-1 W-4 E-6 E-7 B-3 E-5 E-4 P-1 P-1 W-2 B-1 E-15 W-2 P-1 S-3 T-4 P-2 P-1 S-1 S-3 P-2 P-7 39’-6" 38’-4" 26’-6" 20’-0" 27’-3" 21’-0" 19’-6" 27’-6" 39’-6" 26’-6" 20’-6" 19’-0" 32’-0" 40’-0" 33’-0" A206 B-1 P-3 P-1 S-3 C-1 P-1 P-2 P-7 E-15 38’-4" 27’-3" 20’-0" Screen wall Loading Dock Area P-2 P-1 S-2 E-4 W-1 C-1 P-1 P-2 B-1 E-16 E-4 T-1 W-1 38’-4" 27’-3" 26’-0" 39’-6" 34’-0" 19’-0" 21’-0" Match Line Match Line 1 Scale: North Mall 1/8”=Elevation 1’-0” 2 Scale: North Mall 1/8”=Elevation 1’-0” F O OTHILLS Block 1 S-3 E-6 B-1 P-2 W-1 P-1 P-2 P-1 P-3 E-5 S-2 E-4 W-1 P-1 S-3 C-1 P-1 P-2 B-1 E-16 E-4 T-1 W-1 P-2 P-7 E-15 36’-0" 28’-0" 20’-0" 26’-0" 38’-4" 27’-3" 20’-0" A207 Building Plan Main Mall - West E-15 B-1 E-16 B-1 1 Scale: West Mall 1/8”=Elevation 1’-0” S-3 P-2 P-7 E-15 E-12 W-1 T-1 B-1 P-1 E-1 B-1 E-1 S-3 P-1 28’-0" 24’-0" 38’-4" 27’-3" 20’-6" 19’-0" 32’-0" 40’-0" Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground and gates along sides) Match Line Match Line 2 Scale: West Mall 1/8”=Elevation 1’-0” Match Line S-3 P-2 P-7 E-15 E-12 W-1 T-1 E-6 W-2 P-1 E-5 E-12 S-1 xx C-1 P-1 T-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-6 T-2 P-3 S-3 W-2 W-4 E-5 B-1 S-9 P-3 C-1 P-1 P-6 P-2 E-4 T-2 S-2 A208 E-12 W-1 T-1 E-6 W-2 P-1 E-5 E-12 S-1 xx C-1 P-1 T-1 T-2 P-3 S-3 W-2 P-3 E-1 P-1 E-7 P-1 S-3 T-4 28’-0" 24’-0" 24’-0" 28’-0" 25’-0" 29’-0" 26’-0" T-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 S-3 W-2 W-4 E-5 B-1 S-9 P-3 C-1 P-1 P-6 P-2 S-3 B-3 E-5 E-4 W-2 P-1 P-1 S-1 26’-0" 28’-0" 39’-6" 28’-0" 24’-0" 26’-6 21’-0" 19’-6" Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground) Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground) Bulding Elevations Main Mall - West Match Line Match Line 3 Scale: West Mall 1/8”=Elevation 1’-0” Match Line Match Line 4 Scale: West Mall 1/8”=Elevation 1’-0” S-3 P-2 A209 P-1 P-6 S-9 P-6 P-2 E-4 T-2 S-2 P-6 P-2 P-2 E-6 P-1 P-1 W-1 W-1 B-1 E-6 P-3 B-1 P-1 S-3 28’-0" 24’-0" 34’-0" 26’-0" 31’-0" P-2 P-2 S-3 E-6 P-1 P-1 W-1 W-1 B-1 S-3 P-2 P-7 31’-0" 36’-0" 38’-4" 27’-3" Bulding Elevations Main Mall - West Match Line Match Line 5 Scale: West Mall 1/8”=Elevation 1’-0” Match Line 6 Scale: West Mall 1/8”=Elevation 1’-0” S-3 P-2 P-7 E-15 E-12 W-1 T-1 E-6 W-2 P-1 E-5 E-12 S-1 xx C-1 P-1 A210 P-2 S-2 E-4 W-1 P-1 C-1 P-1 P-2 B-1 E-16 20’-0" 26’-0" 26’-0" 39’-6" 34’-0" S-3 E-6 B-1 P-2 W-1 P-1 P-3 E-5 S-2 E-4 W-1 P-1 S-3 C-1 P-1 P-2 P-7 E-15 36’-0" 28’-0" 20’-0" 26’-0" 38’-4" 27’-3" 20’-0" Screen wall Loading Dock Area 26’-0" Bulding Elevations Main Mall - South Match Line Match Line 1 Scale: South 1/Mall 8”=Elevation 1’-0” 2 Scale: South 1/Mall 8”=Elevation 1’-0” Match Line S-3 E-6 B-1 P-2 W-1 P-1 P-2 P-1 P-3 E-5 S-2 E-4 W-1 P-1 C-1 P-1 P-2 B-1 E-16 E-4 T-1 W-1 36’-0" 28’-0" 20’-0" 26’-0" A211 P-2 P-1 P-1 P-2 B-1 E-16 E-4 T-1 W-1 39’-6" 34’-0" 19’-0" 21’-0" Bulding Elevations Main Mall - South Match Line S-3 E-6 B-1 P-2 W-1 P-1 P-2 P-1 P-3 E-5 S-2 E-4 W-1 P-1 C-1 P-1 P-2 B-1 E-16 E-4 T-1 W-1 36’-0" 28’-0" 20’-0" 26’-0" 26’-0" 39’-6" 34’-0" 19’-0" 21’-0" KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 3 Scale: South 1/Mall 8”=Elevation 1’-0” 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: A212 KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT Building Plan Block 7 A213 F O OTHILLS Block 7 S-4 W-3 W-3 P-2 P-2 P-5 P-5 S-4 W-3 S-4 S-4 W-3 P-11 P-11 P-5 P-5 P-5 S-4 S-4 E-6 P-2 E-6 P-2 P-2 W-3 P-2 P-4 27’-0" 24’-0" 24-0" 15’-0" 24’-0" 15’-0" 27’-0" 18’-6" 14’-8" 23’-2" 26’-0" 14’-8" 37’-2" KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT Building Elevations Block 7 W-3 Trespa Italian Walnut - Matte Finish fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 E-6 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Sandy Hook Gray HC-108 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy h A214 Building Plan Block 8 KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT A215 Building Elevations Block 8 F O OTHILLS Block 8 T-4 W-2 S-5 W-2 T-4 W-2 S-5 W-2 T-4 T-4 E-7 S-5 23’-0" 15’-0" 32’-0" 23’-0" 15’-0" 32’-0" 22’-0" 23’-0" 15’-0" 30-0" W-2 Trespa Harmony Oak - Matte Finish S-5 Halquist Stone Castlestone Collection - Hamilton Buff fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 tex alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockpo E-7 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Alexandria Beige HC-77 T-4 Ceramic Technics Ltd. Pavimenti Fabula - Centere KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: A216 Building Plan Block 9 KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT A217 Building Elevations Block 9 F O OTHILLS Block 9 S-11 S-7 T-5 W-1 E-8 E-9 E-10 P-6 P-7 P-7 P-4 P-5 S-11 S-7 E-9 E-9 P-7 P-7 P-6 P-1 P-4 P-1 T-5 W-1 S-11 E-8 T-5 W-1 P-2 P-1 24’-0" 27’-0" 22’-0" 26’-0" 22’-0" 27’-0" 24’-0" 24’-0" 26’-0" Driftwood Nutmeg Wheat S-11 Arriscraft Wheat - Smooth Face 1477 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 P-1 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Eaglerock 1469 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 E-8 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. 1477 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 A218 Building Plan Block 10 KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT A219 Building Elevations Block 10 F O OTHILLS Block 10 S-4 B-2 B-2 E-5 P-1 S-4 P-1 P-1 E-11 P-2 E-11 P-2 P-2 P-3 B-2 B-2 E-11 P-2 P-2 B-2 B-2 P-2 P-8 E-5 P-3 P-8 P-8 E-5 P-3 P-8 P-8 P-8 26’-0" 26’-0" 24’-0" 22’-6" 22’-6" 24’-0" 1477 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 P-2 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Eaglerock 1469 1477 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 P-1 Matthews Paint to match B.M. 1477 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-11 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Brandon Beige 977 B-2 Metro Brick 105 Fieldstone - Smooth Finish A220 Building Plan Block 11 KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT A221 Building Elevations Block 11 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 roc eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 P-1 Matthews Paint to match B.M. 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 E-7 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Alexandria Beige HC-77 S-6 Halquist Stone Castlestone Collection - Waukesha White F O OTHILLS Block 11 E-7 E-7 S-6 S-6 S-6 S-6 E-7 E-7 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 20’-0" 12’-0" 20’-0" 12’-0" 28’-0" 20’-0" 12’-0" 28’-0" 20’-0" 12’-0" KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped A222 Building Plan Restaurant 1 + F.A.C. (Preliminary) KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT A223 Building Elevations Restaurant 1 + F.A.C. (Preliminary)- North KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: 1 Scale: Restaurant 1/8”=1’-1 + 0” F.A.C. North Elevation 100’-0" 122’-0" 126’-0" 157’-0" 170’-0" A224 Building Elevations Restaurant 1 + F.A.C. (Preliminary)- South KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: 2 Scale: Restaurant 1/8”=1’-1 + 0” F.A.C. South Elevation 100’-0" 116’-0" 122’-0" 152’-0" 164’-0" A225 Building Elevations Restaurant 1 + F.A.C. (Preliminary)- East KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: 3 Scale: Restaurant 1/8”=1’-1 + 0” F.A.C. East Elevation 100’-0" 116’-0" 122’-0" 142’-0" 157’-0" 170’-0" A226 Building Elevations Restaurant 1 + F.A.C. (Preliminary)- West KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: 4 Scale: Restaurant 1/8”=1’-1 + 0” F.A.C. West Elevation 100’-0" 122’-0" 157’-0" A227 Building Plan Restaurant 2 KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT A228 Building Elevations Restaurant 2 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray h eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobbleston P-2 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Eaglerock 1469 W-3 Trespa Italian Walnut - Matte Finish S-3 Halquist Stone Stackledge Collection - Fond Du Lac Glenwood Brown 1141 P-5 Matthews Paint to match B.M.Glenwood Brown 1141 E-12 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M.Fairview Taupe HC-85 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-10 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 14 KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT S-3 W-3 P-2 E-12 P-5 E-12 P-5 S-3 E-12 P-2 W-3 S-3 E-12 S-3 20’-0" 20’-0" 20’-0" 25’-0" 20’-0" 12’-6" 25’-0" 12’-6" 19’-0" F O OTHILLS Restaurant 2 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, A229 Building Plan Restaurant 3 KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT A230 Building Elevations Restaurant 3 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 99 P-2 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Eaglerock 1469 W-3 Trespa Italian Walnut - Matte Finish 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 dave alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 getty eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape ma E-4 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Cromwell Gray HC-103 S-3 Halquist Stone Stackledge Collection - Fond Du Lac Glenwood Brown 1141 P-5 Matthews Paint to match B.M.Glenwood Brown 1141 P-12 ATAS International, Inc. Medium Bronze KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT S-3 S-3 W-3 P-5 S-3 S-3 S-3 S-3 S-3 P-12 P-5 P-5 P-5 W-3 W-3 W-3 E-4 E-4 P-2 P-2 12’-4" 17’-0" 24’-5" 32’-6" 17’-0" 24’-5" A231 Building Plan Restaurant 4 KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT A232 Building Elevations Restaurant 4 S-2 S-2 P-5 W-3 W-3 W-3 P-5 E-9 W-3 S-2 S-2 P-5 P-5 E-9 S-2 S-2 W-3 P-5 AS-1 AS-1 P-2 16’-5" 21’-0" 14’-4" 34’-0" 32’-0" 14’-4" 16’-5" 32’-0" 34-0" 32’-0" F O OTHILLS R estaur ant 4 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 99 P-2 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Eaglerock 1469 S-2 Halquist Stone Castlestone Collection - Princeton W-3 Trespa Italian Walnut - Matte Finish Glenwood Brown 1141 P-5 Matthews Paint to match B.M.Glenwood Brown 1141 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-9 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Copley Gray HC-104 A233 Building Plan Theater (Preliminary) 1 Scale: Theater 1/16”=Plan 1’-0” KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT A234 Building Elevations Theater (Preliminary)- North 1 Scale: North Theater 1/8”=1’-0” Elevation KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: 100’-0" 116’-0" 144’-0" 156’-0" 164’-0" A235 Building Elevations Theater (Preliminary)- South 2 Scale: South 1/Theater 8”=1’-0” Elevation KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: 100’-0" 124’-0" 144’-0" 156’-0" 156’-0" 164’-0" A236 100’-0" 144’-0" 148’-0" 164’-0" 150’-0" 156’-0" 164’-0" Building Elevations Theater (Preliminary)- East KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: 3 Scale: East Theater 1/8”=1’-Elevation 0” 4 Scale: East Theater 1/8”=1’-Elevation 0” Match Line Match Line 100’-0" 144’-0" 148’-0" 156’-0" 164’-0" 150’-0" A237 156’-0" 164’-0" 100’-0" 144’-0" 124’-0" 148’-0" 156’-0" 164’-0" 100’-0" 144’-0" 124’-0" 148’-0" 156’-0" Building Elevations Theater (Preliminary)- West 5 Scale: West Theater 1/8”=1’-0” Elevation 6 Scale: West Theater 1/8”=1’-0” Elevation Match Line Match Line KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: A238 Building Plan Block 1 KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT A239 Building Elevations Block 1 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 E-13 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Eaglerock 1469 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-7 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone P-1 Matthews Paint to match B.M. 1477 W-1 Trespa Elegant Oak - Matte Finish S-6 Halquist Stone Castlestone Collection - Waukesha White 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy h eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 P-9 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Willow Creek 1468 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-11 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Brandon Beige 977 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray h eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobbleston P-2 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Eaglerock 1469 F O OTHILLS Block 1 P-1 E-13 W-1 S-6 P-1 S-6 E-X-13 # P-9 E-11 E-13 S-6 W-1 P-2 S-6 P-9 A240 Building Elevations Block 1 F O OTHILLS E-13 S-6 W-1 P-2 S-6 P-9 E-13 E-11 P-5 S-6 P-1 E-15 P-9 W-1 S-6 P-1 P-2 18’-0" Match Line Match Line F O OTHILLS Block 1 P-2 S-6 P-9 E-13 E-11 P-5 E-15 W-1 S-6 P-1 P-2 Finish Floor 29’-0" 23’-0" 13’-3" 29-0" 21’-0" 23’-0" 18’-0" 13’-3" Finish Floor Finish Floor KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from A241 Building Plan Block 2 KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT A242 Building Elevations Block 2 F O OTHILLS B lock 2 P-2 P-2 T-4 C-1 P-2 E-1 P-2 P-1 S-8 S-8 E-2 S-8 P-1 S-8 S-8 T-4 T-4 P-2 E-2 E-1 E-7 E-2 T-4 P-2 P-12 E-1 P-1 20’-0" 24’-0" 20’-0" 24’-0" Finish Floor Finish Floor 20’-0" 24’-0" 20’-0" Finish Floor Finish Floor 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 P-2 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Eaglerock 1469 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 co alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sa E-2 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Rockport Gray HC-105 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-3 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Texas Leather AC-3 1477 A243 Building Plan Block 3 KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT A244 Building Elevations Block 3 F O OTHILLS B lock 3 P-1 E-14 W-3 B-3 E-8 T-5 E-2 W-2 P-1 S-5 P-1 B-3 P-4 C-1 E-2 P-1 W-2 S-5 C-1 S-5 P-1 B-3 E-8 E-14 W-3 T-5 P-2 S-5 W-3 T-5 E-14 P-2 S-5 P-2 E-2 P-1 S-6 W-2 P-10 P-1 B-3 P-1 E-8 B-3 E-8 S-5 21’-0" 23’-6" 21’-0" 23’-6" Finish Floor Finish Floor Finish Floor Finish Floor 31’-0" 24’-0" 16’-0" 31’-0" 21’-0" 24’-0" 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 A245 Building Plan Block 4A KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT A246 Building Elevations W-1 Block 4A Trespa Elegant Oak - Matte Finish W-2 Trespa Harmony Oak - Matte Finish S-3 Halquist Stone Stackledge Collection - Fond Du Lac T-3 Ceramic Technics Ltd. Studio Cord Sandstone - Terra S-4 Halquist Stone Ledge Collection - Chilton Weatheredge Brown S-5 Halquist Stone Castlestone Collection - Hamilton Buff 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 P-2 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Eaglerock 1469 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 P-1 Matthews Paint to match B.M. 1477 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 E-5 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Bleeker Beige HC-80 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-6 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Sandy Hook Gray HC-108 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley g alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy ho eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 E-8 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. 1477 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 A247 Building Plan Block 4B KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT A248 Building Elevations Block 4B F O OTHILLS B lock 4B W-2 S-2 S-2 E-1 E-1 E-12 W-2 W-2 B-3 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 E-1 S-10 B-2 S-10 B-3 P-1 B-2 S-10 S-2 P-1 W-2 E-12 W-1 S-10 E-1 S-7 B-3 B-2 25’-0" 14’’-6" Finish Floor Finish Floor 25’-0" 14’-6" Finish Floor Finish Floor 27’-0" 27’-0" 20’-6" 23’-0" W-1 Trespa Elegant Oak - Matte Finish W-2 Trespa Harmony Oak - Matte Finish S-2 Halquist Stone Castlestone Collection - Princeton S-7 Boral Stone Profit Ledgestone - Platinum B-2 Metro Brick A249 Building Plan Block 5A KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT A250 Building Elevations Block 5A 28’-0" 28’-0" 28’-0" 28’-0" Finish Floor Finish Floor Finish Floor Finish Floor 21’-0" P-1 P-6 S-6 W-2 E-9 P-6 P-1 P-1 P-6 S-6 W-2 E-9 P-6 P-1 P-1 P-6 S-6 W-2 P-2 P-6 P-2 P-1 P-1 P-6 S-6 W-2 P-6 P-1 F O OTHILLS Block 5A 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-9 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Copley Gray HC-104 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 co alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sa eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beig P-6 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Rockport Gray HC-105 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray h eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobbleston A251 Building Plan Block 5B KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT A252 Building Elevations Block 5B 20’-0" 27’-6" 13’-0" 20’-0" 25’-0" 13’-0" 24’-0" 27’-6" Finish Floor Finish Floor Finish Floor Finish Floor 24’-0" 20’-0" 22’-0" 20’-0" P-2 P-2 P-1 E-11 B-4 T-4 W-1 E-2 S-4 E-11 E-12 P-5 P-1 E-2 E-11 E-2 E-11 E-11 T-4 W-1 B-4 E-11 S-4 S-4 P-2 P-2 P-2 S-4 C-1 C-1 S-4 F O OTHILLS Block 5B 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 P-2 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Eaglerock 1469 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 A253 Building Plan Block 6 KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT A254 Building Elevations Block 6 S-3 Halquist Stone Stackledge Collection - Fond Du Lac T-2 Ceramic Technics Ltd. Ergon Alabastro Ultimate - Ground Coffee Honed W-1 Trespa Elegant Oak - Matte Finish W-3 Trespa Italian Walnut - Matte Finish C-1 TBD Precast Concrete - Medium Tan - Sand Finish 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 cop alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 san eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige E-1 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Rockport Gray HC-106 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-10 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 14 E-7 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Alexandria Beige HC-77 E-12 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M.Fairview Taupe HC-85 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray h eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobbleston P-2 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Eaglerock 1469 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 roc eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 P-1 Matthews Paint to match B.M. 1477 Glenwood Brown 1141 P-5 Matthews Paint to match B.M.Glenwood Brown 1141 24’-0" 33’-0" A255 Building Elevations Block 6 26’-0" 24’-0" E E-12 E-7 W-1 C-1 S-3 P-5 E-1 T-2 W-1 P-1 W-1 C-1 S-3 W-3 S-3 E-12 E-7 P-2 P-5 W-1 E-12 C-1 F O OTHILLS 29’-0" 26’-0" 24’-0" 25’-0" 29-0" 29-0" 20’-0" Finish Floor Finish Floor 25’-0" 20’-0" Finish Floor Finish Floor P-2 W-1 S-3 E-1 E-12 E-7 W-3 S-3 P-5 W-1 E-12 F O OTHILLS Block 6 Match Line Match Line KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like A256 Trash Enclosures B-5 B-6 B-5 B-5 B-6 W-1 P-8 W-1 P-8 P-8 B-5 B-6 P-8 B-6 Interstate Brick Ironstone - Size 4x4x16 B-5 Interstate Brick Smokey Mountain- Size 4x4x16 W-1 Trespa Elegant Oak - Matte Finish 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 P-8 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Davenport Tan HC-76 A A FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-101 RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN + PROJECT SUMMARY FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-102 RESIDENTIAL LOT 3 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-103 RESIDENTIAL LOT 4 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-104 RESIDENTIAL LOT 5 A A LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 CROSS SECTION A-A SCALE 1 16"= 1'-0" FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-105 RESIDENTIAL LOT 6 PASSAGEWAY PASSAGEWAY FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-106 RESIDENTIAL SITE PLAN + PROJECT SUMMARY FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-107 RESIDENTIAL LOT 3 PASSAGEWAY FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-108 RESIDENTIAL LOT 4 PASSAGEWAY FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-109 RESIDENTIAL LOT 5 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-110 RESIDENTIAL LOT 6 JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-111 JANUARY 18, 2013 AR-A-202 SCHEME 1 & SCHEME 3 PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN PROFILE EAST ELEVATION JANUARY 18, 2013 AR-A-203 SCHEME 1 & SCHEME 3 JANUARY 18, 2012 PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN PROFILE AR-A-204 SCHEME 1 & SCHEME 3 PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN ELEVATION JANUARY 18, 2013 SCHEME 2 AR-A-205 JANUARY 18, 2013 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-301 BUILDING #1A ELEVATIONS SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 5 4 1 2 7 6 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-302 BUILDING #1A ELEVATIONS NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 6 5 4 2 1 7 KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-303 BUILDING #1A FLOOR PLANS LOWER LEVEL 1 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-304 BUILDING #1A FLOOR PLANS KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 3rd FLOOR PLAN 1st-2nd FLOOR PLAN FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-305 BUILDING #1A CLUBHOUSE ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLAN FRONT ELEVATION LEFT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION FLOOR PLAN 2 7 1 4 6 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-306 BUILDING #1B ELEVATIONS SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 C A I E F D G H B FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-307 BUILDING #1B ELEVATIONS KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION 5 1 2 7 4 6 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-308 BUILDING #1B FLOOR PLANS LOWER LEVEL 1 KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-309 BUILDING #1B FLOOR PLANS 3rd FLOOR PLAN KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 1st- 2nd FLOOR PLAN AR-A-310 BUILDING #2 ELEVATIONS SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 A FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 5 4 6 7 2 1 3 D B C E F H G I 8 10 9 11 AR-A-311 BUILDING #2 ELEVATIONS NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 4 2 6 5 1 7 3 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-312 LOWER LEVEL 2 BUILDING #2 PODIUM FLOOR PLANS LOWER LEVEL 1 KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-313 BUILDING #2 PODIUM FLOOR PLANS KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 2nd- 4th FLOOR PLAN 1st FLOOR PLAN AR-A-314 BUILDING #3 ELEVATIONS KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION 3 2 6 7 4 1 5 AR-A-315 BUILDING #3 ELEVATIONS KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 EAST ELEVATION- PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION- N.T.S. C E D I A J F B H G AR-A-316 BUILDING #3 ELEVATIONS KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 EAST ELEVATION- N.T.S. EAST ELEVATION- PARTIAL 11 4 2 5 8 10 1 6 7 9 3 G F B H J A I D E C AR-A-317 BUILDING #3 ELEVATIONS KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 WEST ELEVATION- N.T.S. WEST ELEVATION- PARTIAL 3 1 6 2 4 7 5 AR-A-318 BUILDING #3 ELEVATIONS KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 WEST ELEVATION- N.T.S. WEST ELEVATION- PARTIAL 3 6 2 1 4 7 5 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-319 LOWER LEVEL 1 BUILDING #3 PODIUM FLOOR PLANS LOWER LEVEL 2 KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-320 BUILDING #3 PODIUM FLOOR PLANS KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 2nd- 4th FLOOR PLAN 1st FLOOR PLAN FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-321 EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION BUILDING #4 WRAP ELEVATIONS KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 5 4 1 3 2 7 6 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-322 SOUTH-EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION BUILDING #4 WRAP ELEVATIONS KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 WEST ELEVATION 1 3 5 4 2 9 7 6 8 10 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-323 2nd FLOOR PLAN 1st FLOOR PLAN BUILDING #4 WRAP FLOOR PLANS KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-324 ROOF LEVEL 3rd- 5th FLOOR PLAN BUILDING #4 WRAP FLOOR PLANS KEYMAP N #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-401 UNIT PLANS FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-402 UNIT PLANS FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-403 UNIT PLANS SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW THE EXISTING SITE FRONTS A MAJOR BOULEVARD , APPROXIMATELY 85’-90’ IN WIDTH, WITH PARKING ADJACENT TO BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET . THE SITE IS SHIELDED BY EXISTING TALL AND LUSH MATURE TREES WHICH APPEAR ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET. THE EXISTING APARTMENT HOMES, EAST OF THE PROJECT ARE APPROXIMATELY 210’ AWAY FROM THE PROJECT SITE . KEEPING THIS IN MIND, THE 5 STORY WRAP AND 4 STORY PODIUM PRODUCTS PLOTTED ON THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL LOTS WOULD CREATE A DYNAMIC URBAN EDGE ALONG STANFORD WHILE MAINTAINING AS MUCH VIEW CORRIDOR AS POSSIBLE ON THE SITE ENTRYWAYS. THE DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS ON LOT 3 AND 4 IS ABOUT 166’. BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5, THE BUILDING DISTANCE IS ABOUT 90’. AND THE BUILDING DISTANCE BETWEEN LOTS 5 AND 6 IS ABOUT 117’. ON LOT 3, THE EXISTING ONE AND TWO STORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING HAS ITS PARKING LOTS FACING THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY LINE WITH MINIMAL LANDSCAPE SETBACK. THE HEIGHT OF THIS COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE IS AT LEAST 30’ FROM THE GROUND TO THE ROOF RIDGE AND THE BUILDING ITSELF, APPEARING AS ONE CONTINUOUS “WALL” STRETCHING EAST TO WEST IS AT ABOUT 45’ AWAY FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS A LANDSCAPE SETBACK OF 25’, WHICH WOULD BE THOROUGHLY BUFFERED. THE BUILDINGS , WHICH ARE BOTH THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT , ARE APPROXIMATELY 91 ’ AWAY FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE . TWO OF ITS SHORTER LEGS ABOUT 28’ ’ FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THE DISTANCE BETWEEN BLDG 1A AND 1B AT THE MAIN ENTRY IS ABOUT 235’. THIS BUILDING “GAP” PROVIDES A LENGHTY VIEW CORRIDOR LOOKING SOUTH THAN THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING COULD ALLOW. FROM A LIGHT AND SHADOW PERSPECTIVE, THE SHORTER LEGS ONLY ON LOT 3 WOULD CAST A SHADOW PRESENCE ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE AT CERTAIN TIMES OF THE YEAR OR CERTAIN DAYS. BUT THE REST OF THE STRUCTURES WOULD CAST ITS SHADOWS ONLY EXISTING ROADS AND PARKING LOTS. IN TERMS OF PRIVACY, WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP AS MANY OF THE EXISTING MATURE TREES ALONG STANFORD INTACT BY MAKING SURE WE ARE AT LEAST 30’ AWAY FROM THE EXISTING CURB. THESE TREES ARE A BENEFIT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN MANY OBVIOUS WAYS BUT THEY DO HELP SHIELD OR PROVIDE A VISUAL BARRIER. WE ARE ALSO ADDING COMBINATIONS OF WALLS AND LANDSCAPING TO INCREASE PRIVACY WHERE NEEDED. THE AMENITY AREAS, INCLUDING POOL AREAS OF THE PODIUM AND WRAP PRODUCTS ARE SELF CONTAINED. THE EXISTING 6 STORY HOTEL LOCATED SOUTH OF THE PROJECT WOULD WORK WELL AND COMPLEMENT THE 5 STORY WRAP PROJECT LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF MONROE AND STANFORD. THEN AS THE MASSING MOVES NORTH, THE TWO PODIUM PRODUCTS GRADUALLY DROPS DOWN TO 4 STORIES AND FINALLY DROPS AGAIN TO 3 STORIES ON LOT3, ADJACENT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. PROPOSED 3 STORY BUILDINGS JANUARY 18, 2013 PROPOSED 5 STORY BUILDING PROPOSED 4 STORY BUILDINGS AR-A-601 SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW SUMMARY PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN PROFILE SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW VISUAL ANALYSIS BUILDING 1B AR-A-602 PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN PROFILE EAST ELEVATION JANUARY 18, 2013 SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW VISUAL ANALYSIS BUILDING 2 AR-A-603 AR-A-604 SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW VISUAL ANALYSIS BUILDING 3 PARTIAL FLOOR PLAN PROFILE JANUARY 18,2013 JANUARY 18,2013 SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW VISUAL ANALYSIS BUILDING 4 AR-A-605 SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW VISUAL ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVE 1 PERSPECTIVE LOOKING WEST BETWEEN LOT 3 AND LOT 4 ALONG STANFORD STREET. JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-606 PERSPECTIVE 1 AFTER BEFORE SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW VISUAL ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVE 2 PERSPECTIVE LOOKING NORTH- WEST AT THE ENTRY LEVEL BETWEEN LOT 5 AND LOT 6 ALONG STANFORD STREET. AR-A-607 PERSPECTIVE 2 JANUARY 18,2013 AFTER BEFORE SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW VISUAL ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVE 3 PERSPECTIVE LOOKING NORTH- WEST AT LOT 6, AT THE INTERSECTION OF E. MONROE STREET AND STANFROD STREET. JANUARY 18,2013 PERSPECTIVE 3 AR-A-608 AFTER BEFORE FEB. 5TH 9 A.M. FEB. 5TH 3 P.M. NOV. 6TH 9 A.M. NOV. 6TH 3 P.M. DEC. 21ST. 9 A.M. SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW SOLAR ANALYSIS JANUARY 18, 2013 DEC. 21ST 3 P.M. AR-A-609 SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW SOLAR ANALYSIS LOT 3 AR-A-610 A) SHADOWS OF PROPOSED BLDGS ONLY B) SHADOW OF IMAGINARY 25FT. WALL C) SHADOWS OF BOTH PROPOSED BLDGS AND IMAGINARY WALL JANUARY 18,2013 FEBRUARY 5TH- 9AM SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW SOLAR ANALYSIS LOT 3 AR-A-611 A) SHADOWS OF PROPOSED BLDGS ONLY B) SHADOW OF IMAGINARY 25FT. WALL C) SHADOWS OF BOTH PROPOSED BLDGS AND IMAGINARY WALL JANUARY 18,2013 FEBRUARY 5TH- 3PM SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW SOLAR ANALYSIS LOT 3 AR-A-612 A) SHADOWS OF PROPOSED BLDGS ONLY B) SHADOW OF IMAGINARY 25FT. WALL C) SHADOWS OF BOTH PROPOSED BLDGS AND IMAGINARY WALL JANUARY 18,2013 NOVEMBER 6TH- 9AM SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW SOLAR ANALYSIS LOT 3 AR-A-613 A) SHADOWS OF PROPOSED BLDGS ONLY B) SHADOW OF IMAGINARY 25FT. WALL C) SHADOWS OF BOTH PROPOSED BLDGS AND IMAGINARY WALL JANUARY 18, 2013 NOVEMBER 6TH- 3PM SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW SOLAR ANALYSIS LOT 3 AR-A-614 B) SHADOW OF IMAGINARY 25FT. WALL C) SHADOWS OF BOTH PROPOSED BLDGS AND IMAGINARY WALL JANUARY 18,2013 DECEMBER 21ST- 9AM A) SHADOWS OF PROPOSED BLDGS ONLY SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW SOLAR ANALYSIS LOT 3 AR-A-615 A) SHADOWS OF PROPOSED BLDGS ONLY B) SHADOW OF IMAGINARY 25FT. WALL C) SHADOWS OF BOTH PROPOSED BLDGS AND IMAGINARY WALL JANUARY 18,2013 DECEMBER 21ST- 3PM 5003 STREET SIDEWALK 4997 PL 3RD LEVEL A A CROSS SECTION A-A FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW LOT 3_BLDG 1B CROSS SECTION A-A AR-A-616 KEYMAP #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 CONDENSER UNITS FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO FORT COLLINS, CO FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-617 SPECIAL HEIGHT REVIEW LOT 3_BLDG 1B CROSS SECTION B-B KEYMAP #1A #1B #2 #4 #3 JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-701 JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-703 JANUARY 18,2013 AR-A-704 Drawn: Designed: Project No.: Date: Sheet No.: Checked.: Book No.: OF SEC. 25, T7N, R69W CITY OF FORT COLLINS COUNTY OF LARIMER STATE OF COLORADO NAV DCD 1 PAGE 1 OF 8 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION 12/21/2012 8 0120302.00 56#6'/'061(190'45*+2#0&57$&+8+5+10 /#+06'0#0%')7#4#06'' 4'2#+4)7#4#06'' 8#%#6+10#0&)4#061('#5'/'065 VICINITY MAP 190'45%'46+(+%#6'5 2.#00+0)#22418#. #22418'&#561(14/%+6;'0)+0''4 #66140';5%'46+(+%#6+10 016+%'1(16*'4&1%7/'065 5748';14556#6'/'06 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION A PART THEREOF BEING A REPLAT OF TRACTS 1-3, 7, 8 AND 10 OF THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL EXPANSION;TRACTS D, E, U AND A PORTION OF TRACT T OF SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE FIFTH FILING;THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL FOLEY'S EXPANSION; AND A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF THE REPLAT OF TRACTS F, G, AND J & VACATED SERVICE ROAD SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE FIFTH FILING; LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO COVER SHEET )4#061('#5'/'065616*'%+6;1((146%1..+05 )4#061('#5'/'0656176+.+6+'5 %'46+(+%#6'1(&'&+%#6+10 )4#061('/'4)'0%;#%%'55 24+8#6''#5'/'065 64#05+6'#5'/'06 6 ( 145.40' 6 ( 138.50' 1 ( 141.63' ǻ R=15.00' L=24.02' &+ 6 ( CL=21.53' 6 ( 110.54' 6 : 1 ( 1 : ǻ R=1319.21' L=387.18' &+ 6 : CL=385.79' 105.36' 6 ( 1 ( 1 ( 6 ( 6 ( 6 : ǻ R=364.41' L=286.21' &+ 1 : CL=278.91' 1 : 129.24' ǻ R=385.34' L=302.65' &+ 1 : CL=294.93' 1 ( 56.15' ǻ R=14.14' L=11.86' &+ 6 : CL=11.51' 1 ( ǻ R=16.13' L=13.43' &+ 1 ( CL=13.04' 1 ( 1 ( 56.15' 1 ( 22.08' ǻ R=24.00' L=37.70' &+ 6 : CL=33.94' 6 ( 165.29' ǻ R=24.00' L=37.70' &+ 1 : CL=33.94' 6 : 47.20' ǻ R=51.00' L=26.70' &+ 6 : CL=26.40' ǻ R=49.00' L=25.66' &+ 1 ( ǻ R=15.00' L=23.56' &+ 6 : CL=21.21' 6 ( 6 ( 1 ( ǻ R=15.00' L=24.02' &+ 6 ( CL=21.53' 6 ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 ( 1 ( 60.00' 1 ( 6 ( 1 ( 1 : ǻ R=15.00' L=23.56' &+ 6 ( CL=21.21' 1 : 6 : ǻ R=243.83' L=114.05' &+ 6 : CL=113.02' CURVE TABLE CURVE CHD BEARING CHORD LENGTH RADIUS DELTA 1 ( 1 : ǻ R=1319.21' L=387.18' &+ 6 : CL=385.79' Drawn: Designed: Project No.: Date: Sheet No.: Checked.: Book No.: OF CITY OF FORT COLLINS COUNTY OF LARIMER STATE OF COLORADO TWL NAV 5 PAGE 5 OF 8 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION 12/21/2012 8 0120302.00 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION EASEMENT DEDICATION SHEET MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 7 MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 4 SHEET INDEX 4 5 6 7 A PART THEREOF BEING A REPLAT OF TRACTS 1-3, 7, 8 AND 10 OF THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL EXPANSION;TRACTS D, E, U AND A PORTION OF TRACT T OF SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE FIFTH FILING;THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL FOLEY'S EXPANSION; AND A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF THE REPLAT OF TRACTS F, G, AND J & VACATED SERVICE ROAD SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE FIFTH FILING; LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO 6 : ǻ R=301.32' L=199.89' &+ 6 : CL=196.24' 6 : 1 : ǻ R=193.41' L=127.73' &+ 6 : CL=125.42' 1 : 46.00' 1 ( 15.00' ǻ R=15.00' L=23.56' &+ 1 : CL=21.21' 6 : 327.70' 1 : Drawn: Designed: Project No.: Date: Sheet No.: Checked.: Book No.: OF CITY OF FORT COLLINS COUNTY OF LARIMER STATE OF COLORADO TWL NAV 6 PAGE 6 OF 8 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION 12/21/2012 8 0120302.00 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION EASEMENT DEDICATION SHEET MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 4 MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 7 SHEET INDEX 4 5 6 7 6 ( 6 ( 6 : ǻ R=364.41' L=286.21' &+ 1 : CL=278.91' 1 : ǻ R=385.34' L=302.65' &+ 1 : CL=294.93' ǻ R=1114.57' L=327.62' &+ 6 : CL=326.44' Drawn: Designed: Project No.: Date: Sheet No.: Checked.: Book No.: OF CITY OF FORT COLLINS COUNTY OF LARIMER STATE OF COLORADO TWL NAV 7 PAGE 7 OF 8 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION 12/21/2012 8 0120302.00 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION EASEMENT DEDICATION SHEET MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 5 MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 6 SHEET INDEX 4 5 6 7 A PART THEREOF BEING A REPLAT OF TRACTS 1-3, 7, 8 AND 10 OF THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL EXPANSION;TRACTS D, E, U AND A PORTION OF TRACT T OF SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE FIFTH FILING;THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL FOLEY'S EXPANSION; AND A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF THE REPLAT OF TRACTS F, G, AND J & VACATED SERVICE ROAD SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE FIFTH FILING; LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO STOP STOP STOP STOPSTOPSTOP STOP STOPSTOP N86°20'24"E 60.12' N44°32'59"E 128.80' L88 N44°32'59"E 111.37' L89 N44°32'59"E 230.66' N38°15'14"E 80.68' N45°03'21"E 337.13' N90°00'00"E 56.47' S45°08'11"E 309.60' ǻ=86°38'59" R=31.68' L=47.92' CH=S01°48'41"E CL=43.48' L85 L86 ǻ=33°08'15" R=99.50' L=57.55' CH=S27°59'56"W CL=56.75' S44°34'03"W 278.57' ǻ=90°00'00" R=86.50' L=135.87' CH=S00°25'57"E CL=122.33' S45°25'57"E 96.49' ǻ=74°24'41" R=25.64' L=33.30' CH=S06°46'25"W CL=31.00' S44°34'03"W 280.50' L87 ǻ=26°24'04" R=218.58' L=100.72' CH=S81°50'43"W CL=99.83' ǻ=51°22'46" R=120.94' L=108.45' CH=S70°18'09"W _________________________________________________________________________98 ___________Spruce ________________________Street, ________________________________Suite ________________________201 _________________________| _________________Denver ____________________________Colorado ___________________________________80230 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 303 220 8900 | __________303 _________________220 __ 0708 Fax www.SEMarchitects.com 008901\0002\1788253.2 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Lighting- Alternative Compliance 1. Fort Collins LUC provision: Article 3 General Development Standards – Article 3.2.4 Site Lighting, Paragraph D. Design Standards, Subparagraph (3) “Light Sources shall be concealed and fully shielded and shall feature sharp cut-off capability so as to minimize up-light, spill-light, glare and unnecessary diffusion on adjacent property…” 2. Review Criteria: The City may approve an alternative lighting plan where the plan will better accomplish the purpose of this Section than would a plan which complies with the standards. LUC 3.2.4(E)(1). In reviewing the proposed alternative plan, the decision maker shall consider the extent to which the proposed design protects natural areas from light intrusion, enhance neighborhood continuity and connectivity, fosters nonvehicular access, and demonstrates innovative design and use of fixtures or other elements. LUC 3.2.4(E)(2). The proposed alternative solution protects natural areas from light intrusion, enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity, and demonstrates innovative design and use of fixtures or other elements as stated in LUC 3.2.4 (E). 3. Explanation This solution implements building mounted, “glowing” luminaires that utilize lamp sources that produce 3,200 lumens or less. An array of this type of fixtures have been selected in support of the Project’s overall design theme that seeks to provide each Tenancy with its own distinctive character and appearance so as to highlight brand identification and patron wayfinding. The size and scale of this Project facilitates the use of glowing sources because many of the Tenancies are located a significant distance from the public way, nearby businesses and the residential neighborhood. This protects natural areas from light intrusion. Strict compliance with the requirements for full cutoff fixtures would require a greater number of fixtures be installed in order to ensure safety and wayfinding, but would provide a greater impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood and a less attractive aesthetic appearance. The design team has selected a wide variety of glowing wall sconces as indicated specifically in the Lighting Design portion of the PDP submittal so as to provide most, Foothills Mall Redevelopment Lighting Alternative Compliance Page | 2 008901\0002\1788253.2 if not all Tenants with a lighting treatment dedicated to their unique location and description. This enhances neighborhood continuity and connectivity. The State of Colorado has recognized that lighting with a rated output of less than 3,200 lumens or less are an equivalent means of protecting against light spillage and excessive glare. See, for example, Colorado Revised Statutes – Title 24, article 82, Part 9. OUTDOOR LIGHTING FIXTURES subparagraph (a): “For outdoor lighting fixtures with a rated output greater than three thousand two hundred lumens, the fixture is a full cutoff luminaire.” The alternative lighting proposal asks the City to recognize the State of Colorado’s interpretation that fixtures with a rated output of 3,200 lumens or less are an equally valid method of protecting against light spillage and therefore do not need to satisfy the specific “full cut-off and downward directional” requirement of the LUC. Glowing fixtures with such a relatively low lumen output support the general intent of the Land Use Code’s prohibition against excessive up-light, glare and unnecessary diffusion on adjacent property as well or better than a full-cutoff fixture would, and should therefore be permitted for use on this Project. These fixtures, in fact, enhance the subtle and aesthetically pleasing lighting effects attainable by implementing this technology, demonstrating innovative design through the use of these fixtures in the context of the overall lighting scheme. FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared for: Mr. Bryan McFarland Walton Foothills Holdings VI, LLC 5750 DTC Parkway, Suite 210 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 (303) 771-4004 Prepared by: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 80111 (303) 721-1440 Project Manager: Chris Fasching, PE, PTOE Project Engineer: Jeremy Hahn, PE, PTOE FHU Reference No. 12-136-01 December 2012 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 A. Existing Roadway Network --------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 B. Multi-Modal Network ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5 C. Traffic Volumes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7 D. Traffic Operations --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 E. Pedestrain Operations --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 F. Bicycle Operations ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 III. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 12 A. Volume Projections ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 12 B. Study Area Roadway Network Improvements -------------------------------------------- 12 C. Traffic Operations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 IV. PROPOSED PROJECT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 A. Land Use ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 B. Trip Generation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 C. Existing Mall Trip Generation Comparison ------------------------------------------------- 18 D. Trip Distribution ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 V. PROJECT IMPACTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23 A. Traffic Volumes ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23 B. Signal Warrant Evaluation --------------------------------------------------------------------- 23 C. Traffic Operations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26 D. Multi-Modal Improvements --------------------------------------------------------------------- 28 E. Recommended Laneage ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 30 F. College Avenue Access ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 31 VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ----------------------------------------------------------- 32 APPENDIX A EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS APPENDIX B EXISTING CONDITION OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX C BACKGROUND TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX D TOTAL TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS APPENDIX E PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PLAN Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Vicinity Map ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Figure 2. Site Plan --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Figure 3. Existing Multi-Modal Facilities ------------------------------------------------------------------ 6 Figure 4. Existing Traffic Volumes ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 Figure 5. Existing Traffic Lane Configuration and Levels of Service ----------------------------- 10 Figure 6. Short Term Background Traffic Volumes --------------------------------------------------- 13 Figure 7. Long Term Background Traffic Volumes --------------------------------------------------- 14 Figure 8. Long Term Background Traffic Lane Configuration and Levels of Service -------- 16 Figure 9. Site Traffic Distribution -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21 Figure 10. Site Traffic Volumes ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22 Figure 11. Short Term Total Traffic Volumes ------------------------------------------------------------ 24 Figure 12. Long Term Total Traffic Volumes ------------------------------------------------------------ 25 Figure 13. Short Term Total Traffic Lane Configuration and Levels of Service ----------------- 27 Figure 14. Long Term Total Traffic Lane Configuration and Levels of Service ----------------- 29 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Study Area Pedestrian LOS Summary ------------------------------------------------------- 9 Table 2. Trip Generation Characteristics --------------------------------------------------------------- 17 Table 3. Existing Trip Generation Comparison ------------------------------------------------------- 19 Table 4. Proposed Trip Generation Comparison ----------------------------------------------------- 19 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION Walton Foothills Holdings VI, LLC is proposing to redevelop the existing Foothills Mall development north and east of the Monroe Drive / College Avenue (State Highway 287) intersection. The site is located north of Monroe Drive, east of College Avenue, west of Stanford Road and south of Swallow Road in Fort Collins, Colorado. The site is currently occupied by the existing mall complex, which contains approximately 750,000 square feet (SF) of retail uses, a portion of which is vacant. The proposed development is currently zoned CG (General Commercial District) per City of Fort Collins zoning standards. Figure 1 shows the site’s location in relation to major roadways in the area. As part of the proposed project, the existing mall would be remodeled, while each of the out- parcel buildings would be demolished and replaced with new retail development. Multi-family apartments would also be added along the north and east boundaries of the property. Once complete, the overall site is planned to include a total of 689,800 square feet of retail development, a 1,764 seat multiplex movie theater and up to 800 apartments. The development would utilize the existing access scheme currently serving the mall complex. Full movement access points would be maintained on College Avenue, Monroe Drive, Swallow Road and Stanford Road. In addition, a new right-in/right-out access point is proposed north of Foothills Parkway on College Avenue. Figure 2 shows the site plan and the location of the proposed accesses. The purpose of this study is to assess the traffic vehicular and multi-modal impacts on the adjacent roadways related to the proposed development and to identify roadway improvements needed to accommodate trips generated by the proposed redevelopment. This report includes information on existing traffic conditions, vehicle-trips associated with the planned development, and total traffic volume projections. Two future planning horizons were evaluated for the site:  Short Term Future. The 2015 time period was chosen to determine what impact the proposed development site traffic has on traffic conditions upon opening day of the development.  Long Term Future. A long term (year 2035) planning horizon was evaluated for the site. This planning horizon is consistent with the long range traffic forecasting within the City of Fort Collins. Vicinity Map Figure 1 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Fort Collins, 12-136-01, 12/18/12 NORTH FELSBURG HOL T & ULLEVIG J o h n F . K e n n e d y P k w y . B o a r d w a l k D r . M a n h a t t a n A v e . L e m a y A v e . Stover St. Site Plan Figure 2 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Fort Collins, 12-136-01, 12/18/12 NORTH FELSBURG HOL T & ULLEVIG Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Page 4 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Existing Roadway Network College Avenue (State Highway 287) College Avenue is a north-south arterial roadway within the vicinity of the project. This regional facility serves communities along the northern front range, providing access between major metropolitan areas. According to the State of Colorado, State Highway Access Category Assignment Schedule, College Avenue is classified as an NR-B (Non-Rural Arterial) within the study area. A non-rural arterial provides for moderate capacity and vehicular speed in a safe and efficient manner. Directly adjacent to the project site, the cross section consists of a six- lane median-divided urban roadway with curb / gutter and sidewalks. The posted speed limit on College Avenue is 40 miles per hour (mph). Horsetooth Road Horsetooth Road is an east-west arterial which provides access from Taft Hill Road on the west to Zegler Road on the east. Within the study area, the corridor consists of a four-lane median- divided cross section with curb / gutter and sidewalks along both sides of the roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Swallow Road Swallow Road is a two-lane collector roadway, which provides access between surrounding residential development and the College Avenue corridor. Adjacent to the proposed development, Swallow Road consists of a two-lane urban cross section with a painted center median used as a two-way left-turn lane. The posted speed limit on Swallow Road is 30 mph. Stanford Road Stanford Road is a two-lane collector roadway, providing direct access from the existing mall to the Swallow Road and Horsetooth Road corridors. Adjacent to the proposed development, Stanford Road consists of a two-lane urban cross section with bulb outs for on-street parking. The posted speed limit on Stanford Road is 25 mph. Foothills Parkway Foothills Parkway, a public roadway, serves as the main entrance from College Avenue to the existing mall complex. A traffic signal is located at the full movement access point separating the north and south sections of the mall. From the full movement access west to College Avenue, Foothills Parkway consists of a six-lane cross section with a raised center median. Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Page 5 Monroe Drive Monroe Drive is an east-west collector roadway separating the existing mall on the north, and office / commercial development on the south. West of JFK Parkway, Monroe Drive consists of a four-lane cross section with a center two-way left-turn lane and head-in on-street parking on the east side of the corridor. The Monroe Drive corridor provides for direct access from the various commercial / office developments at several locations. B. Multi-Modal Network The following paragraphs describe features of the multi-modal transportation network within the study area and Figure 3 summarizes the multi-modal network features. Bike Lanes On-street bike lanes are provided along both Swallow Road and Stanford Road throughout the study area. According to the 2008 Bicycle Plan, City of Fort Collins, 2008, both Swallow Road and Stanford Road would be considered priority bikeways. A priority bikeway establishes direct and convenient bicycle access to significant destinations within the City, in this case the Foothills Mall. Also, the 2008 Bike Plan shows that the College Avenue corridor is considered a no-ride zone. Sidewalks Sidewalks are present along the majority of the study area roadways. On College Avenue, gaps in the sidewalk network exist along both the northbound and southbound directions between Swallow Road and Monroe Drive. Of note, sidewalk is present on the west side of College Avenue along the adjacent Frontage Road. The north side of Monroe Drive lacks sidewalk connectivity, with the exception of approaches at the JFK Parkway and Stanford Road approaches. Small gaps in sidewalk are also present on Horsetooth Road and Stanford Road in the southwest quadrant of the study area. Signalized Pedestrian Crossings At each signalized intersection, crosswalks, man/hand pedestrian signal heads and push button pedestrian activation are provided. At the Foothills Parkway / College Avenue intersection, pedestrians are prohibited from crossing east / west on the north approach due in part to the existing signal phasing scheme and lack of sidewalks / curb ramps in the northwest quadrant of the intersection. Also, crosswalks are not provided on the west approach of the College Avenue / Monroe Drive intersection. Bus Transit Within the study area there are seven bus stops and one bus transfer facility surrounding the proposed development. The bus stops / transfer locations serve a total of five separate bus routes providing access from the mall to the vast majority of the City of Fort Collins metropolitan area. Existing Multi-Modal Facilities Figure 3 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Fort Collins UPDATE, 12-136-01, 12/18/12 NORTH FELSBURG HOL T & ULLEVIG Del Clair Rd. Stanford Rd. Stover St. College Ave. College Ave. BNSF RR Monroe Dr. Landings St. Foothills Pkwy. Horsetooth Rd. John F. Kennedy Pkwy. Swallow Rd. PROJECT SITE hills T = Bike Lane = Sidewalk = Crosswalk = Pedestrian Signal Head = Pedestrian Crossing Push-Button = Bus Stop = Mall Transfer Point LEGEND T BS BS BS BS BS BS BS BS Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Page 7 C. Traffic Volumes Traffic volumes were obtained from two sources. Historical weekday PM peak hour counts at each signalized intersection were obtained from the City of Fort Collins database. The afternoon peak hour volumes were recorded on various weekdays during year 2011. Weekday PM peak hour and Saturday peak counts at the remaining unsignalized study intersections were recorded on Saturday September 8, 2012 and Tuesday September 11, 2012 which represented an average commuter day with nearby schools in session. Weekday traffic counts were collected in 15-minute intervals during 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM to match the peak hours for the historical City of Fort Collins counts. The historical counts were then calibrated based on the September 2012 data in order to balance volumes along roadway corridors with closely spaced intersections. Saturday peak hour counts were obtained from 1:30 PM to 2:30 PM. The Saturday peak hour was determined using recent Saturday / Sunday daily tube counts collected along College Avenue. Based on the traffic count data, traffic patterns gravitate to the south and west during the weekday afternoon peak, and are relatively balanced during the Saturday peak. Peak hour counts show College Avenue carries approximately 4,000 vehicles per hour (vph) during the weekday afternoon peak and 3,700 vph during the Saturday peak hour in both directions just south of Foothills Parkway. On Swallow Road, two-way traffic accounts for roughly 760 vph during the afternoon peak and 580 vph during the Saturday peak just east of College Avenue. Figure 4 shows the existing traffic volumes and the traffic count data can be found in Appendix A. D. Traffic Operations Existing operational conditions were analyzed at each of the study intersections near the project site. The analysis is based on procedures documented in the Highway Capacity Manual 2010, (Transportation Research Board, Fifth Edition, 2010). This analysis procedure provides a level of service (LOS) which is a qualitative measure based on the average delay per vehicle at a controlled intersection. Levels of service are described by a letter ranging from “A” to “F”. LOS A represents minimal delay, while LOS F represents excessive congestion and delay. The signalized intersection analysis report a level of service rating for the entire intersection while the unsignalized analysis reports a movement level of service. The Synchro traffic analysis software was used to develop the LOS calculations. Also, the current traffic signal timing data for each intersection, obtained from the City Fort Collins, was utilized in the analysis. The College Avenue / Swallow Road, College Avenue / Foothills Parkway, and Foothills Parkway / Mall Entrance signalized intersections operate at an acceptable LOS B or better during the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours. The College Avenue / Horsetooth Road signalized intersection operates at an acceptable LOS D during the PM and Saturday peak hours. Of note, during the weekday PM peak hour multiple intersection approaches operate at capacity (LOS E) while the overall intersection nears the capacity threshold. Existing Traffic Volumes Figure 4 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Fort Collins, 12-136-01, 12/18/12 NORTH FELSBURG HOL T & ULLEVIG = PM(SAT) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes = Weekday[SAT] Daily Traffic Volumes XXX(XXX) XXX[XXX] LEGEND Del Clair Rd. Stanford Rd. Stover St. College Ave. College Ave. BNSF RR Monroe Dr. Landings St. Foothills Pkwy. Horsetooth Rd. John F. Kennedy Pkwy. Swallow Rd. PROJECT SITE 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 17 16 4 15 14 13 155(120) 30(90) 230(80) 25(60) 30(120) 35(90) 40(60) 1995(1705) 200(90) 45(70) 1850(1675) 115(80) 75(155) 15(15) 135(180) 15(25) 10(20) 40(20) 25(30) 2060(1650) 135(195) 30(35) Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Page 9 The Horsetooth Road / JFK Parkway and Horsetooth Road / Stanford Road signalized intersections operate at LOS C or better during the weekday PM and Saturday peak periods. Each individual movement at the unsignalized study intersections operate with acceptable LOS C or better. In addition, the two all-way stop intersections operate at LOS A during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak periods. Figure 5 shows the existing lane geometry and levels of service. Operational analysis worksheets for the existing conditions can be found in Appendix B. E. Pedestrain Operations The existing operational conditions of the pedestrian facilities within the study area were analyzed based on the standards in the Fort Collins Pedestrian Plan, February 2011. The Pedestrian Plan identifies five evaluation categories; directness, continuity, street crossings, visual interest and security, and LOS standard thresholds (page 38-41 of plan) for each category. The LOS thresholds are then compared to minimum acceptable standards for a given pedestrian priority area. In this case, the activity center / corridor priority area was used to develop the LOS standard for the study area. Similar to vehicular level-of-service, LOS A represents optimal conditions while LOS F represents poor compliance with the given standard. Table 1 summarizes the results of the pedestrian LOS analysis. Table 1. Study Area Pedestrian LOS Summary Evaluation Category LOS LOS A B C D E F Standard Directness B Continuity B Street Crossings C Visual Interest B Security B The results of the analysis show that two evaluation categories (street crossings and security) meet the LOS standard for an activity center / corridor. Each signalized street crossing is well marked, provides good lighting, has man/ hand pedestrian signal heads and push button activation. The surrounding roadway corridors provide good lines of sight, and overhead street lights, which enhance the sense of security. The gaps in sidewalks on the roadway corridors surrounding the proposed development impact the continuity and directness of pedestrian routes, in particular to / from the existing mall complex to the surrounding residential and commercial uses. Pedestrian features on portions of the study area roadways have not been improved since originally constructed, leading to a lower visual interest as compared to newer, more pedestrian friendly, locations within the City of Fort Collins. Existing Traffic Lane Configuration and Levels of Service Figure 5 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Fort Collins UPDATE, 12-136-01, 12/18/12 NORTH FELSBURG HOL T & ULLEVIG Del Clair Rd. Stanford Rd. Stover St. College Ave. College Ave. BNSF RR Monroe Dr. Landings St. Foothills Pkwy. Horsetooth Rd. John F. Kennedy Pkwy. Swallow Rd. PROJECT SITE a/a A/A B/B A/A c/a a/a a/a c/b c/b a/a a/a a/a b/b a/a D/D C/C C/B B/B B/B A/B 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 17 16 4 15 14 13 STOP ALL WAY STOP ALL WAY STOP ALL WAY B/B = PM/SAT Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service = PM/SAT Peak Hour Unsignalized Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Page 11 F. Bicycle Operations The existing operational conditions of the bicycles lanes along the study area roadways were analyzed based on the standards in the 2008 Bicycle Plan – City of Fort Collins, October 2008. The Bicycle LOS standards, per documentation in Appendix H, are based on the connectivity between the site and each existing bicycle facility. The LOS thresholds are compared to minimum acceptable standards for a given area, in this case a community / neighborhood commercial center. Per the criteria, LOS A shows a direct connection exists between the site and both a north / south and east / west on-street bike lane. A LOS F designation shows no connection in either direction between the site and surrounding bicycle facilities. As stated previously, bicycle lanes are provided along both sides of Swallow Road (east/west) and Stanford Road (north/south). The existing site is directly connected to on-street bike lanes on Stanford Road (adjacent to property). The site is also directly connected to the Swallow Road on-street bike lanes via sidewalk along Foothills Parkway (Mathews Street) and Remington Street, and the Stanford Road bike lanes. Based on Figure 3 of the Bicycle LOS Standards, the site provides LOS connectivity between the site and the existing facilities. Of note, the minimum acceptable standard for a community / neighborhood commercial center is LOS B. Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Page 12 III. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC A. Volume Projections Background traffic is the component of traffic volume on the local street network that is not related to the proposed development. The background traffic volumes for the area surrounding the project were developed by current long term projections along the study area corridor and discussions with City of Fort Collins staff. The first step in developing background traffic projections was to estimate the amount of growth anticipated for the surrounding area. The immediate area surrounding the proposed site contains a mix of residential, commercial and office uses. The vast majority of the surrounding area is build-out, with little opportunity for new development to be constructed. Therefore, it is not anticipated that traffic conditions within the built up areas will experience significant growth in the coming years. However, regional traffic is expected to increase as areas external to the site experience continued growth. To account for the expected growth in traffic, through volumes on College Avenue and Horsetooth Road were increased using a conservative 1.5% per year growth rate. The 1.5% growth rate equates to a 5% increase in short term (year 2015) through traffic and a 41% increase in long term (year 2035) through traffic along the arterial roadways within the study area. Next, traffic currently using the mall was removed from the system. Although a portion of the users will remain once redevelopment is complete, these retail uses do not generate the same intensity of traffic that would be expected in a thriving commercial development (see Section IV). To determine the true impact of the proposed development, traffic generated by the existing uses were removed from the system. Peak period traffic counts were obtained at each entrance / exit point to the mall and using existing travel patterns as a base, the current peak period mall traffic was reduced from the study area intersections / roadways. After applying the base 1.5% increases in regional traffic, and removing existing mall traffic, individual movements at the study intersections were then calibrated and balanced between closely spaced intersections to arrive at the background traffic scenario. Figure 6 and Figure 7 respectively illustrate the short term and long term background traffic volumes. B. Study Area Roadway Network Improvements Discussions were held with the City and CDOT officials to determine what improvements are planned to be implemented within the study area by the year 2035. Through discussions, it is not anticipated that capacity improvements will be made at any of the study area roadway corridors or intersections by year 2035. Preliminary work has been completed on the need to make future improvements at the Horsetooth Road / College Avenue; however a definite plan has not been adopted and is not included with this report. Short-Term Background Traffic Volumes Figure 6 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Fort Collins UPDATE, 12-136-01, 12/18/12 NORTH FELSBURG HOL T & ULLEVIG XXX(XXX) = PM(SAT) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes LEGEND Del Clair Rd. Stanford Rd. Stover St. College Ave. College Ave. BNSF RR Monroe Dr. Landings St. Horsetooth Rd. John F. Kennedy Pkwy. Swallow Rd. PROJECT SITE 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 17 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 17 15 14 13 105(70) 10(60) 230(80) 25(60) 5(80) 30(75) 40(60) 1980(1615) 115(70) 40(55) 1575(1570) 110(65) 15(25) 40(20) 25(30) 2125(1745) 30(35) 1710(1670) 100(65) 25(10) 10(50) 45(65) 15(15) 60(70) 30(40) 2140(1690) 5(35) 30(40) Long-Term Background Traffic Volumes Figure 7 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Fort Collins UPDATE, 12-136-01, 12/18/12 NORTH FELSBURG HOL T & ULLEVIG XXX(XXX) = PM(SAT) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes LEGEND Del Clair Rd. Stanford Rd. Stover St. College Ave. College Ave. BNSF RR Monroe Dr. Landings St. Horsetooth Rd. John F. Kennedy Pkwy. Swallow Rd. PROJECT SITE 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 17 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 17 15 14 13 105(70) 10(60) 230(80) 25(60) 5(80) 30(75) 40(60) 2450(2165) 115(70) 40(55) 2115(2110) 110(65) 15(25) 40(20) 25(30) 2850(2345) 30(35) 2295(2245) 100(65) 25(10) 10(50) 45(65) 15(15) 60(70) 30(40) 2870(2265) 5(35) 30(40) Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Page 15 C. Traffic Operations The same LOS traffic analysis procedures were applied to the long term background volumes. As stated previously, the long term background traffic volumes assume removal of the existing mall complex, associated peak period traffic and direct access points from the transportation network. Most individual movements at the study area unsignalized intersections would operate at LOS C or better during the peak hours. The exception would be the eastbound movement at the Foothills Parkway / College Avenue intersection which would operate at capacity or worse. This intersection was assumed to be unsignalized, as the minor street volumes would not be high enough to warrant installation of a traffic signal. The College Avenue / Horsetooth intersection would operate at capacity (LOS E) during both the AM and PM peak hours. Several individual movements would operate with significant delay, with peak period queues extending well back into adjacent signalized intersections. Additional capacity would be necessary for the intersection to operate with an acceptable level of service in future years. Each of the remaining study area intersections would operate with an acceptable level of service during the peak hours of operation in the long term horizon. Appendix C contains background operational analysis worksheets and the results of the capacity analysis for the long term background traffic scenario is shown in Figure 8. Long-Term Background Traffic Lane Configuration and Levels of Service Figure 8 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Fort Collins UPDATE, 12-136-01, 12/18/12 NORTH FELSBURG HOL T & ULLEVIG Del Clair Rd. Stanford Rd. Stover St. College Ave. College Ave. BNSF RR Monroe Dr. Landings St. Horsetooth Rd. John F. Kennedy Pkwy. Swallow Rd. PROJECT SITE f/e c/b c/b a/a A/A B/A A/A b/b a/a a/a c/b c/b a/a a/a a/a a/a a/a E/E A/A B/A A/A C/B 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 17 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 17 4 15 14 13 STOP ALL WAY STOP ALL WAY STOP ALL WAY = PM/SAT Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service = PM/SAT Peak Hour Unsignalized Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Page 17 IV. PROPOSED PROJECT A. Land Use Walton Foothills Holdings VI, LLC is proposing to redevelop the existing Foothills Mall development. The site is currently occupied by the existing mall complex, which contains approximately 750,000 square feet (SF) of retail uses. The proposed development is currently zoned CG (General Commercial District) per City of Fort Collins zoning standards. As part of the proposed project, the existing mall would be remodeled, while each of the out- parcel buildings would be demolished and replaced with new retail development. Multi-family apartments would also be added along the north and east boundaries of the property. Once complete, the overall site is planned to include a total of 689,800 square feet of retail development, a 1,764 seat multiplex movie theater and up to 800 apartments. The proposed development would utilize the existing access scheme currently serving the mall complex. Full movement access points would be maintained on College Avenue, Monroe Drive, Swallow Road and Stanford Road. The existing right-in/right-out access point south of Foothills Parkway would also remain, and a new right-in/right-out is proposed north of Foothills Parkway on College Avenue. B. Trip Generation Vehicle trips generated by the proposed development were estimated from trip generation rates documented in Trip Generation Manual, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Ninth Edition, 2012. Table 2 summarizes the ITE trip generation estimates used for the proposed development. Table 2. Trip Generation Characteristics Land Use Intensity ITE Code Daily Trips PM Peak Hour SAT Daily Trips SAT Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Apartments 800 Units 220 4,975 298 160 458 6,025 174 173 374 Multiplex Theater 1,764 Seats 445 1,570 51 90 141 1,640 114 45 159 Shopping Center 689,800 SF 820 23,830 1,049 1,136 2,185 31,195 1,595 1,473 3,068 Sub-Total 30,375 1,398 1,386 2,784 38,860 1,883 1,691 3,574 Inter-Connected Trips 1,980 100 100 200 3,075 105 105 210 Multi-Modal Reduction (3%) 855 39 39 78 1,075 53 48 101 Total External Trips 27,540 1,259 1,247 2,506 34,710 1,725 1,538 3,263 Pass-By Trips (20%) 5,510 252 249 501 6,945 345 308 653 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Page 18 Given the proposed mix of residential and commercial uses within the project site, it is reasonable to assume that a small portion of vehicular trips made by the proposed development would be captured on-site. For instance, some trips would be made by residents to the commercial properties on the site. These types of trips are defined as inter-connected or internal trips because they would not be made using vehicles, and therefore would not impact the external road system. Internal capture percentages were based on information contained in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition. A reduction in vehicle trip potential was also applied to for alternative modes of transportation. The multi-modal reduction of 3% accounts for trips made to the site via walking, biking or using the proposed bus transit stop located within the project limits. After applying the inter-connected and multi-modal trip reductions, the proposed development is expected to generate a total of approximately 27,540 vehicle-trips per weekday (vpd) including 2,506 vehicles per hour (vph) during the evening peak hour. On a weekend, the development is expected to generate 34,710 vpd with a peak period total of 3,263 vph. Not all of the vehicular trips produced by the site will be new trips. It was assumed that 20% of the traffic generated by the proposed site would be pass-by trips. A pass-by trip is defined as an intermediate stop on the way to the primary trip destination. As stated previously, these are not new trips being added to the roadway system but are attracted from existing traffic already on the adjacent roadway(s). These trips travel into then out of the proposed development, reducing the overall impact the proposed development has on the adjacent roadway. For instance, a stop at a gas station on the way to work is an example of a pass-by trip. Pass-by percentages were based on information contained in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition. C. Existing Mall Trip Generation Comparison A trip generation sensitivity analysis was completed for the redevelopment area to better understand the existing traffic impacts of the mall. A portion of the site is vacant, while some of the existing uses are not necessarily in a strong state of prosperity. To better understand the existing impacts, a comparison was completed between the existing uses on site and what could be generated if the uses were fully occupied and thriving. The scenario summarizes the results of the existing traffic counts at each of the site access points to the existing development. Counts were collected at the driveways currently serving the redevelopment area. Using the same procedures described previously, trip generation estimates were developed for existing retail uses to determine how much traffic the site could be generating. Table 3 summarizes the trip generation comparisons for the project site. Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Page 19 Table 3. Existing Trip Generation Comparison Land Use Intensity ITE Code PM Peak Hour SAT Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Existing Counts 750,000 SF - 735 750 1,485 945 975 1,921 Thriving Uses 750,000 SF 820 1,202 1,252 2,454 1,651 1,524 3,175 Difference -467 -502 -969 -705 -549 -1,254 The results of the analysis show that the existing site is generating far less traffic than could be expected if the mall complex was fully leased and operating under a thriving economy. Although a portion of the users will remain once redevelopment is complete, these retail uses do not generate the same intensity of traffic that would be expected in a thriving commercial development. To remain conservative, the proposed development trip generation assumes that all uses will be thriving. The existing thriving uses were also compared to the proposed trip generation to determine overall change in trip making potential once the site is redeveloped. Table 4 summarizes the trip generation comparisons between the proposed trip generation and an existing thriving Foothills Mall. Table 4. Proposed Trip Generation Comparison Land Use Daily Trips PM Peak Hour SAT Daily Trips SAT Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Proposed Development 27,540 1,259 1,247 2,506 34,710 1,725 1,538 3,263 Existing Uses If Thriving 25,165 1,202 1,252 2,454 32,885 1,651 1,524 3,175 Difference 2,375 57 -5 52 1,825 74 14 88 The comparison shows that the proposed redevelopment would generate more daily traffic on both a weekday and weekend. Peak hour traffic would also increase, but at a much lower rate than daily traffic as compared to a thriving existing mall complex. D. Trip Distribution The direction orientation of site trips onto the roadway system is a key step in developing traffic forecasts. For this study, the distribution of site trips was estimated through reviewing existing traffic patterns in the area, the development’s location relative to the major surrounding roadways, and the types of proposed land uses on the property. Trip distribution percentages were developed for the site and reviewed by City staff. The trip distribution percentages are summarized in the following list:  35 percent to/from the north on College Avenue  20 percent to/from the south on College Avenue  15 percent to/from the west on Horsetooth Road  10 percent to/from the east on Horsetooth Road Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Page 20  5 percent to/from the west on Swallow Road  5 percent to/from the east on Swallow Road  4 percent to/from the south on JFK Parkway  1 percent to/from the north on Stanford Road  1 percent to/from the south on Stanford Road  1 percent to/from the west on Foothills Parkway  1 percent to/from the west on Monroe Drive  2 percent to/from the east on Monroe Drive The distribution of pass-by trips was determined from existing traffic patterns. For instance, in the weekday PM peak the majority of pass-by trips would enter from the south on College Avenue and exit to the north. Figure 9 summarizes the proposed site traffic distribution percentages. The peak hour site generated traffic volumes were assigned to the roadway network and the proposed site access using the trip distributions. Figure 10 illustrates the non pass-by and pass-by site generated traffic for the proposed development. Site Traffic Distribution Figure 9 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Fort Collins UPDATE, 12-136-01, 12/18/12 NORTH FELSBURG HOL T & ULLEVIG = Non Pass-By Trip Distribution = Pass-By Trip Distribution LEGEND Del Clair Rd. Stanford Rd. Stover St. College Ave. College Ave. BNSF RR Monroe Dr. Landings St. Foothills Pkwy. Horsetooth Rd. John F. Kennedy Pkwy. Swallow Rd. PROJECT SITE 35% 20% 15% 10% 5% 1% 5% 2% 1% Pkwy. 4% 1% 1% XX% XX% 35% 15% 20% 30% Site Traffic Volumes Figure 10 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Fort Collins UPDATE, 12-136-01, 12/18/12 NORTH FELSBURG HOL T & ULLEVIG XXX[XXX] = PM(SAT) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes = PM[SAT] Daily Traffic Volumes XXX(XXX) LEGEND Del Clair Rd. Stanford Rd. Stover St. College Ave. College Ave. BNSF RR Monroe Dr. Landings St. Foothills Pkwy. Horsetooth Rd. John F. Kennedy Pkwy. Swallow Rd. PROJECT SITE 1 2 3 4 7 8 11 5 6 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 3 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 17 16 4 15 14 13 12 11 10 2210[2575] 2910[3655] 3160[3970] 7530[9485] 52(65) 32(40) 33(45) 20(28) 358(490) 83(114) 20(25) 384(474) 120(148) 10(12) Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Page 23 V. PROJECT IMPACTS A. Traffic Volumes The site generated traffic was added to the short term background volumes for the short term horizon and to the long term background traffic volumes to estimate the long term total traffic volumes. Figure 11 and Figure 12, respectively, illustrate short and long term total traffic volumes. As stated previously, traffic generated by the existing uses were removed from the system and then the proposed development site traffic was added back in. Given the layout, proposed access scheme, and mix of land uses within the proposed development, the distribution of site traffic is expected to be different than current patterns at the mall. In general, traffic entering / exiting the mall will be more focused toward the southern and eastern boundaries of the site. The location of the proposed multi-family units, the parking garage and out-parcel buildings contribute to the shift. In addition, less traffic would be directed north onto Swallow Road given the additional access onto College Avenue and the shift of density to the south and east. B. Signal Warrant Evaluation Traffic signal warrant analyses were completed at Foothills Parkway / College Avenue and Foothills Parkway / Mall Access intersections to determine the need for a traffic signal in the future. The analyses were based on the information contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2009 Edition. The MUTCD contains eight warrants for traffic signal installation. These warrants are based on a variety of information and situations. Not only are traffic and pedestrian volumes considered, but the accident history of an intersection, its relationship with surrounding intersections and whether or not an intersection is a designated school crossing are also part of the criteria for installation of a traffic signal. For purposes of this analysis, the four-hour warrant (Warrant 2) was used to determine if an intersection would meet the criteria for installation of a traffic signal. The four-hour warrant is met if any four hours of an average day the major and minor street volumes fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-1 in the MUTCD. The two-hour range of volumes surrounding the PM and Saturday peak hours were used in the analysis. The analysis shows that on opening day, the Foothills Parkway / College Avenue intersection would continue to meet warrants for installation of a traffic signal. The high minor street (Foothills Parkway) traffic, coupled with the intensity of peak period College Avenue traffic would be high enough to warrant a traffic signal. It is not anticipated that a traffic signal would be warranted at the Mall Access point along Foothills Parkway. Given the shift in traffic patterns, the intensity of major street traffic (Foothills Parkway) would not meet the minimum thresholds requiring installation of a traffic signal. Short-Term Total Traffic Volumes Figure 11 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Fort Collins UPDATE, 12-136-01, 12/18/12 NORTH FELSBURG HOL T & ULLEVIG XXX(XXX) = PM(SAT) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes LEGEND Del Clair Rd. Stanford Rd. Stover St. College Ave. College Ave. BNSF RR Monroe Dr. Landings St. Foothills Pkwy. Horsetooth Rd. John F. Kennedy Pkwy. Swallow Rd. PROJECT SITE 1 2 3 4 7 8 11 5 6 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 3 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 17 16 4 15 14 13 12 11 10 160(135) 45(100) 230(80) 25(60) 40(125) 50(105) 40(60) 2250(2105) 240(185) 60(80) 1960(2045) 110(65) 120(150) 10(15) 210(260) 15(25) 10(15) Long-Term Total Traffic Volumes Figure 12 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Fort Collins UPDATE, 12-136-01, 12/18/12 NORTH FELSBURG HOL T & ULLEVIG XXX(XXX) = PM(SAT) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes LEGEND Del Clair Rd. Stanford Rd. Stover St. College Ave. College Ave. BNSF RR Monroe Dr. Landings St. Foothills Pkwy. Horsetooth Rd. John F. Kennedy Pkwy. Swallow Rd. PROJECT SITE 1 2 3 4 7 8 11 5 6 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 3 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 17 16 4 15 14 13 12 11 10 160(135) 45(100) 230(80) 25(60) 40(125) 50(105) 40(60) 2900(2655) 240(185) 60(80) 2500(2585) 110(65) 120(150) 10(15) 210(260) 15(25) 10(15) Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Page 26 C. Traffic Operations Level of service analyses were conducted to compare the projected background levels of service to the anticipated total traffic volume levels of service. Of note, comparing the short term total traffic conditions to the existing traffic provides a better estimation on the overall impact of the site at build out, as compared to a background condition which removes existing traffic entering the development. The following sections describe the impacts the proposed property would have on traffic operations in the study area. Short Term The inclusion of the proposed development traffic is anticipated to have minimal impact to the operation at most study area intersections. The vast majority of study area intersections continue to operate with the same LOS during both the AM and PM peak hours with the additional traffic. The Foothills Parkway / College Avenue intersection would operate at LOS C or better during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours on opening day. It is recommended that the westbound approach of the intersection be reconfigured to include one left-turn, one through and one right-turn lane. With the change, the minor street left-turning paths would be further separated improving both safety and operation. Each of the remaining signalized study intersections would operate at LOS D or better during both peak periods. The JFK Parkway and Stanford Road intersections on Horsetooth Road would operate with better efficiency as compared to the existing traffic scenario. A review of the existing timings shows the potential for changes to split and offset changes, resulting in improved operations along the Horsetooth Road corridor. Each individual movement at the Foothills Parkway / Mall Entrance intersection would operate at LOS D or better during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours with unsignalized control. The calculated 95th percentile queue length for the northbound stop controlled approach would be a maximum of 125 feet (five vehicles) in length during the peak periods of operation. The minor street approaches at the two right-in / right-out access points on College Avenue would operate at LOS B during both the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours, an acceptable condition. The analysis shows that each individual movement at the remaining unsignalized study intersections would operate at LOS C or better during the peak periods. Figure 13 illustrates the short term total traffic levels of service at the study intersections. Operational analysis worksheets for the total traffic conditions can be found in Appendix D. Short-Term Total Traffic Lane Configuration and Levels of Service Figure 13 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Fort Collins UPDATE, 12-136-01, 12/18/12 NORTH FELSBURG HOL T & ULLEVIG Del Clair Rd. Stanford Rd. Stover St. College Ave. College Ave. BNSF RR Monroe Dr. Landings St. Foothills Pkwy. Horsetooth Rd. John F. Kennedy Pkwy. Swallow Rd. PROJECT SITE b/b c/e a/a a/a b/b a/a c/c b/b b/c a/a a/a a/a b/b a/a a/a b/b c/c C/C C/B B/C D/D B/B B/B a/a b/b a/a C/C B/B b/b b/b a/a a/a c/b c/c a/a 1 2 3 4 7 8 11 5 6 9 12 13 14 15 16 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Page 28 Long Term As stated previously, it is not anticipated that traffic conditions on the local and collector streets within the study area would experience significant growth, as the vast majority of the area is built-out. Therefore, unsignalized intersections located along Stanford Road, Swallow Road, and Monroe Drive would operate with similar level of service as compared to the short term scenario. Both the Foothills Parkway / College Avenue and Swallow Road / College Avenue would operate at LOS D during the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours, an acceptable condition. The anticipated growth in north / south through traffic contributes to the additional delay expected at each intersection. The JFK Parkway and Stanford Road signalized intersections on Horsetooth Road would continue to operate at LOS B during the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours. Each intersection has additional capacity to handle the projected increase in regional traffic. The Horsetooth Road / College Avenue intersection would operate over capacity (LOS F) during the peak hours of operation. The growth in regional traffic coupled with the increase in site traffic cause the intersection to exceed the capacity threshold (LOS E) projected in the long term background traffic scenario. To improve operations, it is recommended that dual left-turn lanes be installed on each approach. The addition of dual left-turn lanes would improve operations at the intersection to LOS E during the Saturday peak hour. Figure 15 illustrates the long term total traffic levels of service at the study intersections. Operational analysis worksheets for the total traffic conditions can be found in Appendix D. D. Multi-Modal Improvements A the review of the City of Fort Collins pedestrian level of service standards show that gaps in the existing sidewalk network on the roadway corridors surrounding the proposed development impact the continuity and directness of pedestrian routes, in particular to / from the existing mall complex to the surrounding residential and commercial uses. In addition, future regional transit service, as part of the Mason Street project, near the proposed project may impact the number of pedestrians visiting the site, making multi-modal access an important feature of the proposed development. As part of proposed site plan, enhancements will be made to the existing sidewalk system to improve both the directness and continuity of pedestrian routes to / from the development. A copy of the improvements are contained in Appendix E. Gaps in sidewalk along College Avenue, Foothills Parkway and Monroe Drive will be eliminated, significantly improving the ability of pedestrians to gain access to high volume roadways and nearby transit centers. To further enhance pedestrian connectivity to the west, or the location of the future BRT transit hub, it is recommended that existing crosswalks be restriped and the existing man / hand pedestrian signal heads be replaced with countdown heads, improving the look and operation of signalized pedestrian crossings. Long-Term Total Traffic Lane Configuration and Levels of Service Figure 14 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Fort Collins UPDATE, 12-136-01, 12/18/12 NORTH FELSBURG HOL T & ULLEVIG Del Clair Rd. Stanford Rd. Stover St. College Ave. College Ave. BNSF RR Monroe Dr. Landings St. Foothills Pkwy. Horsetooth Rd. John F. Kennedy Pkwy. Swallow Rd. PROJECT SITE b/b c/e a/a a/a b/b a/a c/c b/b b/c a/a a/a a/a b/b a/a a/a b/b c/d D/D D/C C/C F/F F/E Alternate B/B B/B Geometry a/a b/b a/a C/C B/B b/b b/b a/a a/a c/b c/c a/a 1 2 3 4 7 8 11 5 6 6 9 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Page 30 To improve direct connectivity to the surrounding bicycle facilities, the Monroe Drive and Foothills Parkway corridors may be restriped, using City guidance, to include on-street bike lanes along the north and south sides of the roadway. These two roadways provide two additional east / west connections, along with Swallow Road, between the site and the surrounding transportation network. In addition, bike racks will be placed throughout the site to encourage bicycle use. Finally, three new bus stops will be located along Foothills Parkway, Stanford Road and College Avenue to encourage transit use and better serve the proposed development. The approximate location of the proposed bus stops are shown in Appendix E. E. Recommended Laneage The need for turn lanes at the study area intersections was based on City of Fort Collins and CDOT turn lane warrants, results of the capacity analysis and engineering judgment. The following list summarizes the auxiliary turn lane recommendations:  Northbound right-turn deceleration lanes are recommended to be installed at the two right-in / right-out access points and at the Foothills Parkway intersection on College Avenue. The design of the access points shall be in accordance with current SHAC standards (see pages 47-62) for an NR-B highway.  The westbound approach of the Foothills Parkway / College Avenue intersection is recommended to provide one left-turn, one right-turn and one through lane. In addition, it is recommended that a westbound permitted / protected left-turn phase be installed.  A review of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards, April 2007 shows that the volume thresholds for a westbound right-turn lane are met during both the PM and Saturday peak hours at the Horsetooth Road / JFK Parkway and Horsetooth Road / Stanford Road intersections. The current short term total traffic analysis shows that both westbound right-turn movements would operate at LOS A during both the PM and Saturday peak hours without an exclusive right-turn lane. The design of the right-turn lanes would be based off Figure 8-5 of the Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. The available right-of-way in the northeast quadrant of both intersections is recommended to be reviewed to determine if the turn lanes can be installed without impacting existing property. A review of right-of-way conducted by the City showed that a right-turn lane at the Horsetooth Road / JFK Parkway would impact the ability to install bike lanes along Horsetooth Road, and therefore was not recommended to be installed. Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Page 31  Sight triangles and proper intersection sight distance are recommended to be provided at each access point in accordance with the 2004 AASHTO Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (Green Book). Sight triangles are defined as the areas in each corner of the intersection where obstructions (fences, vegetation, and signs) must be lower than 3.5 feet. The area is dependent on the classification of the two intersecting roads. Intersection sight distance is based on the speed of the major roadway, the driver’s eye height and the height of the obstruction. The sight distance is measured a minimum of fourteen feet back of the edge of the traveled way on the minor street to the center of the lane in question on the major street. F. College Avenue Access As stated previously, the site is planned to gain one additional right-in / right-out access point onto College Avenue north of Foothills Parkway. According to the SHAC requirements for an NR-B highway, one access shall be granted to a parcel upon application. A second access may be permitted if required auxiliary turn lanes can be installed, the access would relieve an area of congestion, and the parcel size / trip generation potential requires additional access to maintain highway traffic / land use design. Also, the additional access cannot interfere with adjacent development or the surrounding transportation network. The proposed right-in / right-out access north of Foothills Parkway would be classified as a secondary access. The following summarizes the advantages for allowing a second right-in / right-out access point.  A review of the design shows the required right-turn deceleration lane can be constructed to current SHAC standards, without impacting the adjacent street network or bordering development.  The proposed access point would draw westbound right-turning vehicles from both the Foothills Parkway / College Avenue and Swallow Road / College Avenue intersections. Although the intersections do not operate at capacity, redirecting volume to the proposed College Avenue access can reduce the delay of the two signalized westbound approaches by as much as 5%.  The proposed secondary access point would serve retail uses with higher pass-by trip making potential, such as a grocery store. Providing direct access to College Avenue would better serve the potential pass-by retail users in that area of the development, reducing the volume impact at adjacent intersections within the development.  The addition of a right-in / right-out access point would reduce the total out of direction travel for vehicles exiting the site with destinations to the north. Vehicles would be able to enter College Avenue directly without having to use Foothills Parkway to the south. The secondary right-in / right-out access point would save drivers approximately 45 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) during a typical day, or 16,425 VMT per year. Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Page 32 VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Walton Foothills Holdings VI, LLC is proposing to redevelop the existing Foothills Mall development north and east of the Monroe Drive / College Avenue (State Highway 287) intersection. The site is located north of Monroe Drive, east of College Avenue, west of Stanford Road and south of Swallow Road in Fort Collins, Colorado. The site is currently occupied by the existing mall complex, which contains approximately 750,000 square feet (SF) of retail uses. The proposed development is currently zoned CG (General Commercial District) per City of Fort Collins zoning standards. As part of the proposed project, the existing mall would be remodeled, while each of the out- parcel buildings would be demolished and replaced with new retail development. Multi-family apartments would also be added along the north and east boundaries of the property. Once complete, the overall site is planned to include a total of 689,800 square feet of retail development, a 1,764 seat multiplex movie theater and up to 800 apartments. The development would utilize the existing access scheme currently serving the mall complex. Full movement access points would be maintained on College Avenue, Monroe Drive, Swallow Road and Stanford Road. In addition, a new right-in/right-out access point is proposed north of Foothills Parkway on College Avenue. After applying the inter-connected and multi-modal trip reductions, the proposed development is expected to generate a total of approximately 27,540 vehicle-trips per weekday (vpd) including 2,506 vehicles per hour (vph) during the evening peak hour. On a weekend, the development is expected to generate 34,710 vpd with a peak period total of 3,263 vph. Not all of the vehicular trips produced by the site will be new trips. It was assumed that 20% of the traffic generated by the proposed site would be pass-by trips. When compared to the existing uses, the proposed redevelopment would generate slightly less traffic on both a weekday and weekend and peak hour traffic would also increase, but at a much lower rate than daily traffic, as compared to a thriving existing mall complex. The following is a summary of the transportation infrastructure recommendations related to the traffic impacts of the proposed development:  Construct right-turn auxiliary turn lanes along College Avenue and Horsetooth Road in accordance with recommendations in Section V.  Re-time traffic signals along Horsetooth Road to improve the weekday PM and Saturday peak period efficiency.  Install pedestrian improvements in accordance the proposed plan shown in Appendix E. Restripe existing pedestrian crosswalks at signalized intersections as necessary and install pedestrian countdown signal heads as necessary to improve pedestrian access to / from the west.  By year 2035, install dual left-turn lanes on each approach of the College Avenue / Horsetooth Road intersection. Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix A APPENDIX A EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS File Name : #1 REMINGTON&SWALLOW Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 REMINGTON Southbound SWALLOW Westbound REMINGTON Northbound SWALLOW Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 04:30 PM 14 5 11 3 10 77 5 0 8 1 11 0 15 68 5 2 235 04:45 PM 15 3 7 0 5 61 3 0 6 2 9 1 9 59 5 0 185 Total 29 8 18 3 15 138 8 0 14 3 20 1 24 127 10 2 420 05:00 PM 16 2 13 3 14 89 3 1 3 2 9 1 10 82 10 3 261 05:15 PM 15 4 6 1 7 87 3 2 4 3 11 0 11 66 5 0 225 Grand Total 60 14 37 7 36 314 14 3 21 8 40 2 45 275 25 5 906 Apprch % 50.8 11.9 31.4 5.9 9.8 85.6 3.8 0.8 29.6 11.3 56.3 2.8 12.9 78.6 7.1 1.4 Total % 6.6 1.5 4.1 0.8 4 34.7 1.5 0.3 2.3 0.9 4.4 0.2 5 30.4 2.8 0.6 REMINGTON SWALLOW SWALLOW REMINGTON Rght 60 Thru 14 Left 37 Other 7 Out In Total 69 118 187 Rght 36 Thru 314 Left 14 Other 3 Out In Total 333 367 700 Left 40 Thru 8 Rght 21 Other 2 Out In Total 73 71 144 Left 25 Thru 275 File Name : #1 REMINGTON&SWALLOW Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 2 REMINGTON Southbound SWALLOW Westbound REMINGTON Northbound SWALLOW Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 14 5 11 3 33 10 77 5 0 92 8 1 11 0 20 15 68 5 2 90 235 04:45 PM 15 3 7 0 25 5 61 3 0 69 6 2 9 1 18 9 59 5 0 73 185 05:00 PM 16 2 13 3 34 14 89 3 1 107 3 2 9 1 15 10 82 10 3 105 261 05:15 PM 15 4 6 1 26 7 87 3 2 99 4 3 11 0 18 11 66 5 0 82 225 Total Volume 60 14 37 7 118 36 314 14 3 367 21 8 40 2 71 45 275 25 5 350 906 % App. Total 50.8 11.9 31.4 5.9 9.8 85.6 3.8 0.8 29.6 11.3 56.3 2.8 12.9 78.6 7.1 1.4 PHF .938 .700 .712 .583 .868 .643 .882 .700 .375 .857 .656 .667 .909 .500 .888 .750 .838 .625 .417 .833 .868 REMINGTON SWALLOW SWALLOW REMINGTON Rght 60 Thru 14 Left 37 Other 7 Out In Total 69 118 187 Rght 36 Thru 314 Left 14 Other 3 Out In Total 333 367 700 Left 40 Thru 8 Rght 21 Other 2 Out In Total 73 71 144 Left 25 Thru 275 File Name : #1 REMINGTON&SWALLOWSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 REMINGTON Southbound SWALLOW Westbound REMINGTON Northbound SWALLOW Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 01:30 PM 6 3 7 0 8 62 6 0 6 3 5 0 10 48 3 0 167 01:45 PM 13 5 2 2 5 61 5 0 4 3 11 1 13 47 4 0 176 Total 19 8 9 2 13 123 11 0 10 6 16 1 23 95 7 0 343 02:00 PM 5 6 7 0 2 38 8 1 8 3 8 4 11 51 2 0 154 02:15 PM 12 4 3 0 4 51 2 0 8 5 8 1 15 75 4 2 194 Grand Total 36 18 19 2 19 212 21 1 26 14 32 6 49 221 13 2 691 Apprch % 48 24 25.3 2.7 7.5 83.8 8.3 0.4 33.3 17.9 41 7.7 17.2 77.5 4.6 0.7 Total % 5.2 2.6 2.7 0.3 2.7 30.7 3 0.1 3.8 2 4.6 0.9 7.1 32 1.9 0.3 REMINGTON SWALLOW SWALLOW REMINGTON Rght 36 Thru 18 Left 19 Other 2 Out In Total 46 75 121 Rght 19 Thru 212 Left 21 Other 1 Out In Total 266 253 519 Left 32 Thru 14 Rght 26 Other 6 Out In Total 88 78 166 Left 13 Thru 221 File Name : #1 REMINGTON&SWALLOWSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 2 REMINGTON Southbound SWALLOW Westbound REMINGTON Northbound SWALLOW Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 01:30 PM to 02:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:30 PM 01:30 PM 6 3 7 0 16 8 62 6 0 76 6 3 5 0 14 10 48 3 0 61 167 01:45 PM 13 5 2 2 22 5 61 5 0 71 4 3 11 1 19 13 47 4 0 64 176 02:00 PM 5 6 7 0 18 2 38 8 1 49 8 3 8 4 23 11 51 2 0 64 154 02:15 PM 12 4 3 0 19 4 51 2 0 57 8 5 8 1 22 15 75 4 2 96 194 Total Volume 36 18 19 2 75 19 212 21 1 253 26 14 32 6 78 49 221 13 2 285 691 % App. Total 48 24 25.3 2.7 7.5 83.8 8.3 0.4 33.3 17.9 41 7.7 17.2 77.5 4.6 0.7 PHF .692 .750 .679 .250 .852 .594 .855 .656 .250 .832 .813 .700 .727 .375 .848 .817 .737 .813 .250 .742 .890 REMINGTON SWALLOW SWALLOW REMINGTON Rght 36 Thru 18 Left 19 Other 2 Out In Total 46 75 121 Rght 19 Thru 212 Left 21 Other 1 Out In Total 266 253 519 Left 32 Thru 14 Rght 26 Other 6 Out In Total 88 78 166 Left 13 Thru 221 File Name : #2 COLLEGE&SWALLOWSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 COLLEGE Southbound SWALLOW Westbound COLLEGE Northbound SWALLOW Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 01:30 PM 22 0 22 1 31 22 17 0 8 0 18 0 25 31 16 2 215 01:45 PM 18 0 25 2 35 33 21 0 12 0 16 3 19 31 13 0 228 Total 40 0 47 3 66 55 38 0 20 0 34 3 44 62 29 2 443 02:00 PM 10 0 16 1 27 13 12 3 28 0 17 0 23 20 19 0 189 02:15 PM 11 0 25 4 27 19 29 3 31 0 20 2 20 36 13 2 242 Grand Total 61 0 88 8 120 87 79 6 79 0 71 5 87 118 61 4 874 Apprch % 38.9 0 56.1 5.1 41.1 29.8 27.1 2.1 51 0 45.8 3.2 32.2 43.7 22.6 1.5 Total % 7 0 10.1 0.9 13.7 10 9 0.7 9 0 8.1 0.6 10 13.5 7 0.5 COLLEGE SWALLOW SWALLOW COLLEGE Rght 61 Thru 0 Left 88 Other 8 Out In Total 181 157 338 Rght 120 Thru 87 Left 79 Other 6 Out In Total 285 292 577 Left 71 Thru 0 Rght 79 Other 5 Out In Total 166 155 321 Left 61 Thru 118 File Name : #2 COLLEGE&SWALLOWSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 2 COLLEGE Southbound SWALLOW Westbound COLLEGE Northbound SWALLOW Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 01:30 PM to 02:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:30 PM 01:30 PM 22 0 22 1 45 31 22 17 0 70 8 0 18 0 26 25 31 16 2 74 215 01:45 PM 18 0 25 2 45 35 33 21 0 89 12 0 16 3 31 19 31 13 0 63 228 02:00 PM 10 0 16 1 27 27 13 12 3 55 28 0 17 0 45 23 20 19 0 62 189 02:15 PM 11 0 25 4 40 27 19 29 3 78 31 0 20 2 53 20 36 13 2 71 242 Total Volume 61 0 88 8 157 120 87 79 6 292 79 0 71 5 155 87 118 61 4 270 874 % App. Total 38.9 0 56.1 5.1 41.1 29.8 27.1 2.1 51 0 45.8 3.2 32.2 43.7 22.6 1.5 PHF .693 .000 .880 .500 .872 .857 .659 .681 .500 .820 .637 .000 .888 .417 .731 .870 .819 .803 .500 .912 .903 COLLEGE SWALLOW SWALLOW COLLEGE Rght 61 Thru 0 Left 88 Other 8 Out In Total 181 157 338 Rght 120 Thru 87 Left 79 Other 6 Out In Total 285 292 577 Left 71 Thru 0 Rght 79 Other 5 Out In Total 166 155 321 Left 61 Thru 118 File Name : #3 MATTHEWS&SWALLOW Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 MATTHEWS Southbound SWALLOW Westbound MATTHEWS Northbound SWALLOW Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 04:30 PM 0 0 0 3 0 78 4 0 13 0 10 0 6 81 1 0 196 04:45 PM 1 0 0 0 0 62 3 1 15 0 7 1 9 65 0 0 164 Total 1 0 0 3 0 140 7 1 28 0 17 1 15 146 1 0 360 05:00 PM 0 0 0 1 0 97 3 0 14 0 12 1 13 83 1 0 225 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 84 5 0 14 0 8 0 7 70 0 0 189 Grand Total 1 0 0 4 1 321 15 1 56 0 37 2 35 299 2 0 774 Apprch % 20 0 0 80 0.3 95 4.4 0.3 58.9 0 38.9 2.1 10.4 89 0.6 0 Total % 0.1 0 0 0.5 0.1 41.5 1.9 0.1 7.2 0 4.8 0.3 4.5 38.6 0.3 0 MATTHEWS SWALLOW SWALLOW MATTHEWS Rght 1 Thru 0 Left 0 Other 4 Out In Total 3 5 8 Rght 1 Thru 321 Left 15 Other 1 Out In Total 355 338 693 Left 37 Thru 0 Rght 56 Other 2 Out In Total 50 95 145 Left 2 Thru 299 File Name : #3 MATTHEWS&SWALLOW Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 2 MATTHEWS Southbound SWALLOW Westbound MATTHEWS Northbound SWALLOW Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 0 0 0 3 3 0 78 4 0 82 13 0 10 0 23 6 81 1 0 88 196 04:45 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 62 3 1 66 15 0 7 1 23 9 65 0 0 74 164 05:00 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 97 3 0 100 14 0 12 1 27 13 83 1 0 97 225 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 84 5 0 90 14 0 8 0 22 7 70 0 0 77 189 Total Volume 1 0 0 4 5 1 321 15 1 338 56 0 37 2 95 35 299 2 0 336 774 % App. Total 20 0 0 80 0.3 95 4.4 0.3 58.9 0 38.9 2.1 10.4 89 0.6 0 PHF .250 .000 .000 .333 .417 .250 .827 .750 .250 .845 .933 .000 .771 .500 .880 .673 .901 .500 .000 .866 .860 MATTHEWS SWALLOW SWALLOW MATTHEWS Rght 1 Thru 0 Left 0 Other 4 Out In Total 3 5 8 Rght 1 Thru 321 Left 15 Other 1 Out In Total 355 338 693 Left 37 Thru 0 Rght 56 Other 2 Out In Total 50 95 145 Left 2 Thru 299 File Name : #3 MATTHEWS&SWALLOWSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 MATTHEWS Southbound SWALLOW Westbound MATTHEWS Northbound SWALLOW Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 01:30 PM 0 0 0 1 0 63 8 0 14 0 15 0 11 51 0 0 163 01:45 PM 1 0 0 0 1 50 6 0 14 0 20 1 10 44 1 0 148 Total 1 0 0 1 1 113 14 0 28 0 35 1 21 95 1 0 311 02:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 42 1 0 17 0 10 1 11 55 1 0 138 02:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 49 6 0 17 0 6 2 3 79 2 0 164 Grand Total 1 0 0 1 1 204 21 0 62 0 51 4 35 229 4 0 613 Apprch % 50 0 0 50 0.4 90.3 9.3 0 53 0 43.6 3.4 13.1 85.4 1.5 0 Total % 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.2 33.3 3.4 0 10.1 0 8.3 0.7 5.7 37.4 0.7 0 MATTHEWS SWALLOW SWALLOW MATTHEWS Rght 1 Thru 0 Left 0 Other 1 Out In Total 5 2 7 Rght 1 Thru 204 Left 21 Other 0 Out In Total 291 226 517 Left 51 Thru 0 Rght 62 Other 4 Out In Total 56 117 173 Left 4 Thru 229 File Name : #3 MATTHEWS&SWALLOWSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 2 MATTHEWS Southbound SWALLOW Westbound MATTHEWS Northbound SWALLOW Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 01:30 PM to 02:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:30 PM 01:30 PM 0 0 0 1 1 0 63 8 0 71 14 0 15 0 29 11 51 0 0 62 163 01:45 PM 1 0 0 0 1 1 50 6 0 57 14 0 20 1 35 10 44 1 0 55 148 02:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 1 0 43 17 0 10 1 28 11 55 1 0 67 138 02:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 6 0 55 17 0 6 2 25 3 79 2 0 84 164 Total Volume 1 0 0 1 2 1 204 21 0 226 62 0 51 4 117 35 229 4 0 268 613 % App. Total 50 0 0 50 0.4 90.3 9.3 0 53 0 43.6 3.4 13.1 85.4 1.5 0 PHF .250 .000 .000 .250 .500 .250 .810 .656 .000 .796 .912 .000 .638 .500 .836 .795 .725 .500 .000 .798 .934 MATTHEWS SWALLOW SWALLOW MATTHEWS Rght 1 Thru 0 Left 0 Other 1 Out In Total 5 2 7 Rght 1 Thru 204 Left 21 Other 0 Out In Total 291 226 517 Left 51 Thru 0 Rght 62 Other 4 Out In Total 56 117 173 Left 4 Thru 229 File Name : #4 STANFORD&SWALLOW Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 STANFORD Southbound SWALLOW Westbound STANFORD Northbound SWALLOW Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 04:30 PM 1 3 0 1 1 72 20 0 23 11 15 0 7 71 0 0 225 04:45 PM 1 3 2 2 2 55 22 0 27 2 12 0 14 79 0 0 221 Total 2 6 2 3 3 127 42 0 50 13 27 0 21 150 0 0 446 05:00 PM 0 3 1 0 0 86 24 0 28 2 16 0 19 73 1 1 254 05:15 PM 1 1 1 0 0 70 21 1 26 4 18 0 19 73 0 1 236 Grand Total 3 10 4 3 3 283 87 1 104 19 61 0 59 296 1 2 936 Apprch % 15 50 20 15 0.8 75.7 23.3 0.3 56.5 10.3 33.2 0 16.5 82.7 0.3 0.6 Total % 0.3 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 30.2 9.3 0.1 11.1 2 6.5 0 6.3 31.6 0.1 0.2 STANFORD SWALLOW SWALLOW STANFORD Rght 3 Thru 10 Left 4 Other 3 Out In Total 23 20 43 Rght 3 Thru 283 Left 87 Other 1 Out In Total 404 374 778 Left 61 Thru 19 Rght 104 Other 0 Out In Total 156 184 340 Left 1 Thru 296 File Name : #4 STANFORD&SWALLOW Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 2 STANFORD Southbound SWALLOW Westbound STANFORD Northbound SWALLOW Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 1 3 0 1 5 1 72 20 0 93 23 11 15 0 49 7 71 0 0 78 225 04:45 PM 1 3 2 2 8 2 55 22 0 79 27 2 12 0 41 14 79 0 0 93 221 05:00 PM 0 3 1 0 4 0 86 24 0 110 28 2 16 0 46 19 73 1 1 94 254 05:15 PM 1 1 1 0 3 0 70 21 1 92 26 4 18 0 48 19 73 0 1 93 236 Total Volume 3 10 4 3 20 3 283 87 1 374 104 19 61 0 184 59 296 1 2 358 936 % App. Total 15 50 20 15 0.8 75.7 23.3 0.3 56.5 10.3 33.2 0 16.5 82.7 0.3 0.6 PHF .750 .833 .500 .375 .625 .375 .823 .906 .250 .850 .929 .432 .847 .000 .939 .776 .937 .250 .500 .952 .921 STANFORD SWALLOW SWALLOW STANFORD Rght 3 Thru 10 Left 4 Other 3 Out In Total 23 20 43 Rght 3 Thru 283 Left 87 Other 1 Out In Total 404 374 778 Left 61 Thru 19 Rght 104 Other 0 Out In Total 156 184 340 Left 1 Thru 296 File Name : #4 STANFORD&SWALLOWSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 STANFORD Southbound SWALLOW Westbound STANFORD Northbound SWALLOW Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 01:30 PM 2 2 3 2 2 56 15 0 22 1 14 2 8 56 2 0 187 01:45 PM 3 1 1 0 2 34 20 1 13 3 14 1 14 40 3 0 150 Total 5 3 4 2 4 90 35 1 35 4 28 3 22 96 5 0 337 02:00 PM 2 3 0 2 1 27 16 0 19 4 9 0 12 59 2 0 156 02:15 PM 2 1 2 0 3 38 17 0 21 2 15 2 8 81 1 0 193 Grand Total 9 7 6 4 8 155 68 1 75 10 52 5 42 236 8 0 686 Apprch % 34.6 26.9 23.1 15.4 3.4 66.8 29.3 0.4 52.8 7 36.6 3.5 14.7 82.5 2.8 0 Total % 1.3 1 0.9 0.6 1.2 22.6 9.9 0.1 10.9 1.5 7.6 0.7 6.1 34.4 1.2 0 STANFORD SWALLOW SWALLOW STANFORD Rght 9 Thru 7 Left 6 Other 4 Out In Total 26 26 52 Rght 8 Thru 155 Left 68 Other 1 Out In Total 317 232 549 Left 52 Thru 10 Rght 75 Other 5 Out In Total 117 142 259 Left 8 Thru 236 File Name : #4 STANFORD&SWALLOWSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 2 STANFORD Southbound SWALLOW Westbound STANFORD Northbound SWALLOW Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 01:30 PM to 02:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:30 PM 01:30 PM 2 2 3 2 9 2 56 15 0 73 22 1 14 2 39 8 56 2 0 66 187 01:45 PM 3 1 1 0 5 2 34 20 1 57 13 3 14 1 31 14 40 3 0 57 150 02:00 PM 2 3 0 2 7 1 27 16 0 44 19 4 9 0 32 12 59 2 0 73 156 02:15 PM 2 1 2 0 5 3 38 17 0 58 21 2 15 2 40 8 81 1 0 90 193 Total Volume 9 7 6 4 26 8 155 68 1 232 75 10 52 5 142 42 236 8 0 286 686 % App. Total 34.6 26.9 23.1 15.4 3.4 66.8 29.3 0.4 52.8 7 36.6 3.5 14.7 82.5 2.8 0 PHF .750 .583 .500 .500 .722 .667 .692 .850 .250 .795 .852 .625 .867 .625 .888 .750 .728 .667 .000 .794 .889 STANFORD SWALLOW SWALLOW STANFORD Rght 9 Thru 7 Left 6 Other 4 Out In Total 26 26 52 Rght 8 Thru 155 Left 68 Other 1 Out In Total 317 232 549 Left 52 Thru 10 Rght 75 Other 5 Out In Total 117 142 259 Left 8 Thru 236 File Name : #5 COLLEGE&FOOTHILLSSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 COLLEGE Southbound FOOTHILLS PKWY Westbound COLLEGE Northbound FOOTHILLS PKWY Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 01:30 PM 8 441 45 0 41 5 43 0 46 409 11 1 9 7 4 0 1070 01:45 PM 9 398 60 0 31 4 40 1 32 425 8 2 8 7 11 0 1036 Total 17 839 105 0 72 9 83 1 78 834 19 3 17 14 15 0 2106 02:00 PM 7 435 42 0 49 5 48 5 51 397 6 5 7 1 2 2 1062 02:15 PM 7 371 46 0 34 1 49 0 53 413 9 0 8 3 6 0 1000 Grand Total 31 1645 193 0 155 15 180 6 182 1644 34 8 32 18 23 2 4168 Apprch % 1.7 88 10.3 0 43.5 4.2 50.6 1.7 9.7 88 1.8 0.4 42.7 24 30.7 2.7 Total % 0.7 39.5 4.6 0 3.7 0.4 4.3 0.1 4.4 39.4 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.6 0 COLLEGE FOOTHILLS PKWY FOOTHILLS PKWY COLLEGE Rght 31 Thru 1645 Left 193 Other 0 Out In Total 1822 1869 3691 Rght 155 Thru 15 Left 180 Other 6 Out In Total 393 356 749 Left 34 Thru 1644 Rght 182 Other 8 Out In Total 1857 1868 3725 Left 23 Thru 18 File Name : #5 COLLEGE&FOOTHILLSSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 2 COLLEGE Southbound FOOTHILLS PKWY Westbound COLLEGE Northbound FOOTHILLS PKWY Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 01:30 PM to 02:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:30 PM 01:30 PM 8 441 45 0 494 41 5 43 0 89 46 409 11 1 467 9 7 4 0 20 1070 01:45 PM 9 398 60 0 467 31 4 40 1 76 32 425 8 2 467 8 7 11 0 26 1036 02:00 PM 7 435 42 0 484 49 5 48 5 107 51 397 6 5 459 7 1 2 2 12 1062 02:15 PM 7 371 46 0 424 34 1 49 0 84 53 413 9 0 475 8 3 6 0 17 1000 Total Volume 31 1645 193 0 1869 155 15 180 6 356 182 1644 34 8 1868 32 18 23 2 75 4168 % App. Total 1.7 88 10.3 0 43.5 4.2 50.6 1.7 9.7 88 1.8 0.4 42.7 24 30.7 2.7 PHF .861 .933 .804 .000 .946 .791 .750 .918 .300 .832 .858 .967 .773 .400 .983 .889 .643 .523 .250 .721 .974 COLLEGE FOOTHILLS PKWY FOOTHILLS PKWY COLLEGE Rght 31 Thru 1645 Left 193 Other 0 Out In Total 1822 1869 3691 Rght 155 Thru 15 Left 180 Other 6 Out In Total 393 356 749 Left 34 Thru 1644 Rght 182 Other 8 Out In Total 1857 1868 3725 Left 23 Thru 18 File Name : #6 MALLSIGNAL&FOOTHILLSSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 MALL SIGNAL Southbound FOOTHILLS PKWY Westbound MALL SIGNAL Northbound FOOTHILLS PKWY Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 01:30 PM 15 12 6 0 6 17 5 5 10 4 44 2 37 20 40 0 223 01:45 PM 15 9 7 3 4 13 6 5 4 2 33 0 41 22 38 2 204 Total 30 21 13 3 10 30 11 10 14 6 77 2 78 42 78 2 427 02:00 PM 26 8 4 0 0 10 6 16 7 3 40 2 39 18 39 0 218 02:15 PM 22 11 4 1 4 16 4 6 6 2 35 0 35 24 46 1 217 Grand Total 78 40 21 4 14 56 21 32 27 11 152 4 152 84 163 3 862 Apprch % 54.5 28 14.7 2.8 11.4 45.5 17.1 26 13.9 5.7 78.4 2.1 37.8 20.9 40.5 0.7 Total % 9 4.6 2.4 0.5 1.6 6.5 2.4 3.7 3.1 1.3 17.6 0.5 17.6 9.7 18.9 0.3 MALL SIGNAL FOOTHILLS PKWY FOOTHILLS PKWY MALL SIGNAL Rght 78 Thru 40 Left 21 Other 4 Out In Total 188 143 331 Rght 14 Thru 56 Left 21 Other 32 Out In Total 132 123 255 Left 152 Thru 11 Rght 27 Other 4 Out In Total 213 194 407 Left 163 Thru 84 File Name : #6 MALLSIGNAL&FOOTHILLSSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 2 MALL SIGNAL Southbound FOOTHILLS PKWY Westbound MALL SIGNAL Northbound FOOTHILLS PKWY Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 01:30 PM to 02:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:30 PM 01:30 PM 15 12 6 0 33 6 17 5 5 33 10 4 44 2 60 37 20 40 0 97 223 01:45 PM 15 9 7 3 34 4 13 6 5 28 4 2 33 0 39 41 22 38 2 103 204 02:00 PM 26 8 4 0 38 0 10 6 16 32 7 3 40 2 52 39 18 39 0 96 218 02:15 PM 22 11 4 1 38 4 16 4 6 30 6 2 35 0 43 35 24 46 1 106 217 Total Volume 78 40 21 4 143 14 56 21 32 123 27 11 152 4 194 152 84 163 3 402 862 % App. Total 54.5 28 14.7 2.8 11.4 45.5 17.1 26 13.9 5.7 78.4 2.1 37.8 20.9 40.5 0.7 PHF .750 .833 .750 .333 .941 .583 .824 .875 .500 .932 .675 .688 .864 .500 .808 .927 .875 .886 .375 .948 .966 MALL SIGNAL FOOTHILLS PKWY FOOTHILLS PKWY MALL SIGNAL Rght 78 Thru 40 Left 21 Other 4 Out In Total 188 143 331 Rght 14 Thru 56 Left 21 Other 32 Out In Total 132 123 255 Left 152 Thru 11 Rght 27 Other 4 Out In Total 213 194 407 Left 163 Thru 84 File Name : #7 COLLEGE&RIGHTINOUT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 COLLEGE Southbound RIGHT IN/OUT Westbound COLLEGE Northbound RIGHT IN/OUT Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 04:30 PM 0 504 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 405 0 0 0 0 0 0 914 04:45 PM 0 542 0 0 10 0 0 0 8 406 0 0 0 0 0 0 966 Total 0 1046 0 0 13 0 0 0 10 811 0 0 0 0 0 0 1880 05:00 PM 0 530 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 437 0 0 0 0 0 0 977 05:15 PM 0 495 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 424 0 0 0 0 0 0 925 Grand Total 0 2071 0 0 20 0 0 0 19 1672 0 0 0 0 0 0 3782 Apprch % 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 0 1.1 98.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total % 0 54.8 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0.5 44.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 COLLEGE RIGHT IN/OUT RIGHT IN/OUT COLLEGE Rght 0 Thru 2071 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 1692 2071 3763 Rght 20 Thru 0 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 19 20 39 Left 0 Thru 1672 Rght 19 Other 0 Out In Total 2071 1691 3762 Left 0 Thru 0 File Name : #7 COLLEGE&RIGHTINOUT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 2 COLLEGE Southbound RIGHT IN/OUT Westbound COLLEGE Northbound RIGHT IN/OUT Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 0 504 0 0 504 3 0 0 0 3 2 405 0 0 407 0 0 0 0 0 914 04:45 PM 0 542 0 0 542 10 0 0 0 10 8 406 0 0 414 0 0 0 0 0 966 05:00 PM 0 530 0 0 530 4 0 0 0 4 6 437 0 0 443 0 0 0 0 0 977 05:15 PM 0 495 0 0 495 3 0 0 0 3 3 424 0 0 427 0 0 0 0 0 925 Total Volume 0 2071 0 0 2071 20 0 0 0 20 19 1672 0 0 1691 0 0 0 0 0 3782 % App. Total 0 100 0 0 100 0 0 0 1.1 98.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .955 .000 .000 .955 .500 .000 .000 .000 .500 .594 .957 .000 .000 .954 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .968 COLLEGE RIGHT IN/OUT RIGHT IN/OUT COLLEGE Rght 0 Thru 2071 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 1692 2071 3763 Rght 20 Thru 0 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 19 20 39 Left 0 Thru 1672 Rght 19 Other 0 Out In Total 2071 1691 3762 Left 0 Thru 0 File Name : #7 COLLEGE&RIGHTINOUTSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 COLLEGE Southbound RIGHT IN/OUT Westbound COLLEGE Northbound RIGHT IN/OUT Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 01:30 PM 0 450 0 0 11 0 0 0 9 472 0 0 0 0 0 0 942 01:45 PM 0 469 0 0 15 0 0 3 5 469 0 0 0 0 0 0 961 Total 0 919 0 0 26 0 0 3 14 941 0 0 0 0 0 0 1903 02:00 PM 0 445 0 0 6 0 0 0 7 459 0 0 0 0 0 0 917 02:15 PM 0 446 0 0 9 0 0 1 3 471 0 0 0 0 0 0 930 Grand Total 0 1810 0 0 41 0 0 4 24 1871 0 0 0 0 0 0 3750 Apprch % 0 100 0 0 91.1 0 0 8.9 1.3 98.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total % 0 48.3 0 0 1.1 0 0 0.1 0.6 49.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 COLLEGE RIGHT IN/OUT RIGHT IN/OUT COLLEGE Rght 0 Thru 1810 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 1912 1810 3722 Rght 41 Thru 0 Left 0 Other 4 Out In Total 24 45 69 Left 0 Thru 1871 Rght 24 Other 0 Out In Total 1810 1895 3705 Left 0 Thru 0 File Name : #7 COLLEGE&RIGHTINOUTSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 2 COLLEGE Southbound RIGHT IN/OUT Westbound COLLEGE Northbound RIGHT IN/OUT Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 01:30 PM to 02:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:30 PM 01:30 PM 0 450 0 0 450 11 0 0 0 11 9 472 0 0 481 0 0 0 0 0 942 01:45 PM 0 469 0 0 469 15 0 0 3 18 5 469 0 0 474 0 0 0 0 0 961 02:00 PM 0 445 0 0 445 6 0 0 0 6 7 459 0 0 466 0 0 0 0 0 917 02:15 PM 0 446 0 0 446 9 0 0 1 10 3 471 0 0 474 0 0 0 0 0 930 Total Volume 0 1810 0 0 1810 41 0 0 4 45 24 1871 0 0 1895 0 0 0 0 0 3750 % App. Total 0 100 0 0 91.1 0 0 8.9 1.3 98.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .965 .000 .000 .965 .683 .000 .000 .333 .625 .667 .991 .000 .000 .985 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .976 COLLEGE RIGHT IN/OUT RIGHT IN/OUT COLLEGE Rght 0 Thru 1810 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 1912 1810 3722 Rght 41 Thru 0 Left 0 Other 4 Out In Total 24 45 69 Left 0 Thru 1871 Rght 24 Other 0 Out In Total 1810 1895 3705 Left 0 Thru 0 File Name : #8 COLLEGE&MONROESAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 COLLEGE Southbound MONROE DR Westbound COLLEGE Northbound MONROE DR Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 01:30 PM 10 439 23 0 36 5 27 0 24 414 7 0 22 8 11 0 1026 01:45 PM 15 415 22 0 33 4 20 2 23 426 10 2 18 9 16 0 1015 Total 25 854 45 0 69 9 47 2 47 840 17 2 40 17 27 0 2041 02:00 PM 9 442 23 0 23 3 25 1 19 414 13 2 17 6 18 0 1015 02:15 PM 6 416 16 1 28 6 24 0 15 438 9 2 13 5 18 2 999 Grand Total 40 1712 84 1 120 18 96 3 81 1692 39 6 70 28 63 2 4055 Apprch % 2.2 93.2 4.6 0.1 50.6 7.6 40.5 1.3 4.5 93.1 2.1 0.3 42.9 17.2 38.7 1.2 Total % 1 42.2 2.1 0 3 0.4 2.4 0.1 2 41.7 1 0.1 1.7 0.7 1.6 0 COLLEGE MONROE DR MONROE DR COLLEGE Rght 40 Thru 1712 Left 84 Other 1 Out In Total 1875 1837 3712 Rght 120 Thru 18 Left 96 Other 3 Out In Total 193 237 430 Left 39 Thru 1692 Rght 81 Other 6 Out In Total 1878 1818 3696 Left 63 Thru 28 File Name : #8 COLLEGE&MONROESAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 2 COLLEGE Southbound MONROE DR Westbound COLLEGE Northbound MONROE DR Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 01:30 PM to 02:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:30 PM 01:30 PM 10 439 23 0 472 36 5 27 0 68 24 414 7 0 445 22 8 11 0 41 1026 01:45 PM 15 415 22 0 452 33 4 20 2 59 23 426 10 2 461 18 9 16 0 43 1015 02:00 PM 9 442 23 0 474 23 3 25 1 52 19 414 13 2 448 17 6 18 0 41 1015 02:15 PM 6 416 16 1 439 28 6 24 0 58 15 438 9 2 464 13 5 18 2 38 999 Total Volume 40 1712 84 1 1837 120 18 96 3 237 81 1692 39 6 1818 70 28 63 2 163 4055 % App. Total 2.2 93.2 4.6 0.1 50.6 7.6 40.5 1.3 4.5 93.1 2.1 0.3 42.9 17.2 38.7 1.2 PHF .667 .968 .913 .250 .969 .833 .750 .889 .375 .871 .844 .966 .750 .750 .980 .795 .778 .875 .250 .948 .988 COLLEGE MONROE DR MONROE DR COLLEGE Rght 40 Thru 1712 Left 84 Other 1 Out In Total 1875 1837 3712 Rght 120 Thru 18 Left 96 Other 3 Out In Total 193 237 430 Left 39 Thru 1692 Rght 81 Other 6 Out In Total 1878 1818 3696 Left 63 Thru 28 File Name : #9 COLLEGE&HORSETOOTHSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 COLLEGE Southbound HORSETOOTH Westbound COLLEGE Northbound HORSETOOTH Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 01:30 PM 33 374 56 0 34 92 62 2 31 340 54 0 36 166 56 0 1336 01:45 PM 44 412 32 4 24 115 50 1 39 369 59 6 32 128 62 0 1377 Total 77 786 88 4 58 207 112 3 70 709 113 6 68 294 118 0 2713 02:00 PM 37 344 42 0 38 132 60 3 28 336 53 5 37 133 58 0 1306 02:15 PM 45 390 44 2 30 101 45 5 32 380 58 3 36 142 53 1 1367 Grand Total 159 1520 174 6 126 440 217 11 130 1425 224 14 141 569 229 1 5386 Apprch % 8.6 81.8 9.4 0.3 15.9 55.4 27.3 1.4 7.3 79.5 12.5 0.8 15 60.5 24.4 0.1 Total % 3 28.2 3.2 0.1 2.3 8.2 4 0.2 2.4 26.5 4.2 0.3 2.6 10.6 4.3 0 COLLEGE HORSETOOTH HORSETOOTH COLLEGE Rght 159 Thru 1520 Left 174 Other 6 Out In Total 1780 1859 3639 Rght 126 Thru 440 Left 217 Other 11 Out In Total 873 794 1667 Left 224 Thru 1425 Rght 130 Other 14 Out In Total 1878 1793 3671 Left 229 Thru 569 File Name : #9 COLLEGE&HORSETOOTHSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 2 COLLEGE Southbound HORSETOOTH Westbound COLLEGE Northbound HORSETOOTH Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 01:30 PM to 02:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:30 PM 01:30 PM 33 374 56 0 463 34 92 62 2 190 31 340 54 0 425 36 166 56 0 258 1336 01:45 PM 44 412 32 4 492 24 115 50 1 190 39 369 59 6 473 32 128 62 0 222 1377 02:00 PM 37 344 42 0 423 38 132 60 3 233 28 336 53 5 422 37 133 58 0 228 1306 02:15 PM 45 390 44 2 481 30 101 45 5 181 32 380 58 3 473 36 142 53 1 232 1367 Total Volume 159 1520 174 6 1859 126 440 217 11 794 130 1425 224 14 1793 141 569 229 1 940 5386 % App. Total 8.6 81.8 9.4 0.3 15.9 55.4 27.3 1.4 7.3 79.5 12.5 0.8 15 60.5 24.4 0.1 PHF .883 .922 .777 .375 .945 .829 .833 .875 .550 .852 .833 .938 .949 .583 .948 .953 .857 .923 .250 .911 .978 COLLEGE HORSETOOTH HORSETOOTH COLLEGE Rght 159 Thru 1520 Left 174 Other 6 Out In Total 1780 1859 3639 Rght 126 Thru 440 Left 217 Other 11 Out In Total 873 794 1667 Left 224 Thru 1425 Rght 130 Other 14 Out In Total 1878 1793 3671 Left 229 Thru 569 File Name : #10 JFK&HORSETOOTHSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 JFK PKWY Southbound HORSETOOTH Westbound JFK PKWY Northbound HORSETOOTH Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 01:30 PM 10 18 10 5 11 161 46 5 58 22 21 1 26 191 19 0 604 01:45 PM 13 24 14 1 16 156 55 0 63 21 21 0 25 164 33 0 606 Total 23 42 24 6 27 317 101 5 121 43 42 1 51 355 52 0 1210 02:00 PM 11 17 13 1 15 198 53 0 64 19 18 0 27 149 29 1 615 02:15 PM 11 23 14 0 8 152 53 0 56 23 22 0 28 151 32 0 573 Grand Total 45 82 51 7 50 667 207 5 241 85 82 1 106 655 113 1 2398 Apprch % 24.3 44.3 27.6 3.8 5.4 71.8 22.3 0.5 58.9 20.8 20 0.2 12.1 74.9 12.9 0.1 Total % 1.9 3.4 2.1 0.3 2.1 27.8 8.6 0.2 10.1 3.5 3.4 0 4.4 27.3 4.7 0 JFK PKWY HORSETOOTH HORSETOOTH JFK PKWY Rght 45 Thru 82 Left 51 Other 7 Out In Total 248 185 433 Rght 50 Thru 667 Left 207 Other 5 Out In Total 947 929 1876 Left 82 Thru 85 Rght 241 Other 1 Out In Total 395 409 804 Left 113 Thru 655 File Name : #10 JFK&HORSETOOTHSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 2 JFK PKWY Southbound HORSETOOTH Westbound JFK PKWY Northbound HORSETOOTH Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 01:30 PM to 02:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:30 PM 01:30 PM 10 18 10 5 43 11 161 46 5 223 58 22 21 1 102 26 191 19 0 236 604 01:45 PM 13 24 14 1 52 16 156 55 0 227 63 21 21 0 105 25 164 33 0 222 606 02:00 PM 11 17 13 1 42 15 198 53 0 266 64 19 18 0 101 27 149 29 1 206 615 02:15 PM 11 23 14 0 48 8 152 53 0 213 56 23 22 0 101 28 151 32 0 211 573 Total Volume 45 82 51 7 185 50 667 207 5 929 241 85 82 1 409 106 655 113 1 875 2398 % App. Total 24.3 44.3 27.6 3.8 5.4 71.8 22.3 0.5 58.9 20.8 20 0.2 12.1 74.9 12.9 0.1 PHF .865 .854 .911 .350 .889 .781 .842 .941 .250 .873 .941 .924 .932 .250 .974 .946 .857 .856 .250 .927 .975 JFK PKWY HORSETOOTH HORSETOOTH JFK PKWY Rght 45 Thru 82 Left 51 Other 7 Out In Total 248 185 433 Rght 50 Thru 667 Left 207 Other 5 Out In Total 947 929 1876 Left 82 Thru 85 Rght 241 Other 1 Out In Total 395 409 804 Left 113 Thru 655 File Name : #11 STANFORD&HORSETOOTHSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 STANFORD Southbound HORSETOOTH Westbound STANFORD Northbound HORSETOOTH Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 01:30 PM 23 13 14 0 19 187 18 0 16 3 2 0 4 243 11 0 553 01:45 PM 11 14 16 2 12 215 16 0 12 8 3 0 3 214 17 1 544 Total 34 27 30 2 31 402 34 0 28 11 5 0 7 457 28 1 1097 02:00 PM 21 7 19 0 11 234 12 0 17 6 2 2 4 208 17 0 560 02:15 PM 20 5 25 0 14 208 7 0 8 4 4 0 2 190 17 2 506 Grand Total 75 39 74 2 56 844 53 0 53 21 11 2 13 855 62 3 2163 Apprch % 39.5 20.5 38.9 1.1 5.9 88.6 5.6 0 60.9 24.1 12.6 2.3 1.4 91.6 6.6 0.3 Total % 3.5 1.8 3.4 0.1 2.6 39 2.5 0 2.5 1 0.5 0.1 0.6 39.5 2.9 0.1 STANFORD HORSETOOTH HORSETOOTH STANFORD Rght 75 Thru 39 Left 74 Other 2 Out In Total 139 190 329 Rght 56 Thru 844 Left 53 Other 0 Out In Total 982 953 1935 Left 11 Thru 21 Rght 53 Other 2 Out In Total 105 87 192 Left 62 Thru 855 File Name : #11 STANFORD&HORSETOOTHSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 2 STANFORD Southbound HORSETOOTH Westbound STANFORD Northbound HORSETOOTH Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 01:30 PM to 02:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:30 PM 01:30 PM 23 13 14 0 50 19 187 18 0 224 16 3 2 0 21 4 243 11 0 258 553 01:45 PM 11 14 16 2 43 12 215 16 0 243 12 8 3 0 23 3 214 17 1 235 544 02:00 PM 21 7 19 0 47 11 234 12 0 257 17 6 2 2 27 4 208 17 0 229 560 02:15 PM 20 5 25 0 50 14 208 7 0 229 8 4 4 0 16 2 190 17 2 211 506 Total Volume 75 39 74 2 190 56 844 53 0 953 53 21 11 2 87 13 855 62 3 933 2163 % App. Total 39.5 20.5 38.9 1.1 5.9 88.6 5.6 0 60.9 24.1 12.6 2.3 1.4 91.6 6.6 0.3 PHF .815 .696 .740 .250 .950 .737 .902 .736 .000 .927 .779 .656 .688 .250 .806 .813 .880 .912 .375 .904 .966 STANFORD HORSETOOTH HORSETOOTH STANFORD Rght 75 Thru 39 Left 74 Other 2 Out In Total 139 190 329 Rght 56 Thru 844 Left 53 Other 0 Out In Total 982 953 1935 Left 11 Thru 21 Rght 53 Other 2 Out In Total 105 87 192 Left 62 Thru 855 File Name : #12 STANFORD&MONROE Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 STANFORD Southbound MONROE Westbound STANFORD Northbound MONROE Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 04:30 PM 1 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 6 0 10 0 5 0 93 04:45 PM 2 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 8 0 8 0 2 0 87 Total 3 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 14 0 18 0 7 0 180 05:00 PM 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 5 0 11 0 5 0 95 05:15 PM 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 7 0 7 0 4 0 86 Grand Total 3 136 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 144 26 0 36 0 16 0 361 Apprch % 2.2 97.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84.7 15.3 0 69.2 0 30.8 0 Total % 0.8 37.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39.9 7.2 0 10 0 4.4 0 STANFORD MONROE MONROE STANFORD Rght 3 Thru 136 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 160 139 299 Rght 0 Thru 0 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 0 0 0 Left 26 Thru 144 Rght 0 Other 0 Out In Total 172 170 342 Left 16 Thru 0 File Name : #12 STANFORD&MONROE Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 2 STANFORD Southbound MONROE Westbound STANFORD Northbound MONROE Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 1 33 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 6 0 44 10 0 5 0 15 93 04:45 PM 2 35 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 8 0 40 8 0 2 0 10 87 05:00 PM 0 32 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 5 0 47 11 0 5 0 16 95 05:15 PM 0 36 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 7 0 39 7 0 4 0 11 86 Total Volume 3 136 0 0 139 0 0 0 0 0 0 144 26 0 170 36 0 16 0 52 361 % App. Total 2.2 97.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84.7 15.3 0 69.2 0 30.8 0 PHF .375 .944 .000 .000 .939 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .857 .813 .000 .904 .818 .000 .800 .000 .813 .950 STANFORD MONROE MONROE STANFORD Rght 3 Thru 136 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 160 139 299 Rght 0 Thru 0 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 0 0 0 Left 26 Thru 144 Rght 0 Other 0 Out In Total 172 170 342 Left 16 Thru 0 File Name : #12 STANFORD&MONROESAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 STANFORD Southbound MONROE Westbound STANFORD Northbound MONROE Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 01:30 PM 1 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 1 0 6 0 2 0 71 01:45 PM 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 3 0 5 0 4 0 66 Total 1 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 4 0 11 0 6 0 137 02:00 PM 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 3 0 10 0 3 0 82 02:15 PM 1 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 7 0 7 0 6 0 76 Grand Total 2 133 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 14 0 28 0 15 0 295 Apprch % 1.5 98.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 12 0 65.1 0 34.9 0 Total % 0.7 45.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34.9 4.7 0 9.5 0 5.1 0 STANFORD MONROE MONROE STANFORD Rght 2 Thru 133 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 118 135 253 Rght 0 Thru 0 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 0 0 0 Left 14 Thru 103 Rght 0 Other 0 Out In Total 161 117 278 Left 15 Thru 0 File Name : #12 STANFORD&MONROESAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 2 STANFORD Southbound MONROE Westbound STANFORD Northbound MONROE Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 01:30 PM to 02:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:30 PM 01:30 PM 1 34 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 1 0 28 6 0 2 0 8 71 01:45 PM 0 31 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 3 0 26 5 0 4 0 9 66 02:00 PM 0 36 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 3 0 33 10 0 3 0 13 82 02:15 PM 1 32 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 7 0 30 7 0 6 0 13 76 Total Volume 2 133 0 0 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 14 0 117 28 0 15 0 43 295 % App. Total 1.5 98.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 12 0 65.1 0 34.9 0 PHF .500 .924 .000 .000 .938 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .858 .500 .000 .886 .700 .000 .625 .000 .827 .899 STANFORD MONROE MONROE STANFORD Rght 2 Thru 133 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 118 135 253 Rght 0 Thru 0 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 0 0 0 Left 14 Thru 103 Rght 0 Other 0 Out In Total 161 117 278 Left 15 Thru 0 File Name : #13 ACCESSPOINT&MONROE Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 ACCESS POINT Southbound MONROE Westbound ACCESS POINT Northbound MONROE Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 04:30 PM 7 1 3 0 4 26 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 19 6 0 70 04:45 PM 5 0 0 0 1 29 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 21 9 0 69 Total 12 1 3 0 5 55 0 0 0 0 4 2 2 40 15 0 139 05:00 PM 10 0 0 1 5 28 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 29 9 0 84 05:15 PM 13 0 2 0 6 30 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 26 15 0 97 Grand Total 35 1 5 1 16 113 1 0 0 2 6 4 2 95 39 0 320 Apprch % 83.3 2.4 11.9 2.4 12.3 86.9 0.8 0 0 16.7 50 33.3 1.5 69.9 28.7 0 Total % 10.9 0.3 1.6 0.3 5 35.3 0.3 0 0 0.6 1.9 1.2 0.6 29.7 12.2 0 ACCESS POINT MONROE MONROE ACCESS POINT Rght 35 Thru 1 Left 5 Other 1 Out In Total 57 42 99 Rght 16 Thru 113 Left 1 Other 0 Out In Total 100 130 230 Left 6 Thru 2 Rght 0 Other 4 Out In Total 4 12 16 Left 39 Thru 95 File Name : #13 ACCESSPOINT&MONROE Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 2 ACCESS POINT Southbound MONROE Westbound ACCESS POINT Northbound MONROE Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 7 1 3 0 11 4 26 0 0 30 0 0 3 0 3 1 19 6 0 26 70 04:45 PM 5 0 0 0 5 1 29 0 0 30 0 0 1 2 3 1 21 9 0 31 69 05:00 PM 10 0 0 1 11 5 28 1 0 34 0 1 0 0 1 0 29 9 0 38 84 05:15 PM 13 0 2 0 15 6 30 0 0 36 0 1 2 2 5 0 26 15 0 41 97 Total Volume 35 1 5 1 42 16 113 1 0 130 0 2 6 4 12 2 95 39 0 136 320 % App. Total 83.3 2.4 11.9 2.4 12.3 86.9 0.8 0 0 16.7 50 33.3 1.5 69.9 28.7 0 PHF .673 .250 .417 .250 .700 .667 .942 .250 .000 .903 .000 .500 .500 .500 .600 .500 .819 .650 .000 .829 .825 ACCESS POINT MONROE MONROE ACCESS POINT Rght 35 Thru 1 Left 5 Other 1 Out In Total 57 42 99 Rght 16 Thru 113 Left 1 Other 0 Out In Total 100 130 230 Left 6 Thru 2 Rght 0 Other 4 Out In Total 4 12 16 Left 39 Thru 95 File Name : #13 ACCESSPOINT&MONROESAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 ACCESS POINT Southbound MONROE Westbound ACCESS POINT Northbound MONROE Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 01:30 PM 16 0 6 0 3 30 0 1 0 1 2 2 3 24 12 1 101 01:45 PM 20 3 0 0 0 26 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 33 17 0 105 Total 36 3 6 0 3 56 0 1 1 2 4 4 3 57 29 1 206 02:00 PM 22 0 4 0 1 23 1 2 0 0 1 2 3 19 10 0 88 02:15 PM 18 2 6 0 3 23 0 0 4 1 3 0 0 22 7 2 91 Grand Total 76 5 16 0 7 102 1 3 5 3 8 6 6 98 46 3 385 Apprch % 78.4 5.2 16.5 0 6.2 90.3 0.9 2.7 22.7 13.6 36.4 27.3 3.9 64.1 30.1 2 Total % 19.7 1.3 4.2 0 1.8 26.5 0.3 0.8 1.3 0.8 2.1 1.6 1.6 25.5 11.9 0.8 ACCESS POINT MONROE MONROE ACCESS POINT Rght 76 Thru 5 Left 16 Other 0 Out In Total 56 97 153 Rght 7 Thru 102 Left 1 Other 3 Out In Total 119 113 232 Left 8 Thru 3 Rght 5 Other 6 Out In Total 12 22 34 Left 46 Thru 98 File Name : #13 ACCESSPOINT&MONROESAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 2 ACCESS POINT Southbound MONROE Westbound ACCESS POINT Northbound MONROE Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 01:30 PM to 02:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:30 PM 01:30 PM 16 0 6 0 22 3 30 0 1 34 0 1 2 2 5 3 24 12 1 40 101 01:45 PM 20 3 0 0 23 0 26 0 0 26 1 1 2 2 6 0 33 17 0 50 105 02:00 PM 22 0 4 0 26 1 23 1 2 27 0 0 1 2 3 3 19 10 0 32 88 02:15 PM 18 2 6 0 26 3 23 0 0 26 4 1 3 0 8 0 22 7 2 31 91 Total Volume 76 5 16 0 97 7 102 1 3 113 5 3 8 6 22 6 98 46 3 153 385 % App. Total 78.4 5.2 16.5 0 6.2 90.3 0.9 2.7 22.7 13.6 36.4 27.3 3.9 64.1 30.1 2 PHF .864 .417 .667 .000 .933 .583 .850 .250 .375 .831 .313 .750 .667 .750 .688 .500 .742 .676 .375 .765 .917 ACCESS POINT MONROE MONROE ACCESS POINT Rght 76 Thru 5 Left 16 Other 0 Out In Total 56 97 153 Rght 7 Thru 102 Left 1 Other 3 Out In Total 119 113 232 Left 8 Thru 3 Rght 5 Other 6 Out In Total 12 22 34 Left 46 Thru 98 File Name : #14 ACCESSPOINT&MONROE Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 ACCESS POINT Southbound MONROE Westbound ACCESS POINT Northbound MONROE Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 04:30 PM 7 4 1 0 2 9 12 0 7 14 17 0 7 8 5 1 94 04:45 PM 4 8 3 0 5 14 9 4 4 27 14 4 10 10 5 0 121 Total 11 12 4 0 7 23 21 4 11 41 31 4 17 18 10 1 215 05:00 PM 9 11 1 0 1 12 15 2 5 19 14 0 6 14 5 2 116 05:15 PM 7 9 5 0 4 11 10 0 11 20 13 0 12 10 5 1 118 Grand Total 27 32 10 0 12 46 46 6 27 80 58 4 35 42 20 4 449 Apprch % 39.1 46.4 14.5 0 10.9 41.8 41.8 5.5 16 47.3 34.3 2.4 34.7 41.6 19.8 4 Total % 6 7.1 2.2 0 2.7 10.2 10.2 1.3 6 17.8 12.9 0.9 7.8 9.4 4.5 0.9 ACCESS POINT MONROE MONROE ACCESS POINT Rght 27 Thru 32 Left 10 Other 0 Out In Total 112 69 181 Rght 12 Thru 46 Left 46 Other 6 Out In Total 79 110 189 Left 58 Thru 80 Rght 27 Other 4 Out In Total 113 169 282 Left 20 Thru 42 File Name : #14 ACCESSPOINT&MONROE Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 2 ACCESS POINT Southbound MONROE Westbound ACCESS POINT Northbound MONROE Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 7 4 1 0 12 2 9 12 0 23 7 14 17 0 38 7 8 5 1 21 94 04:45 PM 4 8 3 0 15 5 14 9 4 32 4 27 14 4 49 10 10 5 0 25 121 05:00 PM 9 11 1 0 21 1 12 15 2 30 5 19 14 0 38 6 14 5 2 27 116 05:15 PM 7 9 5 0 21 4 11 10 0 25 11 20 13 0 44 12 10 5 1 28 118 Total Volume 27 32 10 0 69 12 46 46 6 110 27 80 58 4 169 35 42 20 4 101 449 % App. Total 39.1 46.4 14.5 0 10.9 41.8 41.8 5.5 16 47.3 34.3 2.4 34.7 41.6 19.8 4 PHF .750 .727 .500 .000 .821 .600 .821 .767 .375 .859 .614 .741 .853 .250 .862 .729 .750 1.00 .500 .902 .928 ACCESS POINT MONROE MONROE ACCESS POINT Rght 27 Thru 32 Left 10 Other 0 Out In Total 112 69 181 Rght 12 Thru 46 Left 46 Other 6 Out In Total 79 110 189 Left 58 Thru 80 Rght 27 Other 4 Out In Total 113 169 282 Left 20 Thru 42 File Name : #14 ACCESSPOINT&MONROESAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 ACCESS POINT Southbound MONROE Westbound ACCESS POINT Northbound MONROE Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 01:30 PM 10 9 1 0 2 10 5 1 2 22 9 0 7 15 10 0 103 01:45 PM 9 8 2 0 2 11 8 0 6 35 8 1 4 9 14 1 118 Total 19 17 3 0 4 21 13 1 8 57 17 1 11 24 24 1 221 02:00 PM 5 11 3 0 3 9 5 2 10 26 8 0 5 7 11 0 105 02:15 PM 4 12 2 2 3 15 6 1 9 26 7 1 9 8 14 0 119 Grand Total 28 40 8 2 10 45 24 4 27 109 32 2 25 39 49 1 445 Apprch % 35.9 51.3 10.3 2.6 12 54.2 28.9 4.8 15.9 64.1 18.8 1.2 21.9 34.2 43 0.9 Total % 6.3 9 1.8 0.4 2.2 10.1 5.4 0.9 6.1 24.5 7.2 0.4 5.6 8.8 11 0.2 ACCESS POINT MONROE MONROE ACCESS POINT Rght 28 Thru 40 Left 8 Other 2 Out In Total 168 78 246 Rght 10 Thru 45 Left 24 Other 4 Out In Total 74 83 157 Left 32 Thru 109 Rght 27 Other 2 Out In Total 89 170 259 Left 49 Thru 39 File Name : #14 ACCESSPOINT&MONROESAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 2 ACCESS POINT Southbound MONROE Westbound ACCESS POINT Northbound MONROE Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 01:30 PM to 02:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:30 PM 01:30 PM 10 9 1 0 20 2 10 5 1 18 2 22 9 0 33 7 15 10 0 32 103 01:45 PM 9 8 2 0 19 2 11 8 0 21 6 35 8 1 50 4 9 14 1 28 118 02:00 PM 5 11 3 0 19 3 9 5 2 19 10 26 8 0 44 5 7 11 0 23 105 02:15 PM 4 12 2 2 20 3 15 6 1 25 9 26 7 1 43 9 8 14 0 31 119 Total Volume 28 40 8 2 78 10 45 24 4 83 27 109 32 2 170 25 39 49 1 114 445 % App. Total 35.9 51.3 10.3 2.6 12 54.2 28.9 4.8 15.9 64.1 18.8 1.2 21.9 34.2 43 0.9 PHF .700 .833 .667 .250 .975 .833 .750 .750 .500 .830 .675 .779 .889 .500 .850 .694 .650 .875 .250 .891 .935 ACCESS POINT MONROE MONROE ACCESS POINT Rght 28 Thru 40 Left 8 Other 2 Out In Total 168 78 246 Rght 10 Thru 45 Left 24 Other 4 Out In Total 74 83 157 Left 32 Thru 109 Rght 27 Other 2 Out In Total 89 170 259 Left 49 Thru 39 File Name : #15 ACCESSPOINT&MONROE Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 ACCESS POINT Southbound MONROE Westbound ACCESS POINT Northbound MONROE Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 04:30 PM 1 0 4 0 0 17 0 0 4 0 3 0 1 13 4 2 49 04:45 PM 2 1 0 0 1 20 0 4 2 0 2 0 2 15 1 0 50 Total 3 1 4 0 1 37 0 4 6 0 5 0 3 28 5 2 99 05:00 PM 1 0 2 0 0 17 0 4 4 0 8 0 0 24 2 0 62 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 7 0 3 0 0 19 5 0 50 Grand Total 4 1 6 0 1 70 0 8 17 0 16 0 3 71 12 2 211 Apprch % 36.4 9.1 54.5 0 1.3 88.6 0 10.1 51.5 0 48.5 0 3.4 80.7 13.6 2.3 Total % 1.9 0.5 2.8 0 0.5 33.2 0 3.8 8.1 0 7.6 0 1.4 33.6 5.7 0.9 ACCESS POINT MONROE MONROE ACCESS POINT Rght 4 Thru 1 Left 6 Other 0 Out In Total 13 11 24 Rght 1 Thru 70 Left 0 Other 8 Out In Total 94 79 173 Left 16 Thru 0 Rght 17 Other 0 Out In Total 4 33 37 Left 12 Thru 71 File Name : #15 ACCESSPOINT&MONROE Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 2 ACCESS POINT Southbound MONROE Westbound ACCESS POINT Northbound MONROE Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 1 0 4 0 5 0 17 0 0 17 4 0 3 0 7 1 13 4 2 20 49 04:45 PM 2 1 0 0 3 1 20 0 4 25 2 0 2 0 4 2 15 1 0 18 50 05:00 PM 1 0 2 0 3 0 17 0 4 21 4 0 8 0 12 0 24 2 0 26 62 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 16 7 0 3 0 10 0 19 5 0 24 50 Total Volume 4 1 6 0 11 1 70 0 8 79 17 0 16 0 33 3 71 12 2 88 211 % App. Total 36.4 9.1 54.5 0 1.3 88.6 0 10.1 51.5 0 48.5 0 3.4 80.7 13.6 2.3 PHF .500 .250 .375 .000 .550 .250 .875 .000 .500 .790 .607 .000 .500 .000 .688 .375 .740 .600 .250 .846 .851 ACCESS POINT MONROE MONROE ACCESS POINT Rght 4 Thru 1 Left 6 Other 0 Out In Total 13 11 24 Rght 1 Thru 70 Left 0 Other 8 Out In Total 94 79 173 Left 16 Thru 0 Rght 17 Other 0 Out In Total 4 33 37 Left 12 Thru 71 File Name : #15 ACCESSPOINT&MONROESAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 ACCESS POINT Southbound MONROE Westbound ACCESS POINT Northbound MONROE Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 01:30 PM 1 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 14 8 0 41 01:45 PM 1 0 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 19 0 0 32 Total 2 0 2 1 0 16 0 0 3 0 8 0 0 33 8 0 73 02:00 PM 0 0 5 0 1 16 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 14 3 0 40 02:15 PM 2 1 1 0 0 13 0 0 0 1 6 0 1 19 1 2 47 Grand Total 4 1 8 1 1 45 0 0 3 1 14 1 1 66 12 2 160 Apprch % 28.6 7.1 57.1 7.1 2.2 97.8 0 0 15.8 5.3 73.7 5.3 1.2 81.5 14.8 2.5 Total % 2.5 0.6 5 0.6 0.6 28.1 0 0 1.9 0.6 8.8 0.6 0.6 41.2 7.5 1.2 ACCESS POINT MONROE MONROE ACCESS POINT Rght 4 Thru 1 Left 8 Other 1 Out In Total 14 14 28 Rght 1 Thru 45 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 77 46 123 Left 14 Thru 1 Rght 3 Other 1 Out In Total 2 19 21 Left 12 Thru 66 File Name : #15 ACCESSPOINT&MONROESAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 2 ACCESS POINT Southbound MONROE Westbound ACCESS POINT Northbound MONROE Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 01:30 PM to 02:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:30 PM 01:30 PM 1 0 1 0 2 0 11 0 0 11 3 0 3 0 6 0 14 8 0 22 41 01:45 PM 1 0 1 1 3 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 5 0 19 0 0 19 32 02:00 PM 0 0 5 0 5 1 16 0 0 17 0 0 0 1 1 0 14 3 0 17 40 02:15 PM 2 1 1 0 4 0 13 0 0 13 0 1 6 0 7 1 19 1 2 23 47 Total Volume 4 1 8 1 14 1 45 0 0 46 3 1 14 1 19 1 66 12 2 81 160 % App. Total 28.6 7.1 57.1 7.1 2.2 97.8 0 0 15.8 5.3 73.7 5.3 1.2 81.5 14.8 2.5 PHF .500 .250 .400 .250 .700 .250 .703 .000 .000 .676 .250 .250 .583 .250 .679 .250 .868 .375 .250 .880 .851 ACCESS POINT MONROE MONROE ACCESS POINT Rght 4 Thru 1 Left 8 Other 1 Out In Total 14 14 28 Rght 1 Thru 45 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 77 46 123 Left 14 Thru 1 Rght 3 Other 1 Out In Total 2 19 21 Left 12 Thru 66 File Name : #16 MONROE&MONROE Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 MONROE Southbound MONROE Westbound MONROE Northbound MONROE Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 04:30 PM 12 4 0 0 0 6 2 2 3 5 0 1 1 7 12 1 56 04:45 PM 16 5 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 5 1 0 2 7 6 0 50 Total 28 9 0 0 0 10 2 2 7 10 1 1 3 14 18 1 106 05:00 PM 12 3 0 0 1 4 3 0 1 8 1 3 4 19 9 6 74 05:15 PM 11 10 0 0 0 6 1 0 2 1 0 0 2 7 18 0 58 Grand Total 51 22 0 0 1 20 6 2 10 19 2 4 9 40 45 7 238 Apprch % 69.9 30.1 0 0 3.4 69 20.7 6.9 28.6 54.3 5.7 11.4 8.9 39.6 44.6 6.9 Total % 21.4 9.2 0 0 0.4 8.4 2.5 0.8 4.2 8 0.8 1.7 3.8 16.8 18.9 2.9 MONROE MONROE MONROE MONROE Rght 51 Thru 22 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 65 73 138 Rght 1 Thru 20 Left 6 Other 2 Out In Total 50 29 79 Left 2 Thru 19 Rght 10 Other 4 Out In Total 37 35 72 Left 45 Thru 40 File Name : #16 MONROE&MONROE Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 2 MONROE Southbound MONROE Westbound MONROE Northbound MONROE Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 12 4 0 0 16 0 6 2 2 10 3 5 0 1 9 1 7 12 1 21 56 04:45 PM 16 5 0 0 21 0 4 0 0 4 4 5 1 0 10 2 7 6 0 15 50 05:00 PM 12 3 0 0 15 1 4 3 0 8 1 8 1 3 13 4 19 9 6 38 74 05:15 PM 11 10 0 0 21 0 6 1 0 7 2 1 0 0 3 2 7 18 0 27 58 Total Volume 51 22 0 0 73 1 20 6 2 29 10 19 2 4 35 9 40 45 7 101 238 % App. Total 69.9 30.1 0 0 3.4 69 20.7 6.9 28.6 54.3 5.7 11.4 8.9 39.6 44.6 6.9 PHF .797 .550 .000 .000 .869 .250 .833 .500 .250 .725 .625 .594 .500 .333 .673 .563 .526 .625 .292 .664 .804 MONROE MONROE MONROE MONROE Rght 51 Thru 22 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 65 73 138 Rght 1 Thru 20 Left 6 Other 2 Out In Total 50 29 79 Left 2 Thru 19 Rght 10 Other 4 Out In Total 37 35 72 Left 45 Thru 40 File Name : #16 MONROE&MONROESAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 MONROE Southbound MONROE Westbound MONROE Northbound MONROE Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 01:30 PM 8 4 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 8 8 0 37 01:45 PM 5 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 10 9 0 31 Total 13 5 1 0 0 4 3 0 1 4 0 0 2 18 17 0 68 02:00 PM 15 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 1 1 0 2 1 10 7 0 46 02:15 PM 8 2 1 0 3 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 8 8 0 39 Grand Total 36 10 2 0 3 10 5 3 4 5 0 2 5 36 32 0 153 Apprch % 75 20.8 4.2 0 14.3 47.6 23.8 14.3 36.4 45.5 0 18.2 6.8 49.3 43.8 0 Total % 23.5 6.5 1.3 0 2 6.5 3.3 2 2.6 3.3 0 1.3 3.3 23.5 20.9 0 MONROE MONROE MONROE MONROE Rght 36 Thru 10 Left 2 Other 0 Out In Total 40 48 88 Rght 3 Thru 10 Left 5 Other 3 Out In Total 42 21 63 Left 0 Thru 5 Rght 4 Other 2 Out In Total 20 11 31 Left 32 Thru 36 File Name : #16 MONROE&MONROESAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 2 MONROE Southbound MONROE Westbound MONROE Northbound MONROE Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 01:30 PM to 02:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:30 PM 01:30 PM 8 4 1 0 13 0 3 0 0 3 1 3 0 0 4 1 8 8 0 17 37 01:45 PM 5 1 0 0 6 0 1 3 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 1 10 9 0 20 31 02:00 PM 15 3 0 0 18 0 3 0 3 6 1 1 0 2 4 1 10 7 0 18 46 02:15 PM 8 2 1 0 11 3 3 2 0 8 2 0 0 0 2 2 8 8 0 18 39 Total Volume 36 10 2 0 48 3 10 5 3 21 4 5 0 2 11 5 36 32 0 73 153 % App. Total 75 20.8 4.2 0 14.3 47.6 23.8 14.3 36.4 45.5 0 18.2 6.8 49.3 43.8 0 PHF .600 .625 .500 .000 .667 .250 .833 .417 .250 .656 .500 .417 .000 .250 .688 .625 .900 .889 .000 .913 .832 MONROE MONROE MONROE MONROE Rght 36 Thru 10 Left 2 Other 0 Out In Total 40 48 88 Rght 3 Thru 10 Left 5 Other 3 Out In Total 42 21 63 Left 0 Thru 5 Rght 4 Other 2 Out In Total 20 11 31 Left 32 Thru 36 File Name : #17 STANFORD&MONROEN Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 STANFORD Southbound MONROE N Westbound STANFORD Northbound MONROE N Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 04:30 PM 7 23 0 2 5 2 3 0 4 34 6 1 2 6 9 0 104 04:45 PM 9 29 5 0 4 5 2 1 4 33 4 1 4 1 11 1 114 Total 16 52 5 2 9 7 5 1 8 67 10 2 6 7 20 1 218 05:00 PM 13 30 4 0 7 2 1 1 3 27 5 4 3 5 14 0 119 05:15 PM 13 23 4 0 4 6 5 1 4 30 5 0 7 7 6 0 115 Grand Total 42 105 13 2 20 15 11 3 15 124 20 6 16 19 40 1 452 Apprch % 25.9 64.8 8 1.2 40.8 30.6 22.4 6.1 9.1 75.2 12.1 3.6 21.1 25 52.6 1.3 Total % 9.3 23.2 2.9 0.4 4.4 3.3 2.4 0.7 3.3 27.4 4.4 1.3 3.5 4.2 8.8 0.2 STANFORD MONROE N MONROE N STANFORD Rght 42 Thru 105 Left 13 Other 2 Out In Total 184 162 346 Rght 20 Thru 15 Left 11 Other 3 Out In Total 47 49 96 Left 20 Thru 124 Rght 15 Other 6 Out In Total 132 165 297 Left 40 Thru 19 File Name : #17 STANFORD&MONROEN Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 2 STANFORD Southbound MONROE N Westbound STANFORD Northbound MONROE N Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 7 23 0 2 32 5 2 3 0 10 4 34 6 1 45 2 6 9 0 17 104 04:45 PM 9 29 5 0 43 4 5 2 1 12 4 33 4 1 42 4 1 11 1 17 114 05:00 PM 13 30 4 0 47 7 2 1 1 11 3 27 5 4 39 3 5 14 0 22 119 05:15 PM 13 23 4 0 40 4 6 5 1 16 4 30 5 0 39 7 7 6 0 20 115 Total Volume 42 105 13 2 162 20 15 11 3 49 15 124 20 6 165 16 19 40 1 76 452 % App. Total 25.9 64.8 8 1.2 40.8 30.6 22.4 6.1 9.1 75.2 12.1 3.6 21.1 25 52.6 1.3 PHF .808 .875 .650 .250 .862 .714 .625 .550 .750 .766 .938 .912 .833 .375 .917 .571 .679 .714 .250 .864 .950 STANFORD MONROE N MONROE N STANFORD Rght 42 Thru 105 Left 13 Other 2 Out In Total 184 162 346 Rght 20 Thru 15 Left 11 Other 3 Out In Total 47 49 96 Left 20 Thru 124 Rght 15 Other 6 Out In Total 132 165 297 Left 40 Thru 19 File Name : #17 STANFORD&MONROENSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 STANFORD Southbound MONROE N Westbound STANFORD Northbound MONROE N Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 01:30 PM 5 32 1 0 8 1 3 1 3 21 4 0 2 5 6 0 92 01:45 PM 5 29 2 0 4 1 0 0 3 19 5 0 2 2 3 3 78 Total 10 61 3 0 12 2 3 1 6 40 9 0 4 7 9 3 170 02:00 PM 8 35 3 0 3 4 1 0 4 27 2 3 3 2 1 0 96 02:15 PM 5 21 2 0 4 3 4 0 2 24 2 4 8 3 1 4 87 Grand Total 23 117 8 0 19 9 8 1 12 91 13 7 15 12 11 7 353 Apprch % 15.5 79.1 5.4 0 51.4 24.3 21.6 2.7 9.8 74 10.6 5.7 33.3 26.7 24.4 15.6 Total % 6.5 33.1 2.3 0 5.4 2.5 2.3 0.3 3.4 25.8 3.7 2 4.2 3.4 3.1 2 STANFORD MONROE N MONROE N STANFORD Rght 23 Thru 117 Left 8 Other 0 Out In Total 121 148 269 Rght 19 Thru 9 Left 8 Other 1 Out In Total 32 37 69 Left 13 Thru 91 Rght 12 Other 7 Out In Total 140 123 263 Left 11 Thru 12 File Name : #17 STANFORD&MONROENSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 2 STANFORD Southbound MONROE N Westbound STANFORD Northbound MONROE N Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 01:30 PM to 02:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:30 PM 01:30 PM 5 32 1 0 38 8 1 3 1 13 3 21 4 0 28 2 5 6 0 13 92 01:45 PM 5 29 2 0 36 4 1 0 0 5 3 19 5 0 27 2 2 3 3 10 78 02:00 PM 8 35 3 0 46 3 4 1 0 8 4 27 2 3 36 3 2 1 0 6 96 02:15 PM 5 21 2 0 28 4 3 4 0 11 2 24 2 4 32 8 3 1 4 16 87 Total Volume 23 117 8 0 148 19 9 8 1 37 12 91 13 7 123 15 12 11 7 45 353 % App. Total 15.5 79.1 5.4 0 51.4 24.3 21.6 2.7 9.8 74 10.6 5.7 33.3 26.7 24.4 15.6 PHF .719 .836 .667 .000 .804 .594 .563 .500 .250 .712 .750 .843 .650 .438 .854 .469 .600 .458 .438 .703 .919 STANFORD MONROE N MONROE N STANFORD Rght 23 Thru 117 Left 8 Other 0 Out In Total 121 148 269 Rght 19 Thru 9 Left 8 Other 1 Out In Total 32 37 69 Left 13 Thru 91 Rght 12 Other 7 Out In Total 140 123 263 Left 11 Thru 12 File Name : #18 STANFORD&ACCESS Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 STANFORD Southbound ACCESS Westbound STANFORD Northbound ACCESS Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 04:30 PM 6 25 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 42 3 0 7 0 2 0 86 04:45 PM 3 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 3 1 2 0 0 0 98 Total 9 66 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 90 6 1 9 0 2 0 184 05:00 PM 2 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 2 0 4 0 1 0 103 05:15 PM 2 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 5 0 6 0 2 0 89 Grand Total 13 148 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 176 13 1 19 0 5 0 376 Apprch % 8 91.4 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 92.6 6.8 0.5 79.2 0 20.8 0 Total % 3.5 39.4 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 46.8 3.5 0.3 5.1 0 1.3 0 STANFORD ACCESS ACCESS STANFORD Rght 13 Thru 148 Left 0 Other 1 Out In Total 181 162 343 Rght 0 Thru 0 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 0 0 0 Left 13 Thru 176 Rght 0 Other 1 Out In Total 167 190 357 Left 5 Thru 0 File Name : #18 STANFORD&ACCESS Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 2 STANFORD Southbound ACCESS Westbound STANFORD Northbound ACCESS Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 6 25 0 1 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 3 0 45 7 0 2 0 9 86 04:45 PM 3 41 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 3 1 52 2 0 0 0 2 98 05:00 PM 2 47 0 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 2 0 49 4 0 1 0 5 103 05:15 PM 2 35 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 5 0 44 6 0 2 0 8 89 Total Volume 13 148 0 1 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 176 13 1 190 19 0 5 0 24 376 % App. Total 8 91.4 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 92.6 6.8 0.5 79.2 0 20.8 0 PHF .542 .787 .000 .250 .827 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .917 .650 .250 .913 .679 .000 .625 .000 .667 .913 STANFORD ACCESS ACCESS STANFORD Rght 13 Thru 148 Left 0 Other 1 Out In Total 181 162 343 Rght 0 Thru 0 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 0 0 0 Left 13 Thru 176 Rght 0 Other 1 Out In Total 167 190 357 Left 5 Thru 0 File Name : #18 STANFORD&ACCESSSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 STANFORD Southbound ACCESS Westbound STANFORD Northbound ACCESS Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 01:30 PM 1 30 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 27 5 0 5 0 1 1 71 01:45 PM 5 31 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 22 5 0 5 0 1 3 73 Total 6 61 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 49 10 0 10 0 2 4 144 02:00 PM 2 34 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 26 5 0 9 0 2 0 79 02:15 PM 2 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 4 2 4 0 3 0 65 Grand Total 10 118 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 102 19 2 23 0 7 4 288 Apprch % 7.6 90.1 0 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 82.9 15.4 1.6 67.6 0 20.6 11.8 Total % 3.5 41 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 35.4 6.6 0.7 8 0 2.4 1.4 STANFORD ACCESS ACCESS STANFORD Rght 10 Thru 118 Left 0 Other 3 Out In Total 109 131 240 Rght 0 Thru 0 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 0 0 0 Left 19 Thru 102 Rght 0 Other 2 Out In Total 141 123 264 Left 7 Thru 0 File Name : #18 STANFORD&ACCESSSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 2 STANFORD Southbound ACCESS Westbound STANFORD Northbound ACCESS Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 01:30 PM to 02:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:30 PM 01:30 PM 1 30 0 1 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 5 0 32 5 0 1 1 7 71 01:45 PM 5 31 0 1 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 5 0 27 5 0 1 3 9 73 02:00 PM 2 34 0 1 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 5 0 31 9 0 2 0 11 79 02:15 PM 2 23 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 4 2 33 4 0 3 0 7 65 Total Volume 10 118 0 3 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 19 2 123 23 0 7 4 34 288 % App. Total 7.6 90.1 0 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 82.9 15.4 1.6 67.6 0 20.6 11.8 PHF .500 .868 .000 .750 .885 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .944 .950 .250 .932 .639 .000 .583 .333 .773 .911 STANFORD ACCESS ACCESS STANFORD Rght 10 Thru 118 Left 0 Other 3 Out In Total 109 131 240 Rght 0 Thru 0 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 0 0 0 Left 19 Thru 102 Rght 0 Other 2 Out In Total 141 123 264 Left 7 Thru 0 File Name : #19 STANFORD&ACCESS Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 STANFORD Southbound ACCESS Westbound STANFORD Northbound ACCESS Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 04:30 PM 5 26 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 39 3 0 5 0 7 0 88 04:45 PM 9 26 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 41 4 0 10 0 9 0 103 Total 14 52 0 0 4 0 1 0 2 80 7 0 15 0 16 0 191 05:00 PM 10 36 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 33 7 0 15 0 8 0 114 05:15 PM 3 29 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 37 4 0 8 0 9 1 96 Grand Total 27 117 5 0 4 0 2 3 3 150 18 0 38 0 33 1 401 Apprch % 18.1 78.5 3.4 0 44.4 0 22.2 33.3 1.8 87.7 10.5 0 52.8 0 45.8 1.4 Total % 6.7 29.2 1.2 0 1 0 0.5 0.7 0.7 37.4 4.5 0 9.5 0 8.2 0.2 STANFORD ACCESS ACCESS STANFORD Rght 27 Thru 117 Left 5 Other 0 Out In Total 187 149 336 Rght 4 Thru 0 Left 2 Other 3 Out In Total 8 9 17 Left 18 Thru 150 Rght 3 Other 0 Out In Total 157 171 328 Left 33 Thru 0 File Name : #19 STANFORD&ACCESS Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 2 STANFORD Southbound ACCESS Westbound STANFORD Northbound ACCESS Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 5 26 0 0 31 2 0 0 0 2 1 39 3 0 43 5 0 7 0 12 88 04:45 PM 9 26 0 0 35 2 0 1 0 3 1 41 4 0 46 10 0 9 0 19 103 05:00 PM 10 36 2 0 48 0 0 1 1 2 1 33 7 0 41 15 0 8 0 23 114 05:15 PM 3 29 3 0 35 0 0 0 2 2 0 37 4 0 41 8 0 9 1 18 96 Total Volume 27 117 5 0 149 4 0 2 3 9 3 150 18 0 171 38 0 33 1 72 401 % App. Total 18.1 78.5 3.4 0 44.4 0 22.2 33.3 1.8 87.7 10.5 0 52.8 0 45.8 1.4 PHF .675 .813 .417 .000 .776 .500 .000 .500 .375 .750 .750 .915 .643 .000 .929 .633 .000 .917 .250 .783 .879 STANFORD ACCESS ACCESS STANFORD Rght 27 Thru 117 Left 5 Other 0 Out In Total 187 149 336 Rght 4 Thru 0 Left 2 Other 3 Out In Total 8 9 17 Left 18 Thru 150 Rght 3 Other 0 Out In Total 157 171 328 Left 33 Thru 0 File Name : #19 STANFORD&ACCESSSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 STANFORD Southbound ACCESS Westbound STANFORD Northbound ACCESS Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 01:30 PM 11 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 6 1 12 0 16 2 85 01:45 PM 11 19 3 0 1 0 1 3 1 17 3 0 16 0 8 4 87 Total 22 35 3 0 1 0 1 3 1 38 9 1 28 0 24 6 172 02:00 PM 6 21 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 20 6 1 13 0 10 0 83 02:15 PM 7 17 2 0 2 0 1 0 2 29 4 0 11 1 10 0 86 Grand Total 35 73 6 0 5 0 4 3 4 87 19 2 52 1 44 6 341 Apprch % 30.7 64 5.3 0 41.7 0 33.3 25 3.6 77.7 17 1.8 50.5 1 42.7 5.8 Total % 10.3 21.4 1.8 0 1.5 0 1.2 0.9 1.2 25.5 5.6 0.6 15.2 0.3 12.9 1.8 STANFORD ACCESS ACCESS STANFORD Rght 35 Thru 73 Left 6 Other 0 Out In Total 136 114 250 Rght 5 Thru 0 Left 4 Other 3 Out In Total 11 12 23 Left 19 Thru 87 Rght 4 Other 2 Out In Total 129 112 241 Left 44 Thru 1 File Name : #19 STANFORD&ACCESSSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 2 STANFORD Southbound ACCESS Westbound STANFORD Northbound ACCESS Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 01:30 PM to 02:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:30 PM 01:30 PM 11 16 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 6 1 28 12 0 16 2 30 85 01:45 PM 11 19 3 0 33 1 0 1 3 5 1 17 3 0 21 16 0 8 4 28 87 02:00 PM 6 21 1 0 28 2 0 2 0 4 1 20 6 1 28 13 0 10 0 23 83 02:15 PM 7 17 2 0 26 2 0 1 0 3 2 29 4 0 35 11 1 10 0 22 86 Total Volume 35 73 6 0 114 5 0 4 3 12 4 87 19 2 112 52 1 44 6 103 341 % App. Total 30.7 64 5.3 0 41.7 0 33.3 25 3.6 77.7 17 1.8 50.5 1 42.7 5.8 PHF .795 .869 .500 .000 .864 .625 .000 .500 .250 .600 .500 .750 .792 .500 .800 .813 .250 .688 .375 .858 .980 STANFORD ACCESS ACCESS STANFORD Rght 35 Thru 73 Left 6 Other 0 Out In Total 136 114 250 Rght 5 Thru 0 Left 4 Other 3 Out In Total 11 12 23 Left 19 Thru 87 Rght 4 Other 2 Out In Total 129 112 241 Left 44 Thru 1 File Name : #20 STANFORD&ACCESS Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 STANFORD Southbound ACCESS Westbound STANFORD Northbound ACCESS Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 04:30 PM 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 1 82 04:45 PM 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 1 0 0 0 81 Total 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 0 0 1 0 0 1 163 05:00 PM 3 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 05:15 PM 2 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 1 1 87 Grand Total 5 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 179 0 0 1 0 1 2 338 Apprch % 3.2 96.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 25 0 25 50 Total % 1.5 44.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 0.3 0 0.3 0.6 STANFORD ACCESS ACCESS STANFORD Rght 5 Thru 150 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 180 155 335 Rght 0 Thru 0 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 0 0 0 Left 0 Thru 179 Rght 0 Other 0 Out In Total 151 179 330 Left 1 Thru 0 File Name : #20 STANFORD&ACCESS Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/11/2012 Page No : 2 STANFORD Southbound ACCESS Westbound STANFORD Northbound ACCESS Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:30 PM to 05:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 0 31 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 0 1 1 82 04:45 PM 0 37 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 43 1 0 0 0 1 81 05:00 PM 3 45 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 88 05:15 PM 2 37 0 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 46 0 0 1 1 2 87 Total Volume 5 150 0 0 155 0 0 0 0 0 0 179 0 0 179 1 0 1 2 4 338 % App. Total 3.2 96.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 25 0 25 50 PHF .417 .833 .000 .000 .807 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .895 .000 .000 .895 .250 .000 .250 .500 .500 .960 STANFORD ACCESS ACCESS STANFORD Rght 5 Thru 150 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 180 155 335 Rght 0 Thru 0 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 0 0 0 Left 0 Thru 179 Rght 0 Other 0 Out In Total 151 179 330 Left 1 Thru 0 File Name : #20 STANFORD&ACCESSSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Class 1 STANFORD Southbound ACCESS Westbound STANFORD Northbound ACCESS Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Rght Thru Left Other Int. Total 01:30 PM 1 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 1 0 2 1 65 01:45 PM 1 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 1 4 70 Total 2 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 1 0 3 5 135 02:00 PM 1 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 1 0 61 02:15 PM 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 Grand Total 3 114 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 0 0 1 0 4 5 259 Apprch % 2.6 97.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 10 0 40 50 Total % 1.2 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0.4 0 1.5 1.9 STANFORD ACCESS ACCESS STANFORD Rght 3 Thru 114 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 136 117 253 Rght 0 Thru 0 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 0 0 0 Left 0 Thru 132 Rght 0 Other 0 Out In Total 115 132 247 Left 4 Thru 0 File Name : #20 STANFORD&ACCESSSAT Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 9/8/2012 Page No : 2 STANFORD Southbound ACCESS Westbound STANFORD Northbound ACCESS Eastbound Start Time Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Rght Thru Left Other App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 01:30 PM to 02:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:30 PM 01:30 PM 1 26 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 34 1 0 2 1 4 65 01:45 PM 1 34 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 30 0 0 1 4 5 70 02:00 PM 1 29 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 30 0 0 1 0 1 61 02:15 PM 0 25 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 0 63 Total Volume 3 114 0 0 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 132 0 0 132 1 0 4 5 10 259 % App. Total 2.6 97.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 10 0 40 50 PHF .750 .838 .000 .000 .836 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .868 .000 .000 .868 .250 .000 .500 .313 .500 .925 STANFORD ACCESS ACCESS STANFORD Rght 3 Thru 114 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 136 117 253 Rght 0 Thru 0 Left 0 Other 0 Out In Total 0 0 0 Left 0 Thru 132 Rght 0 Other 0 Out In Total 115 132 247 Left 4 Thru 0 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix B APPENDIX B EXISTING CONDITION OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Traffic - PM Peak 1: College Avenue & Swallow Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 25 30 35 230 30 155 45 1580 115 200 1955 40 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 111111130130 Capacity, veh/h 223 154 131 288 246 209 188 2817 205 274 3162 65 Arriving On Green 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.03 0.58 0.58 0.06 0.62 0.62 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774.0 1583.3 1583.3 1774.0 1583.3 1583.3 1774.0 4839.2 351.7 1774.0 5129.7 104.8 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 27.2 32.6 38.0 250.0 32.6 168.5 48.9 1202.3 640.1 217.4 1403.3 765.2 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774.0 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 1695.1 1800.7 1774.0 1695.1 1844.3 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 1.6 2.3 7.0 1.5 10.3 1.1 22.9 23.0 4.2 27.0 27.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 1.6 2.3 7.0 1.5 10.3 1.1 22.9 23.0 4.2 27.0 27.1 Proportion In Lane 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.195 1.000 0.057 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 223.4 154.2 131.1 288.0 245.5 208.7 187.7 1973.4 1048.2 274.0 2090.0 1136.9 V/C Ratio(X) 0.122 0.211 0.290 0.868 0.133 0.807 0.261 0.609 0.611 0.793 0.671 0.673 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 310.4 486.1 413.1 288.0 486.1 413.1 330.7 1973.4 1048.2 320.4 2090.0 1136.9 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) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.761 0.761 0.761 1.000 1.000 1.000 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.6 42.7 42.9 39.3 38.2 42.0 11.6 13.5 13.5 18.0 12.5 12.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.7 1.2 23.4 0.2 7.2 0.6 1.1 2.0 11.2 1.7 3.2 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 40.9 43.3 44.2 62.7 38.5 49.2 12.1 14.6 15.5 29.2 14.2 15.7 Lane Group LOS D D D E D D B B B C B B Approach Volume, veh/h 98 451 1891 2386 Approach Delay, s/veh 43.0 55.9 14.8 16.1 Approach LOS D E B B Timer Assigned Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.11 14.25 11.00 19.13 6.97 64.00 10.39 67.43 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.00 26.00 7.00 26.00 11.00 58.00 9.00 56.00 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.39 4.25 9.00 12.30 3.10 24.97 6.24 29.10 Green Extension Time (p_c) 0.01 0.98 0.00 0.83 0.04 31.62 0.16 25.94 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 19.9 HCM 2010 Level of Service B HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Traffic - PM Peak 2: College Avenue & Foothills PKWY 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 15 10 40 135 15 75 30 1650 85 135 2060 25 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 111211130230 Capacity, veh/h 56 75 64 196 134 114 41 3122 0 206 3418 41 Arriving On Green 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.20 0.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1391.1 1862.7 1583.3 2712.1 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 5252.9 0.0 3441.6 5179.1 62.8 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 16.3 10.9 43.5 146.7 16.3 0.0 32.6 1793.5 0.0 146.7 1464.8 801.5 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1391.1 1862.7 1583.3 1356.0 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 1695.1 0.0 1720.8 1695.1 1851.7 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 0.6 3.0 5.8 0.9 0.0 2.0 35.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 0.6 3.0 5.8 0.9 0.0 2.0 35.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 Proportion In Lane 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 1.000 0.034 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 56.0 75.0 63.7 195.5 134.3 114.2 41.0 3122.0 0.0 206.5 2237.2 1221.9 V/C Ratio(X) 0.291 0.145 0.682 0.750 0.121 0.000 0.795 0.574 0.000 0.711 0.655 0.656 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 88.6 118.6 100.8 271.3 186.4 158.4 129.1 3122.0 0.0 344.3 2237.2 1221.9 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.997 0.997 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.662 0.662 0.662 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.2 50.9 52.1 50.0 47.8 0.0 54.3 30.9 0.0 47.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.8 0.9 12.1 7.3 0.4 0.0 28.2 0.8 0.0 3.0 1.0 1.8 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 54.1 51.8 64.1 57.3 48.2 0.0 82.5 31.7 0.0 50.5 1.0 1.8 Lane Group LOS D D E E D F C D A A Approach Volume, veh/h 71 163 1826 2413 Approach Delay, s/veh 59.9 56.4 32.6 4.3 Approach LOS E E C A Timer Assigned Phase 4 8 5 2 1 6 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.43 13.93 6.54 74.00 11.60 79.05 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.00 6.00 4.00 6.50 5.00 6.50 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.00 11.00 8.00 67.50 11.00 72.00 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.98 7.84 4.02 36.99 6.51 2.00 Green Extension Time (p_c) 0.03 0.15 0.01 29.47 0.16 64.94 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 18.6 HCM 2010 Level of Service B HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Traffic - PM Peak 4: College Avenue & Horsetooth Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 165 610 105 180 655 150 215 1435 125 175 1770 205 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 120221131131 Capacity, veh/h 200 752 129 256 753 337 264 2078 647 258 1922 598 Arriving On Green 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.28 0.28 0.11 0.41 0.41 0.03 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774.0 3098.7 532.7 3441.6 1583.3 1583.3 1774.0 1583.3 1583.3 1774.0 1583.3 1583.3 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 179.3 398.3 378.9 195.7 712.0 163.0 233.7 1559.8 135.9 190.2 1923.9 222.8 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774.0 1862.7 1768.7 1720.8 1769.6 1583.3 1774.0 1695.1 1583.3 1774.0 1695.1 1583.3 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.5 23.7 23.8 6.4 22.7 9.8 10.8 30.1 6.4 7.3 43.5 14.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.5 23.7 23.8 6.4 22.7 9.8 10.8 30.1 6.4 7.3 43.5 14.9 Proportion In Lane 1.000 0.301 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 200.4 452.1 429.3 256.1 753.4 337.0 264.4 2078.0 647.0 258.4 1921.9 598.4 V/C Ratio(X) 0.895 0.881 0.883 0.764 0.945 0.484 0.884 0.751 0.210 0.736 1.001 0.372 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 200.4 452.1 429.3 358.8 753.4 337.0 340.0 2078.0 647.0 357.5 1921.9 598.4 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 Upstream Filter(I) 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.869 0.869 0.869 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.760 0.760 0.760 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.4 42.0 42.0 50.9 40.6 36.0 34.2 29.0 22.0 26.4 50.4 37.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 36.2 17.9 18.9 5.4 18.6 0.9 19.3 2.5 0.7 3.8 18.1 1.3 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 86.6 59.9 61.0 56.3 59.2 36.9 53.5 31.6 22.8 30.2 68.5 39.2 Lane Group LOS F EEEEDDCCCFD Approach Volume, veh/h 957 1071 1929 2337 Approach Delay, s/veh 65.3 55.3 33.6 62.6 Approach LOS E E C E Timer Assigned Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.00 34.43 13.57 31.00 17.10 53.53 13.57 50.00 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.00 6.50 5.00 6.50 4.00 6.50 4.00 6.50 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.00 24.50 12.00 24.50 18.00 46.00 16.00 43.50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.48 25.76 8.38 24.66 12.80 32.11 9.31 45.50 Green Extension Time (p_c) 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.30 13.49 0.27 0.00 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 52.9 HCM 2010 Level of Service D HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Traffic - PM Peak 11: Mall Entrance & Foothills PKWY/Mathews Street 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 80 70 70 15 35 10 90 15 20 20 15 60 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 121121111010 Capacity, veh/h 471 939 420 449 939 420 791 1026 872 192 165 488 Arriving On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 Sat Flow, veh/h 1364.1 3539.2 1583.3 1317.9 3539.2 1583.3 1285.8 1862.7 1583.3 295.4 209.2 886.1 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 87.0 76.1 76.1 16.3 38.0 10.9 97.8 16.3 21.7 103.3 0.0 0.0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1364.1 1769.6 1583.3 1317.9 1769.6 1583.3 1285.8 1862.7 1583.3 1403.0 0.0 0.0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 1.0 2.2 0.6 0.5 0.3 2.4 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 1.0 2.2 1.5 0.5 0.3 4.1 0.2 0.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 Proportion In Lane 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.211 0.632 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 471.4 939.4 420.3 448.7 939.4 420.3 790.7 1026.2 872.3 845.7 0.0 0.0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.184 0.081 0.181 0.036 0.040 0.026 0.124 0.016 0.025 0.122 0.000 0.000 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 473.7 945.4 422.9 451.0 945.4 422.9 790.7 1026.2 872.3 845.7 0.0 0.0 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) 0.897 0.897 0.897 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 17.6 16.5 17.0 17.1 16.3 16.3 7.4 6.1 6.1 6.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 17.8 16.5 17.2 17.1 16.4 16.3 7.7 6.1 6.2 6.7 0.0 0.0 Lane Group LOS BBBBBBAAAA Approach Volume, veh/h 239 65 136 103 Approach Delay, s/veh 17.2 16.5 7.3 6.7 Approach LOS BBAA Timer Assigned Phase 4826 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.90 20.90 39.00 39.00 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.00 16.00 33.00 33.00 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.51 3.53 6.13 3.77 Green Extension Time (p_c) 0.91 1.00 1.07 1.09 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 12.7 HCM 2010 Level of Service B HCM 2010 TWSC Existing Traffic - PM Peak 12: Mathews Street & Swallow Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 1.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Volume (vph) 300 35 15 320 40 55 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0000 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 100 100 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2222 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 326 38 16 348 43 60 Number of Lanes 1011 1 1 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 0 0 364 0 725 345 Stage 1 ---- 345 - Stage 2 ---- 380 - Follow-up Headway - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver - - 1222 - 411 829 Stage 1 ---- 784 - Stage 2 ---- 691 - Time blocked-Platoon(%) - - 22 - 22 22 Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver - - 1222 - 405 829 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ---- 405 - Stage 1 ---- 784 - Stage 2 ---- 682 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0.4 11.9 HCM LOS A A B Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (vph) 405 829 HCM Control Delay (s) 15 9.7 - - 7.986 - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.107 0.072 - - 0.013 - HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.358 0.233 - - 0.041 - HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Traffic - PM Peak 13: College Avenue & Monroe Drive 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 45 20 60 55 30 115 30 1605 115 70 2140 35 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 110111130130 Capacity, veh/h 220 51 154 169 232 197 179 3316 237 221 3583 58 Arriving On Green 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.01 0.23 0.23 0.03 0.70 0.70 Sat Flow, veh/h 1370.8 411.3 1233.8 1305.0 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 4845.2 346.5 1774.0 5154.0 84.1 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 48.9 0.0 87.0 59.8 32.6 125.0 32.6 1219.7 649.9 76.1 1528.5 835.7 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1370.8 0.0 1645.0 1305.0 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 1695.1 1801.6 1774.0 1695.1 1847.9 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.4 0.0 5.0 4.5 1.6 7.7 0.6 32.3 32.4 1.2 25.6 25.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.0 0.0 5.0 9.5 1.6 7.7 0.6 32.3 32.4 1.2 25.6 25.7 Proportion In Lane 1.000 0.750 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.192 1.000 0.046 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 220.0 0.0 205.2 169.4 232.3 197.5 178.7 2319.8 1232.8 221.2 2357.1 1284.8 V/C Ratio(X) 0.222 0.000 0.424 0.353 0.140 0.633 0.182 0.526 0.527 0.344 0.648 0.650 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 397.4 0.0 418.1 338.3 473.4 402.4 258.2 2319.8 1232.8 298.6 2369.6 1291.6 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.597 0.597 0.597 1.000 1.000 1.000 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.1 0.0 41.4 45.8 39.9 42.5 8.4 25.0 25.1 11.9 8.6 8.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.0 1.4 1.2 0.3 3.3 0.3 0.5 1.0 0.9 1.4 2.6 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 42.6 0.0 42.8 47.0 40.2 45.9 8.7 25.5 26.0 12.8 10.0 11.2 Lane Group LOS D DDDDACCBBB Approach Volume, veh/h 136 217 1902 2440 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.7 45.3 25.4 10.5 Approach LOS D D C B Timer Assigned Phase 4 8 5 2 1 6 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.76 18.76 6.42 76.00 7.54 77.12 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.00 26.00 7.00 70.00 8.00 71.50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.00 11.54 2.56 34.43 3.24 27.74 Green Extension Time (p_c) 1.34 1.22 0.01 34.42 0.05 42.05 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 19.1 HCM 2010 Level of Service B HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Traffic - PM Peak 15: Stanford Road & Horsetooth Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 70 1070 20 110 1175 65 25 35 135 125 65 55 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 120120111111 Capacity, veh/h 302 2361 44 304 2293 127 263 344 292 290 344 292 Arriving On Green 0.01 0.21 0.21 0.04 0.66 0.66 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774.0 3645.3 68.1 1774.0 3498.2 193.2 1324.4 1862.7 1583.3 1364.1 1862.7 1583.3 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 76.1 594.2 590.6 119.6 679.2 668.6 27.2 38.0 146.7 135.9 70.7 59.8 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774.0 1862.7 1850.7 1774.0 1862.7 1828.6 1324.4 1862.7 1583.3 1364.1 1862.7 1583.3 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.7 32.7 32.7 2.6 23.0 23.1 2.1 2.0 9.7 10.7 3.7 3.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.7 32.7 32.7 2.6 23.0 23.1 5.8 2.0 9.7 12.7 3.7 3.7 Proportion In Lane 1.000 0.037 1.000 0.106 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 301.7 1206.6 1198.8 304.2 1220.9 1198.6 263.5 343.6 292.1 290.2 343.6 292.1 V/C Ratio(X) 0.252 0.492 0.493 0.393 0.556 0.558 0.103 0.111 0.502 0.468 0.206 0.205 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 367.8 1206.6 1198.8 356.6 1220.9 1198.6 263.5 343.6 292.1 290.2 343.6 292.1 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.861 0.861 0.861 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.1 29.0 29.0 12.3 10.9 10.9 42.8 39.6 42.7 44.9 40.3 40.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 6.1 5.3 1.4 1.6 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 9.5 29.3 29.3 13.1 11.4 11.5 43.5 40.2 48.8 50.2 41.6 41.9 Lane Group LOS A C C B B B DDDDDD Approach Volume, veh/h 1261 1467 212 266 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.1 11.6 46.6 46.1 Approach LOS C B D D Timer Assigned Phase 7 4 3 8 2 6 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.66 81.00 8.56 81.90 27.00 27.00 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.00 5.50 4.00 5.50 5.50 5.50 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.00 75.50 8.00 76.00 21.50 21.50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.66 34.68 4.57 25.15 11.71 14.72 Green Extension Time (p_c) 0.05 28.01 0.08 32.32 1.32 1.07 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 23.2 HCM 2010 Level of Service C HCM 2010 AWSC Existing Traffic - PM Peak 16: JFK Parkway & Monroe Drive 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh) 8.8 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph) 20 45 35 45 45 15 60 80 30 10 35 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 222222222222 Movement Flow Rate 22 49 38 49 49 16 65 87 33 11 38 33 Number of Lanes 111110110011 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2322 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2232 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2223 HCM Control Delay 8.5 9 9.1 8.5 HCM LOS AAAA Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Volume Left (%) 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 22% 0% Volume Thru (%) 0% 73% 0% 100% 0% 0% 75% 78% 0% Volume Right (%) 0% 27% 0% 0% 100% 0% 25% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume by Lane 60 110 20 45 35 45 60 45 30 Left Turning Volume 0 80 0 45 0 0 45 35 0 Through Volume 0 30 0 0 35 0 15 0 30 Right Turning Volume 60 0 20 0 0 45 0 10 0 Lane Flow Rate 65 120 22 49 38 49 65 49 33 Geometry Group 888888888 Degree of Utilization, X 0.106 0.171 0.037 0.075 0.051 0.082 0.097 0.077 0.044 Departure Headway, Hd 5.835 5.142 6.046 5.543 4.838 6.026 5.347 5.664 4.849 Convergence(Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Capacity 612 695 590 643 735 592 667 629 732 Service Time 3.592 2.899 3.81 3.307 2.602 3.791 3.111 3.432 2.618 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.106 0.173 0.037 0.076 0.052 0.083 0.097 0.078 0.045 HCM Control Delay 9.3 9 9 8.8 7.9 9.3 8.7 8.9 7.8 HCM Lane LOS AAAAAAAAA HCM 95th Percentile Queue 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing Traffic - PM Peak 17: Stanford Road & Monroe Drive 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 9 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 1.9 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 15 35 25 145 135 5 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 200 0 0 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 16 38 27 158 147 5 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 362 150 152 0 0 0 Stage 1 150 - - - - - Stage 2 212 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 679 896 1429 - - - Stage 1 878 - - - - - Stage 2 860 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 10 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 665 896 1429 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 665 - - - - - Stage 1 878 - - - - - Stage 2 842 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 1.1 0 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 665 896 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.568 - 10.6 9.2 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.019 - 0.025 0.042 - - HCM Lane LOS A - B A - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.058 - 0.075 0.133 - - HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Traffic - PM Peak 18: JFK Parkway & Horsetooth Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 115 735 75 255 855 50 110 95 270 55 110 60 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 120120111120 Capacity, veh/h 333 1770 181 538 1966 115 287 336 285 299 298 253 Arriving On Green 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.19 0.19 0.06 0.18 0.18 0.04 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774.0 3326.2 339.4 1774.0 3485.7 203.8 1774.0 1583.3 1583.3 1774.0 1862.7 1583.3 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 125.0 447.3 433.1 277.2 496.6 487.1 119.6 103.3 293.5 59.8 119.6 65.2 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774.0 1862.7 1802.9 1774.0 1862.7 1826.8 1774.0 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 1862.7 1583.3 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 0.0 0.0 7.1 28.3 28.3 6.5 5.7 21.4 3.3 6.8 4.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 0.0 0.0 7.1 28.3 28.3 6.5 5.7 21.4 3.3 6.8 4.3 Proportion In Lane 1.000 0.188 1.000 0.112 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 333.1 991.5 959.6 537.7 1050.5 1030.2 287.3 335.6 285.3 299.0 297.9 253.2 V/C Ratio(X) 0.375 0.451 0.451 0.516 0.473 0.473 0.416 0.308 1.029 0.200 0.401 0.258 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 350.9 991.5 959.6 648.6 1058.3 1037.9 287.3 335.6 285.3 335.0 305.7 259.9 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.339 0.339 0.339 0.811 0.811 0.811 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.7 0.0 0.0 8.8 32.6 32.6 37.0 42.3 48.7 39.5 44.8 43.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.3 1.0 2.4 60.9 0.3 4.0 2.4 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 13.9 0.1 0.1 9.4 32.9 32.9 37.9 44.6 109.6 39.9 48.8 46.2 Lane Group LOS BAAACCDDFDDD Approach Volume, veh/h 1005 1261 516 245 Approach Delay, s/veh 1.8 27.7 80.0 45.9 Approach LOS A C F D Timer Assigned Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.81 69.24 13.57 73.00 11.00 27.41 8.59 25.00 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.00 57.00 17.00 67.50 7.00 19.00 7.00 19.50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.87 2.00 9.06 30.27 8.50 23.41 5.32 8.85 Green Extension Time (p_c) 0.03 20.16 0.51 17.50 0.00 0.00 0.01 2.07 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 29.5 HCM 2010 Level of Service C HCM 2010 AWSC Existing Traffic - PM Peak 22: Stanford Road & Swallow Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 11 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh) 14.2 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph) 5 295 60 90 285 5 105 20 60 5 10 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 222222222222 Movement Flow Rate 5 321 65 98 310 5 114 22 65 5 11 5 Number of Lanes 110110010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2211 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1122 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1122 HCM Control Delay 16.6 13.2 11.9 9.7 HCM LOS C B B A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 Volume Left (%) 57% 100% 0% 100% 0% 25% Volume Thru (%) 11% 0% 83% 0% 98% 50% Volume Right (%) 32% 0% 17% 0% 2% 25% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume by Lane 185 5 355 90 290 20 Left Turning Volume 20 0 295 0 285 10 Through Volume 60 0 60 0 5 5 Right Turning Volume 105 5 0 90 0 5 Lane Flow Rate 201 5 386 98 315 22 Geometry Group 277772 Degree of Utilization, X 0.332 0.009 0.605 0.169 0.5 0.039 Departure Headway, Hd 5.937 6.275 5.648 6.229 5.71 6.404 Convergence(Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Capacity 605 570 641 576 630 557 Service Time 3.982 4.011 3.384 3.964 3.445 4.467 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.332 0.009 0.602 0.17 0.5 0.039 HCM Control Delay 11.9 9.1 16.7 10.2 14.1 9.7 HCM Lane LOS B A C B B A HCM 95th Percentile Queue 1.5 0 4.6 0.6 3 0.1 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing Traffic - PM Peak 25: College Avenue & Right In/Out 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 0 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Volume (vph) 0 20 1745 20 0 2235 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 0 Median Width 0 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2222 Movement Flow Rate 0 22 1897 22 0 2429 Number of Lanes 0 1 3003 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All ~ 960 0 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - ---- Stage 2 - - ---- Follow-up Headway 0 3.92 - - 0 - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 0 *840 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 44 - - 0 - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver - *840 ---- Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver - - ---- Stage 1 - - ---- Stage 2 - - ---- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 9.4 0 0 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBT NBR WBLn1 SBT Capacity (vph) *840 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.4 - HCM Lane VC Ratio - - 0.026 - HCM Lane LOS - - A - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) - - 0.08 - HCM 2010 TWSC Existing Traffic - PM Peak 30: Remington & Swallow Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 13 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 3.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph) 25 275 45 15 315 35 40 10 20 40 15 60 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 000000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None None None None None None None Storage Length 50 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 Median Width 12 12 0 0 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 222222222222 Movement Flow Rate 27 299 49 16 342 38 43 11 22 43 16 65 Number of Lanes 110110010010 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Minor 1 Minor 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 380 0 0 348 0 0 812 790 175 787 795 190 Stage 1 ------ 378 378- 393 393- Stage 2 ------ 434 412- 394 402- Follow-up Headway 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 1178 - - 1235 - - 311 327 *1201 326 323 852 Stage 1 ------ 727 652- 632 606- Stage 2 ------ 600 594- 709 632- Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 - - 20 - - 20 20 20 20 20 0 Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 1178 - - 1235 - - 268 315 *1201 303 312 852 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ------ 268 315- 303 312- Stage 1 ------ 710 637- 618 598- Stage 2 ------ 532 586- 669 618- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 0.6 0.3 17.9 15.8 HCM LOS A A C C Lane NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (vph) *354 *459 HCM Control Delay (s) 17.9 8.128 0 - 7.954 0 - 15.8 HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.215 0.023 - - 0.013 - - 0.272 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.803 0.071 - - 0.04 - - 1.094 HCM 2010 AWSC Existing Traffic - PM Peak 33: Stanford Road & N Monroe 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 14 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh) 9.2 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph) 40 20 15 10 15 20 20 125 15 15 115 45 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 222222222222 Movement Flow Rate 43 22 16 11 16 22 22 136 16 16 125 49 Number of Lanes 111010010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1311 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1131 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1113 HCM Control Delay 8.7 8.5 9.4 9.3 HCM LOS AAAA Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 SBLn1 Volume Left (%) 12% 100% 0% 0% 22% 9% Volume Thru (%) 78% 0% 100% 0% 33% 66% Volume Right (%) 9% 0% 0% 100% 44% 26% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume by Lane 160 40 20 15 45 175 Left Turning Volume 125 0 20 0 15 115 Through Volume 15 0 0 15 20 45 Right Turning Volume 20 40 0 0 10 15 Lane Flow Rate 174 43 22 16 49 190 Geometry Group 777777 Degree of Utilization, X 0.244 0.073 0.033 0.022 0.073 0.259 Departure Headway, Hd 5.047 6.011 5.507 4.801 5.37 4.902 Convergence(Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Capacity 711 595 649 744 665 732 Service Time 2.78 3.753 3.249 2.542 3.116 2.634 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.245 0.072 0.034 0.022 0.074 0.26 HCM Control Delay 9.4 9.2 8.4 7.7 8.5 9.3 HCM Lane LOS AAAAAA HCM 95th Percentile Queue 1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 1 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Traffic - SAT Peak 1: College Avenue & Swallow Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 60 120 90 80 90 120 70 1675 80 90 1705 60 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 111111130130 Capacity, veh/h 242 198 169 223 223 189 220 2962 141 227 3023 106 Arriving On Green 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.60 0.60 0.04 0.60 0.60 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774.0 1583.3 1583.3 1774.0 1583.3 1583.3 1774.0 4973.9 237.2 1774.0 5044.3 177.3 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 65.2 130.4 97.8 87.0 97.8 130.4 76.1 1240.1 667.5 97.8 1244.9 673.6 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774.0 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 1695.1 1820.9 1774.0 1695.1 1831.5 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 6.7 5.8 4.2 4.8 7.8 1.6 23.1 23.2 2.1 23.0 23.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 6.7 5.8 4.2 4.8 7.8 1.6 23.1 23.2 2.1 23.0 23.1 Proportion In Lane 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.130 1.000 0.097 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 242.1 198.4 168.7 223.1 222.7 189.3 220.5 2018.8 1084.3 226.9 2031.4 1097.4 V/C Ratio(X) 0.269 0.657 0.580 0.390 0.439 0.689 0.345 0.614 0.616 0.431 0.613 0.614 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 289.4 488.8 415.5 247.2 488.8 415.5 300.9 2018.8 1084.3 300.7 2031.4 1097.4 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) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.672 0.672 0.672 1.000 1.000 1.000 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.2 42.5 42.2 35.7 40.5 41.9 10.9 12.8 12.8 11.7 12.6 12.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 3.7 3.1 1.1 1.4 4.4 0.6 0.9 1.8 1.3 1.4 2.6 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 37.8 46.2 45.3 36.8 41.9 46.3 11.6 13.7 14.6 13.0 14.0 15.2 Lane Group LOS DDDDDDBBBBBB Approach Volume, veh/h 293 315 1984 2016 Approach Delay, s/veh 44.0 42.3 13.9 14.3 Approach LOS D D B B Timer Assigned Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.36 16.55 9.65 17.84 7.51 65.00 7.88 65.37 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.00 26.00 7.00 26.00 8.00 59.00 8.00 59.00 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.21 8.67 6.21 9.83 3.64 25.19 4.09 25.10 Green Extension Time (p_c) 0.02 1.89 0.01 1.85 0.05 31.86 0.07 31.94 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 18.0 HCM 2010 Level of Service B HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Traffic - SAT Peak 2: College Avenue & Foothills PKWY 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 25 20 20 180 15 155 35 1645 185 195 1650 30 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 111211130230 Capacity, veh/h 46 62 53 310 215 183 48 2616 293 272 3211 58 Arriving On Green 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.56 0.56 0.16 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1391.1 1862.7 1583.3 2685.6 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 4641.7 519.5 3441.6 5143.0 93.5 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 27.2 21.7 21.7 195.7 16.3 168.5 38.0 1303.7 685.5 212.0 1182.0 644.1 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1391.1 1862.7 1583.3 1342.8 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 1695.1 1771.1 1720.8 1695.1 1846.2 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 1.3 1.5 7.8 0.9 11.9 2.4 30.7 31.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 1.3 1.5 7.8 0.9 11.9 2.4 30.7 31.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 Proportion In Lane 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.293 1.000 0.051 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 46.3 61.9 52.7 309.9 214.9 182.7 48.4 1910.9 998.2 272.3 2116.7 1152.7 V/C Ratio(X) 0.587 0.351 0.413 0.631 0.076 0.922 0.786 0.682 0.687 0.778 0.558 0.559 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 86.4 115.7 98.4 309.9 214.9 182.7 141.7 1910.9 998.2 397.1 2116.7 1152.7 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.989 0.989 0.989 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.776 0.776 0.776 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.7 53.3 53.4 47.5 44.5 49.3 54.5 17.4 17.5 46.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.3 3.4 5.1 4.1 0.1 44.6 23.7 2.0 3.8 4.6 0.8 1.5 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 65.0 56.6 58.5 51.6 44.6 93.9 78.1 19.4 21.3 51.1 0.8 1.5 Lane Group LOS E E E D D F E B C D A A Approach Volume, veh/h 71 380 2027 2038 Approach Delay, s/veh 60.4 70.0 21.2 6.3 Approach LOS E E C A Timer Assigned Phase 4 8 5 2 1 6 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.75 19.00 7.07 70.00 13.91 76.84 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.00 6.00 4.00 6.50 5.00 6.50 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.00 13.00 9.00 63.50 13.00 69.00 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.17 13.87 4.40 33.04 8.66 2.00 Green Extension Time (p_c) 0.04 0.00 0.02 28.85 0.27 59.87 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 19.2 HCM 2010 Level of Service B HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Traffic - SAT Peak 4: College Avenue & Horsetooth Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 230 570 140 220 440 125 225 1430 130 175 1520 160 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 120221131131 Capacity, veh/h 236 653 160 298 667 298 298 2077 647 262 2003 624 Arriving On Green 0.13 0.23 0.23 0.17 0.38 0.38 0.10 0.41 0.41 0.17 0.79 0.79 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774.0 2891.5 708.9 3441.6 1583.3 1583.3 1774.0 1583.3 1583.3 1774.0 1583.3 1583.3 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 250.0 398.7 373.0 239.1 478.3 135.9 244.6 1554.3 141.3 190.2 1652.2 173.9 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774.0 1862.7 1737.6 1720.8 1769.6 1583.3 1774.0 1695.1 1583.3 1774.0 1695.1 1583.3 Q Serve(g_s), s 15.0 23.8 23.9 7.5 13.0 5.7 8.9 29.4 4.5 7.3 22.2 2.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.0 23.8 23.9 7.5 13.0 5.7 8.9 29.4 4.5 7.3 22.2 2.1 Proportion In Lane 1.000 0.408 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 235.6 420.5 392.3 298.3 667.1 298.4 298.4 2077.3 646.8 262.3 2003.4 623.8 V/C Ratio(X) 1.061 0.948 0.951 0.802 0.717 0.455 0.820 0.748 0.218 0.725 0.825 0.279 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 235.6 420.5 392.3 396.1 767.7 343.4 358.7 2077.3 646.8 348.3 2003.4 623.8 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.930 0.930 0.930 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.825 0.825 0.825 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.0 43.1 43.1 45.8 32.6 18.8 22.6 28.5 10.1 21.5 9.6 3.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 75.7 30.9 32.9 7.9 2.5 1.0 12.0 2.5 0.8 4.2 3.3 0.9 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 124.7 74.0 76.0 53.6 35.2 19.8 34.6 31.0 10.8 25.7 13.0 3.9 Lane Group LOS F E E D D B C C B C B A Approach Volume, veh/h 1022 853 1940 2016 Approach Delay, s/veh 87.1 37.9 30.0 13.4 Approach LOS F D C B Timer Assigned Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.00 32.00 14.79 27.79 15.16 52.64 13.52 51.00 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.00 6.50 5.00 6.50 4.00 6.50 4.00 6.50 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.00 25.50 13.00 24.50 15.00 45.00 15.00 44.50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.00 25.91 9.53 15.03 10.90 31.41 9.30 24.22 Green Extension Time (p_c) 0.00 0.00 0.26 5.58 0.27 13.00 0.24 19.06 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 35.4 HCM 2010 Level of Service D HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Traffic - SAT Peak 11: Mall Entrance & Foothills PKWY/Mathews Street 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 165 85 155 20 55 15 155 10 30 20 40 80 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 121121111010 Capacity, veh/h 477 821 367 459 821 367 720 906 770 157 274 433 Arriving On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow, veh/h 1337.5 3539.2 1583.3 1298.6 3539.2 1583.3 1230.0 1862.7 1583.3 222.7 409.5 890.8 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 179.3 92.4 168.5 21.7 59.8 16.3 168.5 10.9 32.6 152.2 0.0 0.0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1337.5 1769.6 1583.3 1298.6 1769.6 1583.3 1230.0 1862.7 1583.3 1559.0 0.0 0.0 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.7 0.8 3.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 3.5 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.2 0.8 3.6 1.3 0.5 0.3 5.5 0.1 0.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 Proportion In Lane 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.143 0.571 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 476.8 820.6 367.1 458.7 820.6 367.1 720.3 906.2 770.3 863.8 0.0 0.0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.376 0.113 0.459 0.047 0.073 0.044 0.234 0.012 0.042 0.176 0.000 0.000 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 851.6 1812.4 810.8 822.6 1812.4 810.8 720.3 906.2 770.3 863.8 0.0 0.0 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) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.8 11.8 12.9 12.4 11.7 11.6 7.2 5.2 5.3 5.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.4 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 14.3 11.9 13.8 12.4 11.8 11.7 8.0 5.2 5.4 6.1 0.0 0.0 Lane Group LOS BBBBBBAAAA Approach Volume, veh/h 440 98 212 152 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.6 11.9 7.4 6.1 Approach LOS BBAA Timer Assigned Phase 4826 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.06 14.06 25.00 25.00 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.00 5.00 6.00 6.00 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.00 20.00 19.00 19.00 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.24 3.33 7.48 3.98 Green Extension Time (p_c) 1.84 2.03 1.28 1.44 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 10.7 HCM 2010 Level of Service B HCM 2010 TWSC Existing Traffic - SAT Peak 12: Mathews Street & Swallow Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 2.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Volume (vph) 235 35 20 210 50 65 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0000 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 100 100 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2222 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 255 38 22 228 54 71 Number of Lanes 1011 1 1 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 0 0 293 0 546 274 Stage 1 ---- 274 - Stage 2 ---- 272 - Follow-up Headway - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver - - 1298 - 539 880 Stage 1 ---- 833 - Stage 2 ---- 774 - Time blocked-Platoon(%) - - 18 - 18 18 Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver - - 1298 - 529 880 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ---- 529 - Stage 1 ---- 833 - Stage 2 ---- 761 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0.7 10.8 HCM LOS A A B Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (vph) 529 880 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.6 9.4 - - 7.821 - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.103 0.08 - - 0.017 - HCM Lane LOS B A - - A - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.342 0.261 - - 0.051 - HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Traffic - SAT Peak 13: College Avenue & Monroe Drive 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 65 30 70 95 20 120 40 1665 80 85 1725 40 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 110111130130 Capacity, veh/h 285 83 194 206 311 265 205 3222 155 283 3354 78 Arriving On Green 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.05 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.44 0.44 Sat Flow, veh/h 1384.3 497.4 1160.6 1279.5 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 4972.3 238.6 1774.0 5113.5 118.5 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 70.7 0.0 108.7 103.3 21.7 130.4 43.5 1233.2 663.6 92.4 1242.6 675.8 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1384.3 0.0 1657.9 1279.5 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 1695.1 1820.6 1774.0 1695.1 1841.8 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.8 0.0 6.2 8.4 1.0 8.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.8 29.1 29.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.9 0.0 6.2 14.6 1.0 8.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.8 29.1 29.1 Proportion In Lane 1.000 0.700 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.131 1.000 0.064 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 285.1 0.0 277.0 206.5 311.2 264.5 204.6 2196.7 1179.7 283.4 2223.5 1208.0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.248 0.000 0.392 0.500 0.070 0.493 0.213 0.561 0.563 0.326 0.559 0.559 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 391.1 0.0 403.9 304.4 453.8 385.7 289.4 2196.7 1179.7 404.0 2239.4 1216.6 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 Upstream Filter(I) 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.556 0.556 0.556 1.000 1.000 1.000 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.9 0.0 39.6 46.1 37.5 40.3 10.1 0.0 0.0 5.4 18.4 18.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.9 1.9 0.1 1.4 0.3 0.6 1.1 0.7 1.0 1.9 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 40.4 0.0 40.5 48.0 37.6 41.8 10.3 0.6 1.1 6.1 19.5 20.3 Lane Group LOS D DDDDBAAABC Approach Volume, veh/h 179 255 1940 2011 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.5 43.9 1.0 19.1 Approach LOS D D A B Timer Assigned Phase 4 8 5 2 1 6 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.83 23.83 6.90 75.16 7.74 76.00 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.00 26.00 8.00 67.00 11.00 70.50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.24 16.59 2.87 2.00 3.80 31.11 Green Extension Time (p_c) 1.62 1.24 0.02 58.18 0.10 36.75 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 13.4 HCM 2010 Level of Service B HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Traffic - SAT Peak 15: Stanford Road & Horsetooth Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 65 855 15 55 845 55 10 20 55 75 40 75 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 120120111111 Capacity, veh/h 453 2548 45 430 2410 157 228 266 226 246 266 226 Arriving On Green 0.02 0.47 0.47 0.03 0.70 0.70 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774.0 3650.2 64.0 1774.0 3460.5 225.2 1357.4 1862.7 1583.3 1384.3 1862.7 1583.3 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 70.7 474.3 471.4 59.8 494.4 483.9 10.9 21.7 59.8 81.5 43.5 81.5 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774.0 1862.7 1851.4 1774.0 1862.7 1823.0 1357.4 1862.7 1583.3 1384.3 1862.7 1583.3 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.3 18.9 18.9 1.1 12.7 12.7 0.8 1.2 3.9 6.3 2.4 5.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.3 18.9 18.9 1.1 12.7 12.7 3.2 1.2 3.9 7.4 2.4 5.4 Proportion In Lane 1.000 0.035 1.000 0.124 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 453.4 1300.1 1292.2 430.3 1297.3 1269.6 228.2 265.9 226.0 245.9 265.9 226.0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.156 0.365 0.365 0.139 0.381 0.381 0.048 0.082 0.264 0.332 0.164 0.361 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 521.1 1300.1 1292.2 531.4 1305.4 1277.5 228.2 265.9 226.0 245.9 265.9 226.0 HCM Platoon Ratio 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.890 0.890 0.890 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.3 14.3 14.3 6.2 7.2 7.2 44.9 43.0 44.1 46.2 43.5 44.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 2.8 3.6 1.3 4.4 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 5.4 14.5 14.5 6.3 7.4 7.4 45.3 43.6 47.0 49.8 44.8 49.2 Lane Group LOS ABBAAADDDDDD Approach Volume, veh/h 1016 1038 92 207 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.8 7.4 46.0 48.5 Approach LOS B A D D Timer Assigned Phase 7 4 3 8 2 6 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.59 86.17 7.41 86.00 22.00 22.00 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.00 5.50 4.00 5.50 5.50 5.50 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.00 78.50 10.00 81.00 16.50 16.50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.30 20.89 3.10 14.68 5.89 9.44 Green Extension Time (p_c) 0.05 21.48 0.05 22.28 0.78 0.61 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 15.3 HCM 2010 Level of Service B HCM 2010 AWSC Existing Traffic - SAT Peak 16: JFK Parkway & Monroe Drive 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh) 9 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph) 50 40 25 25 45 10 35 110 30 10 40 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 222222222222 Movement Flow Rate 54 43 27 27 49 11 38 120 33 11 43 33 Number of Lanes 111110110011 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2322 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2232 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2223 HCM Control Delay 8.8 8.9 9.3 8.5 HCM LOS AAAA Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Volume Left (%) 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 20% 0% Volume Thru (%) 0% 79% 0% 100% 0% 0% 82% 80% 0% Volume Right (%) 0% 21% 0% 0% 100% 0% 18% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume by Lane 35 140 50 40 25 25 55 50 30 Left Turning Volume 0 110 0 40 0 0 45 40 0 Through Volume 0 30 0 0 25 0 10 0 30 Right Turning Volume 35 0 50 0 0 25 0 10 0 Lane Flow Rate 38 152 54 43 27 27 60 54 33 Geometry Group 888888888 Degree of Utilization, X 0.062 0.219 0.091 0.067 0.036 0.046 0.091 0.085 0.044 Departure Headway, Hd 5.826 5.174 6.012 5.509 4.805 6.096 5.464 5.641 4.838 Convergence(Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Capacity 613 691 593 647 740 584 652 632 734 Service Time 3.583 2.931 3.778 3.275 2.57 3.866 3.234 3.41 2.606 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.062 0.22 0.091 0.066 0.036 0.046 0.092 0.085 0.045 HCM Control Delay 9 9.4 9.4 8.7 7.8 9.2 8.8 8.9 7.8 HCM Lane LOS AAAAAAAAA HCM 95th Percentile Queue 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing Traffic - SAT Peak 17: Stanford Road & Monroe Drive 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 9 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 1.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 15 30 15 125 135 5 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 200 0 0 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 16 33 16 136 147 5 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 318 150 152 0 0 0 Stage 1 150 - - - - - Stage 2 168 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 711 896 1429 - - - Stage 1 878 - - - - - Stage 2 892 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 8 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 702 896 1429 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 702 - - - - - Stage 1 878 - - - - - Stage 2 882 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 0.8 0 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 702 896 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.548 - 10.3 9.2 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.011 - 0.023 0.036 - - HCM Lane LOS A - B A - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.035 - 0.071 0.113 - - HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Existing Traffic - SAT Peak 18: JFK Parkway & Horsetooth Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 115 655 105 210 670 50 85 85 240 50 85 45 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 120120111120 Capacity, veh/h 441 1730 277 557 1970 147 285 303 258 282 264 224 Arriving On Green 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.39 0.39 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.14 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774.0 3134.7 502.2 1774.0 3424.9 255.5 1774.0 1583.3 1583.3 1774.0 1862.7 1583.3 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 125.0 422.9 403.2 228.3 395.9 386.7 92.4 92.4 260.9 54.3 92.4 48.9 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774.0 1862.7 1774.1 1774.0 1862.7 1817.7 1774.0 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 1862.7 1583.3 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 0.0 0.0 5.7 17.2 17.2 4.8 4.9 18.4 2.9 5.1 3.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 0.0 0.0 5.7 17.2 17.2 4.8 4.9 18.4 2.9 5.1 3.1 Proportion In Lane 1.000 0.283 1.000 0.141 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 441.4 1027.9 979.0 556.6 1071.6 1045.7 285.4 303.4 257.9 282.2 263.8 224.2 V/C Ratio(X) 0.283 0.411 0.412 0.410 0.369 0.370 0.324 0.304 1.011 0.193 0.350 0.218 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 527.3 1027.9 979.0 758.0 1079.8 1053.7 309.6 303.4 257.9 344.1 272.0 231.2 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.354 0.354 0.354 0.930 0.930 0.930 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.3 0.0 0.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 36.2 41.7 47.3 39.5 43.8 43.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 2.6 59.0 0.3 3.6 2.2 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 10.4 0.1 0.1 8.5 20.2 20.2 36.9 44.2 106.3 39.8 47.4 45.2 Lane Group LOS BAAACCDDFDDD Approach Volume, veh/h 951 1011 446 196 Approach Delay, s/veh 1.5 17.6 79.0 44.7 Approach LOS A B E D Timer Assigned Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.53 68.35 12.18 71.00 10.46 24.41 8.06 22.00 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.00 55.00 21.00 65.50 8.00 16.00 8.00 16.50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.51 2.00 7.66 19.23 6.82 20.41 4.94 7.06 Green Extension Time (p_c) 0.13 15.54 0.53 15.08 0.02 0.00 0.02 1.60 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 24.3 HCM 2010 Level of Service C HCM 2010 AWSC Existing Traffic - SAT Peak 22: Stanford Road & Swallow Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 11 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh) 10.6 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph) 10 235 45 70 155 10 55 10 75 5 10 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 222222222222 Movement Flow Rate 11 255 49 76 168 11 60 11 82 5 11 11 Number of Lanes 110110010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2211 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1122 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1122 HCM Control Delay 11.8 9.8 9.6 8.7 HCM LOS BAAA Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 Volume Left (%) 39% 100% 0% 100% 0% 20% Volume Thru (%) 7% 0% 84% 0% 94% 40% Volume Right (%) 54% 0% 16% 0% 6% 40% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume by Lane 140 10 280 70 165 25 Left Turning Volume 10 0 235 0 155 10 Through Volume 75 0 45 0 10 10 Right Turning Volume 55 10 0 70 0 5 Lane Flow Rate 152 11 304 76 179 27 Geometry Group 277772 Degree of Utilization, X 0.216 0.017 0.435 0.123 0.262 0.04 Departure Headway, Hd 5.1 5.757 5.14 5.797 5.25 5.354 Convergence(Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Capacity 698 618 697 615 680 661 Service Time 3.171 3.525 2.907 3.567 3.02 3.452 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.218 0.018 0.436 0.124 0.263 0.041 HCM Control Delay 9.6 8.6 11.9 9.4 9.9 8.7 HCM Lane LOS AABAAA HCM 95th Percentile Queue 0.8 0.1 2.3 0.4 1.1 0.1 HCM 2010 TWSC Existing Traffic - SAT Peak 25: College Avenue & Right In/Out 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 0.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Volume (vph) 0 40 1825 25 0 1850 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 0 Median Width 0 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2222 Movement Flow Rate 0 43 1984 27 0 2011 Number of Lanes 0 1 3003 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All ~ 1006 0 0 - 0 Stage 1 - - ---- Stage 2 - - ---- Follow-up Headway 0 3.92 - - 0 - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 0 *804 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 46 - - 0 - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver - *804 ---- Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver - - ---- Stage 1 - - ---- Stage 2 - - ---- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 9.7 0 0 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBT NBR WBLn1 SBT Capacity (vph) *804 HCM Control Delay (s) - - 9.7 - HCM Lane VC Ratio - - 0.054 - HCM Lane LOS - - A - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) - - 0.171 - HCM 2010 TWSC Existing Traffic - SAT Peak 30: Remington & Swallow Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 13 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 3.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph) 15 225 50 20 220 20 35 15 25 20 20 35 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 000000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None None None None None None None Storage Length 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 Median Width 12 12 0 0 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 222222222222 Movement Flow Rate 16 245 54 22 239 22 38 16 27 22 22 38 Number of Lanes 110110010010 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Minor 1 Minor 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 261 0 0 299 0 0 628 609 150 620 625 131 Stage 1 ------ 304 304- 294 294- Stage 2 ------ 324 305- 326 331- Follow-up Headway 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 1303 - - 1291 - - 433 433 *1237 440 422 919 Stage 1 ------ 794 703- 714 670- Stage 2 ------ 688 662- 769 681- Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 - - 18 - - 18 18 18 18 18 0 Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 1303 - - 1291 - - 389 420 *1237 408 410 919 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ------ 389 420- 408 410- Stage 1 ------ 784 695- 705 659- Stage 2 ------ 627 651- 726 673- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 0.4 0.6 13.3 12.6 HCM LOS AABB Lane NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (vph) *514 *552 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.3 7.798 0 - 7.836 0 - 12.6 HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.159 0.013 - - 0.017 - - 0.148 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.56 0.038 - - 0.051 - - 0.515 HCM 2010 AWSC Existing Traffic - SAT Peak 33: Stanford Road & N Monroe 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Existing Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 14 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh) 8.7 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph) 10 15 15 10 10 20 15 110 15 10 115 25 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 222222222222 Movement Flow Rate 11 16 16 11 11 22 16 120 16 11 125 27 Number of Lanes 111010010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1311 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1131 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1113 HCM Control Delay 8.1 8.2 8.8 8.8 HCM LOS AAAA Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 SBLn1 Volume Left (%) 11% 100% 0% 0% 25% 7% Volume Thru (%) 79% 0% 100% 0% 25% 77% Volume Right (%) 11% 0% 0% 100% 50% 17% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume by Lane 140 10 15 15 40 150 Left Turning Volume 110 0 15 0 10 115 Through Volume 15 0 0 15 20 25 Right Turning Volume 15 10 0 0 10 10 Lane Flow Rate 152 11 16 16 43 163 Geometry Group 777777 Degree of Utilization, X 0.206 0.018 0.024 0.021 0.062 0.217 Departure Headway, Hd 4.868 5.87 5.367 4.661 5.158 4.798 Convergence(Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Capacity 740 611 668 769 696 750 Service Time 2.583 3.594 3.09 2.384 2.881 2.514 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.205 0.018 0.024 0.021 0.062 0.217 HCM Control Delay 8.8 8.7 8.2 7.5 8.2 8.8 HCM Lane LOS AAAAAA HCM 95th Percentile Queue 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.8 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix C APPENDIX C BACKGROUND TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak 1: College Avenue & Swallow Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 25 5 30 230 10 105 40 2115 110 155 2540 40 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 111111130130 Capacity, veh/h 165 79 67 362 290 246 132 2842 147 201 3120 49 Arriving On Green 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.16 0.16 0.03 0.57 0.57 0.06 0.60 0.60 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774.0 1583.3 1583.3 1774.0 1583.3 1583.3 1774.0 4952.1 255.7 1774.0 5157.8 80.9 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 27.2 5.4 32.6 250.0 10.9 114.1 43.5 1568.6 849.9 168.5 1810.6 993.7 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774.0 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 1695.1 1817.6 1774.0 1695.1 1848.5 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 0.3 2.1 11.9 0.5 6.9 1.0 38.4 39.1 4.0 47.3 48.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 0.3 2.1 11.9 0.5 6.9 1.0 38.4 39.1 4.0 47.3 48.0 Proportion In Lane 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.141 1.000 0.044 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 165.1 78.8 67.0 362.1 289.6 246.1 131.6 1945.7 1043.2 200.9 2050.8 1118.2 V/C Ratio(X) 0.165 0.069 0.487 0.690 0.038 0.464 0.330 0.806 0.815 0.839 0.883 0.889 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 246.8 249.5 212.0 395.9 409.8 348.3 269.6 1945.7 1043.2 266.9 2050.8 1118.2 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) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 46.6 48.1 48.9 30.2 37.5 40.2 23.3 17.7 17.8 25.7 17.5 17.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.4 5.4 4.5 0.1 1.4 1.5 3.7 7.0 16.1 5.9 10.6 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 47.0 48.4 54.3 34.8 37.6 41.5 24.7 21.4 24.8 41.8 23.5 28.2 Lane Group LOS DDDCDDCCCDCC Approach Volume, veh/h 65 375 2462 2973 Approach Delay, s/veh 50.8 36.9 22.6 26.1 Approach LOS DDCC Timer Assigned Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.18 10.43 18.01 22.25 6.87 66.00 10.11 69.24 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.00 14.00 16.00 23.00 11.00 60.00 10.00 59.00 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.52 4.11 13.86 8.86 3.05 41.12 6.00 50.02 Green Extension Time (p_c) 0.01 0.34 0.16 0.41 0.03 18.82 0.15 8.97 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 25.6 HCM 2010 Level of Service C HCM 2010 TWSC Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak 2: College Avenue & Foothills PKWY 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 0.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 15 40 30 2295 2850 25 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None Yield Yield None None Storage Length 100 100 150 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 16 43 33 2495 3098 27 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 3 3 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 4176 1563 3125 0 0 0 Stage 1 3112 - - - - - Stage 2 1064 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.82 3.92 3.12 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver - *371 *371 - - - Stage 1 *371 - - - - - Stage 2 *587 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 100 75 75 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver - *371 *371 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver - - - - - - Stage 1 *371 - - - - - Stage 2 *535 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) - 0.2 0 HCM LOS - A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) - 371 HCM Control Delay (s) 15.636 - - 16 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.088 - - 0.117 - - HCM Lane LOS C - - C - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.287 - - 0.394 - - HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak 4: College Avenue & Horsetooth Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 140 825 105 175 910 145 215 1905 105 165 2335 180 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 120221131131 Capacity, veh/h 118 824 105 201 900 402 166 2267 706 177 2267 706 Arriving On Green 0.07 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.45 0.45 0.12 0.89 0.89 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774.0 3240.3 412.4 3441.6 1583.3 1583.3 1774.0 1583.3 1583.3 1774.0 1583.3 1583.3 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 152.2 515.5 495.4 190.2 989.1 157.6 233.7 2070.7 114.1 179.3 2538.0 195.7 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774.0 1862.7 1790.0 1720.8 1769.6 1583.3 1774.0 1695.1 1583.3 1774.0 1695.1 1583.3 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.0 30.5 30.5 6.6 30.5 9.9 7.0 45.7 5.2 7.0 53.5 2.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.0 30.5 30.5 6.6 30.5 9.9 7.0 45.7 5.2 7.0 53.5 2.1 Proportion In Lane 1.000 0.230 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 118.3 473.4 455.0 200.8 899.6 402.4 165.6 2267.2 705.9 176.5 2267.2 705.9 V/C Ratio(X) 1.287 1.089 1.089 0.947 1.100 0.392 1.411 0.913 0.162 1.016 1.119 0.277 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 118.3 473.4 455.0 200.8 899.6 402.4 165.6 2288.4 712.5 176.5 2267.2 705.9 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.750 0.750 0.750 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.497 0.497 0.497 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 56.0 44.8 44.8 56.3 44.8 37.1 32.9 31.1 19.9 26.6 6.5 3.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 178.4 67.5 68.4 40.8 57.7 0.5 216.9 7.1 0.5 51.9 57.2 0.5 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 234.4 112.3 113.1 97.1 102.4 37.5 249.8 38.2 20.3 78.5 63.7 4.2 Lane Group LOS FFFFFDFDCFFA Approach Volume, veh/h 1163 1337 2418 2913 Approach Delay, s/veh 128.6 94.0 57.8 60.6 Approach LOS F F E E Timer Assigned Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.00 37.00 12.00 37.00 11.00 60.00 11.00 60.00 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.00 6.50 5.00 6.50 4.00 6.50 4.00 6.50 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.00 30.50 7.00 30.50 7.00 54.00 7.00 53.50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.00 32.50 8.61 32.50 9.00 47.68 9.00 55.50 Green Extension Time (p_c) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.31 0.00 0.00 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 75.6 HCM 2010 Level of Service E HCM 2010 TWSC Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak 12: Mathews Street & Swallow Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 0.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Volume (vph) 260 15 10 285 20 20 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0000 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 100 100 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2222 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 283 16 11 310 22 22 Number of Lanes 1011 1 1 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 0 0 299 0 623 291 Stage 1 ---- 291 - Stage 2 ---- 332 - Follow-up Headway - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver - - *1201 - *482 *1201 Stage 1 ---- *1201 - Stage 2 ---- *727 - Time blocked-Platoon(%) - - 20 - 20 20 Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver - - *1201 - *478 *1201 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ---- *478 - Stage 1 ---- *1201 - Stage 2 ---- *720 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0.3 10.5 HCM LOS A A B Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (vph) *478 *1201 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.9 8.1 - - 8.025 - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.045 0.018 - - 0.009 - HCM Lane LOS B A - - A - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.143 0.055 - - 0.027 - HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak 13: College Avenue & Monroe Drive 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 45 15 60 10 25 100 30 2130 95 5 2870 30 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 110111130130 Capacity, veh/h 194 32 129 144 185 157 167 3626 161 186 3672 38 Arriving On Green 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.05 1.00 1.00 0.01 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1377.5 326.5 1305.8 1311.4 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 4992.6 221.3 1774.0 5189.3 54.1 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 48.9 0.0 81.5 10.9 27.2 108.7 32.6 1567.5 850.9 5.4 2034.4 1117.8 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1377.5 0.0 1632.3 1311.4 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 1695.1 1823.7 1774.0 1695.1 1853.2 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 0.0 4.5 0.8 1.3 6.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.4 0.0 4.5 5.2 1.3 6.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Proportion In Lane 1.000 0.800 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.121 1.000 0.029 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 194.2 0.0 161.8 143.9 184.6 156.9 167.1 2462.3 1324.5 186.4 2398.9 1311.3 V/C Ratio(X) 0.252 0.000 0.504 0.076 0.147 0.693 0.195 0.637 0.642 0.029 0.848 0.852 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 494.1 0.0 517.2 429.4 590.2 501.6 255.1 2462.3 1324.5 326.3 2416.8 1321.1 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.332 0.332 0.332 1.000 1.000 1.000 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.0 0.0 40.4 42.9 39.0 41.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 2.4 0.2 0.4 5.4 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.1 4.0 7.2 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 41.7 0.0 42.9 43.1 39.4 46.6 3.1 0.4 0.8 3.9 4.0 7.2 Lane Group LOS D DDDDAAAAAA Approach Volume, veh/h 130 147 2451 3158 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.4 45.0 0.6 5.1 Approach LOS D D A A Timer Assigned Phase 4 8 5 2 1 6 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.38 15.38 6.30 74.77 4.53 73.00 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.00 30.00 7.00 66.00 8.00 67.50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.48 8.29 2.44 2.00 2.08 2.00 Green Extension Time (p_c) 1.13 1.10 0.01 63.64 0.00 65.13 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 5.0 HCM 2010 Level of Service A HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak 15: Stanford Road & Horsetooth Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 45 1510 20 110 1640 40 25 20 135 75 45 40 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 120120111111 Capacity, veh/h 194 2382 32 324 2395 58 280 342 290 302 342 290 Arriving On Green 0.05 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.66 0.66 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774.0 3668.4 48.5 1774.0 3621.9 88.0 1350.7 1862.7 1583.3 1384.3 1862.7 1583.3 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 48.9 832.5 830.6 119.6 913.9 912.2 27.2 21.7 146.7 81.5 48.9 43.5 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774.0 1862.7 1854.2 1774.0 1862.7 1847.2 1350.7 1862.7 1583.3 1384.3 1862.7 1583.3 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.1 0.0 0.0 2.5 38.2 38.7 2.0 1.1 9.8 6.1 2.6 2.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.1 0.0 0.0 2.5 38.2 38.7 4.6 1.1 9.8 7.2 2.6 2.7 Proportion In Lane 1.000 0.026 1.000 0.048 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 193.8 1209.6 1204.0 324.3 1231.9 1221.6 279.5 341.8 290.5 302.1 341.8 290.5 V/C Ratio(X) 0.252 0.688 0.690 0.369 0.742 0.747 0.097 0.064 0.505 0.270 0.143 0.150 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 236.4 1209.6 1204.0 436.4 1239.9 1229.5 279.5 341.8 290.5 302.1 341.8 290.5 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.737 0.737 0.737 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.2 0.0 0.0 5.6 13.2 13.3 42.0 39.5 43.1 42.5 40.1 40.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 1.2 1.2 0.7 2.4 2.5 0.7 0.4 6.2 2.2 0.9 1.1 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 13.7 1.2 1.2 6.3 15.6 15.8 42.7 39.9 49.2 44.7 41.0 41.3 Lane Group LOS BAAABBDDDDDD Approach Volume, veh/h 1712 1946 196 174 Approach Delay, s/veh 1.6 15.1 47.3 42.8 Approach LOS A B D D Timer Assigned Phase 7 4 3 8 2 6 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.19 81.59 8.59 83.00 27.00 27.00 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.00 5.50 4.00 5.50 5.50 5.50 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 6.00 71.50 12.00 78.00 21.50 21.50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.08 2.00 4.54 40.71 11.77 9.19 Green Extension Time (p_c) 0.02 60.07 0.15 34.35 0.95 1.07 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 12.1 HCM 2010 Level of Service B HCM 2010 AWSC Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak 16: JFK Parkway & Monroe Drive 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 7 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh) 7.9 Intersection LOS A Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Volume (vph) 10 35 45 30 60 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2222 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 11 38 49 33 65 16 Number of Lanes 1111 1 1 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 2 2 0 Conflicting Approach Left NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 0 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 0 2 HCM Control Delay 7.1 8.1 8.3 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 Volume Left (%) 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% Volume Thru (%) 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% Volume Right (%) 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume by Lane 60 15 10 35 45 30 Left Turning Volume 0 0 10 0 0 30 Through Volume 0 15 0 35 0 0 Right Turning Volume 60 0 0 0 45 0 Lane Flow Rate 65 16 11 38 49 33 Geometry Group 777777 Degree of Utilization, X 0.095 0.018 0.015 0.044 0.071 0.043 Departure Headway, Hd 5.356 4.155 4.825 4.123 5.201 4.701 Convergence(Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Capacity 673 867 746 874 681 752 Service Time 3.056 1.855 2.525 1.823 2.992 2.491 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.097 0.018 0.015 0.043 0.072 0.044 HCM Control Delay 8.6 6.9 7.6 7 8.4 7.7 HCM Lane LOS AAAAAA HCM 95th Percentile Queue 0.3 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.1 HCM 2010 TWSC Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak 17: Stanford Road & Monroe Drive 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 2.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 15 25 20 90 75 5 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 200 0 0 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 16 27 22 98 82 5 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 227 85 87 0 0 0 Stage 1 85 - - - - - Stage 2 142 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 793 974 1509 - - - Stage 1 938 - - - - - Stage 2 907 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 6 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 781 974 1509 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 781 - - - - - Stage 1 938 - - - - - Stage 2 894 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 9.1 1.3 0 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 781 974 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.421 - 9.7 8.8 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.014 - 0.021 0.028 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A A - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.044 - 0.064 0.086 - - HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak 18: JFK Parkway & Horsetooth Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 75 1020 75 255 1195 30 110 60 270 45 95 50 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 120120111120 Capacity, veh/h 344 1832 135 467 2118 53 287 325 414 311 273 232 Arriving On Green 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.03 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774.0 3429.1 252.0 1774.0 3618.7 90.8 1774.0 1583.3 1583.3 1774.0 1862.7 1583.3 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 81.5 601.9 588.3 277.2 668.2 663.3 119.6 65.2 293.5 48.9 103.3 54.3 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774.0 1862.7 1818.3 1774.0 1862.7 1846.7 1774.0 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 1862.7 1583.3 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.4 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 6.3 3.5 19.5 2.7 5.8 3.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.4 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 6.3 3.5 19.5 2.7 5.8 3.5 Proportion In Lane 1.000 0.139 1.000 0.049 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 344.3 995.0 971.3 466.7 1090.5 1081.1 286.7 325.0 414.0 311.4 272.6 231.7 V/C Ratio(X) 0.237 0.605 0.606 0.594 0.613 0.614 0.417 0.201 0.709 0.157 0.379 0.235 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 403.0 995.0 971.3 678.9 1098.5 1089.0 286.7 325.0 414.0 315.4 280.6 238.5 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.576 0.576 0.576 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.8 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0 36.0 41.0 38.9 40.3 44.8 43.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.4 9.8 0.2 4.0 2.4 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 10.9 0.1 0.1 7.3 0.6 0.6 36.9 42.4 48.7 40.5 48.8 46.2 Lane Group LOS BAAAAADDDDDD Approach Volume, veh/h 1272 1609 478 207 Approach Delay, s/veh 0.8 1.7 44.9 46.1 Approach LOS A A D D Timer Assigned Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.16 68.05 14.11 74.00 11.00 26.27 7.73 23.00 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.00 52.00 24.00 68.50 7.00 20.00 4.00 17.50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.43 2.00 9.41 2.00 8.33 21.52 4.71 7.82 Green Extension Time (p_c) 0.05 31.81 0.70 37.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.68 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 9.8 HCM 2010 Level of Service A HCM 2010 AWSC Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak 22: Stanford Road & Swallow Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 10 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh) 11.5 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph) 5 250 30 60 275 5 75 15 40 5 5 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 222222222222 Movement Flow Rate 5 272 33 65 299 5 82 16 43 5 5 5 Number of Lanes 110110010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2211 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1122 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1122 HCM Control Delay 12.1 11.7 10.1 9 HCM LOS BBBA Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 Volume Left (%) 58% 100% 0% 100% 0% 33% Volume Thru (%) 12% 0% 89% 0% 98% 33% Volume Right (%) 31% 0% 11% 0% 2% 33% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume by Lane 130 5 280 60 280 15 Left Turning Volume 15 0 250 0 275 5 Through Volume 40 0 30 0 5 5 Right Turning Volume 75 5 0 60 0 5 Lane Flow Rate 141 5 304 65 304 16 Geometry Group 277772 Degree of Utilization, X 0.216 0.009 0.444 0.104 0.443 0.026 Departure Headway, Hd 5.494 5.835 5.256 5.76 5.243 5.798 Convergence(Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Capacity 647 609 679 618 682 621 Service Time 3.581 3.614 3.034 3.536 3.02 3.798 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.218 0.008 0.448 0.105 0.446 0.026 HCM Control Delay 10.1 8.7 12.2 9.2 12.2 9 HCM Lane LOS BABABA HCM 95th Percentile Queue 0.8 0 2.4 0.3 2.4 0.1 HCM 2010 TWSC Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak 30: Remington & Swallow Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 11 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 2.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph) 25 225 20 10 265 35 20 5 10 40 5 60 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 000000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None None None None None None None Storage Length 50 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 Median Width 12 12 0 0 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 222222222222 Movement Flow Rate 27 245 22 11 288 38 22 5 11 43 5 65 Number of Lanes 110110010010 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Minor 1 Minor 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 326 0 0 267 0 0 674 658 134 647 650 163 Stage 1 ------ 310 310- 329 329- Stage 2 ------ 364 348- 318 321- Follow-up Headway 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 1234 - - 1333 - - 397 401 *1237 418 406 882 Stage 1 ------ 788 698- 684 646- Stage 2 ------ 655 634- 778 689- Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 - - 18 - - 18 18 18 18 18 0 Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 1234 - - 1333 - - 356 389 *1237 401 394 882 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ------ 356 389- 401 394- Stage 1 ------ 770 683- 669 641- Stage 2 ------ 596 629- 749 674- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 0.7 0.2 13.7 12.7 HCM LOS AABB Lane NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (vph) *454 *582 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.7 7.983 0 - 7.723 0 - 12.7 HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.084 0.022 - - 0.008 - - 0.196 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.273 0.068 - - 0.025 - - 0.723 HCM 2010 AWSC Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak 33: Stanford Road & N Monroe 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh) 7.9 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph) 35 5 5 5 10 5 5 100 5 5 70 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 222222222222 Movement Flow Rate 38 5 5 5 11 5 5 109 5 5 76 5 Number of Lanes 110010010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1211 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1121 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1112 HCM Control Delay 8.3 7.6 7.9 7.7 HCM LOS AAAA Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 Volume Left (%) 5% 100% 0% 25% 6% Volume Thru (%) 91% 0% 50% 50% 88% Volume Right (%) 5% 0% 50% 25% 6% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume by Lane 110 35 10 20 80 Left Turning Volume 100 0 5 10 70 Through Volume 50555 Right Turning Volume 5 35 0 5 5 Lane Flow Rate 120 38 11 22 87 Geometry Group 27752 Degree of Utilization, X 0.136 0.058 0.014 0.027 0.1 Departure Headway, Hd 4.103 5.51 4.657 4.456 4.121 Convergence(Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Capacity 861 654 773 808 855 Service Time 2.193 3.211 2.357 2.457 2.217 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.139 0.058 0.014 0.027 0.102 HCM Control Delay 7.9 8.6 7.4 7.6 7.7 HCM Lane LOS AAAAA HCM 95th Percentile Queue 0.5 0.2 0 0.1 0.3 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak 1: College Avenue & Swallow Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 60 80 75 80 60 70 55 2110 65 70 2165 60 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 111111130130 Capacity, veh/h 240 156 133 229 181 154 174 3108 95 231 3134 87 Arriving On Green 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.07 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.62 0.62 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774.0 1583.3 1583.3 1774.0 1583.3 1583.3 1774.0 5069.9 155.6 1774.0 5087.7 140.5 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 65.2 87.0 81.5 87.0 65.2 76.1 59.8 1530.7 833.4 76.1 1565.1 853.4 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774.0 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 1695.1 1835.3 1774.0 1695.1 1838.0 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.2 4.3 4.8 4.2 3.1 4.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.5 31.5 31.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.2 4.3 4.8 4.2 3.1 4.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.5 31.5 31.9 Proportion In Lane 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.085 1.000 0.076 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 240.2 155.9 132.5 229.0 180.9 153.8 174.3 2078.4 1125.1 231.2 2088.5 1132.3 V/C Ratio(X) 0.271 0.558 0.615 0.380 0.360 0.495 0.343 0.737 0.741 0.329 0.749 0.754 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 290.5 505.7 429.8 255.5 505.7 429.8 263.5 2078.4 1125.1 352.2 2088.5 1132.3 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.8 42.2 42.4 36.1 40.5 41.0 14.5 0.0 0.0 6.0 13.1 13.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 3.1 4.6 1.0 1.2 2.5 1.2 2.4 4.4 0.8 2.5 4.7 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 38.4 45.3 47.0 37.1 41.7 43.5 15.6 2.4 4.4 6.9 15.6 17.8 Lane Group LOS DDDDDDBAAABB Approach Volume, veh/h 234 228 2424 2495 Approach Delay, s/veh 43.9 40.5 3.4 16.1 Approach LOS D D A B Timer Assigned Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.28 14.02 9.57 15.30 7.18 64.71 7.47 65.00 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.00 26.00 7.00 26.00 8.00 57.00 10.00 59.00 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.19 6.76 6.17 6.37 3.18 2.00 3.49 33.87 Green Extension Time (p_c) 0.02 1.25 0.01 1.26 0.04 53.86 0.07 24.88 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 12.6 HCM 2010 Level of Service B HCM 2010 TWSC Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak 2: College Avenue & Foothills PKWY 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 0.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 25 20 35 2245 2345 30 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None Yield Yield None None Storage Length 100 100 150 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 27 22 38 2440 2549 33 Number of Lanes 1 1 1 3 3 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 3618 1292 2582 0 0 0 Stage 1 2566 - - - - - Stage 2 1052 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.82 3.92 3.12 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver *119 *587 *587 - - - Stage 1 *587 - - - - - Stage 2 *624 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 92 61 61 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver *111 *587 *587 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver *111 - - - - - Stage 1 *587 - - - - - Stage 2 *583 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 31.5 0.2 0 HCM LOS D A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 111 587 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.557 - 47.6 11.4 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.065 - 0.245 0.037 - - HCM Lane LOS B - E B - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.207 - 0.896 0.115 - - HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak 4: College Avenue & Horsetooth Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 185 765 140 205 595 115 225 1785 120 145 1990 135 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 120221131131 Capacity, veh/h 163 830 152 201 870 389 178 2182 680 181 2140 666 Arriving On Green 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.08 0.33 0.33 0.07 0.43 0.43 0.12 0.84 0.84 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774.0 3065.5 561.0 3441.6 1583.3 1583.3 1774.0 1583.3 1583.3 1774.0 1583.3 1583.3 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 201.1 505.3 478.4 222.8 646.7 125.0 244.6 1940.2 130.4 157.6 2163.0 146.7 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774.0 1862.7 1763.7 1720.8 1769.6 1583.3 1774.0 1695.1 1583.3 1774.0 1695.1 1583.3 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.0 32.5 32.5 7.0 19.5 7.1 8.0 42.3 6.1 6.3 50.5 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.0 32.5 32.5 7.0 19.5 7.1 8.0 42.3 6.1 6.3 50.5 2.2 Proportion In Lane 1.000 0.318 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 162.6 504.5 477.7 200.8 870.1 389.2 178.3 2182.4 679.5 181.0 2140.1 666.3 V/C Ratio(X) 1.237 1.002 1.002 1.110 0.743 0.321 1.372 0.889 0.192 0.871 1.011 0.220 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 162.6 504.5 477.7 200.8 870.1 389.2 178.3 2203.6 686.1 181.0 2140.1 666.3 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.889 0.889 0.889 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.698 0.698 0.698 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.5 43.8 43.8 55.3 37.0 32.9 34.3 31.6 21.3 26.3 9.5 5.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 148.0 40.4 41.6 92.5 3.1 0.4 198.7 5.9 0.6 25.8 18.9 0.5 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 202.5 84.2 85.3 147.8 40.1 33.3 233.0 37.5 21.9 52.1 28.4 6.2 Lane Group LOS FFFFDCFDCDFA Approach Volume, veh/h 1185 995 2315 2467 Approach Delay, s/veh 104.7 63.4 57.3 28.6 Approach LOS F E E C Timer Assigned Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.00 39.00 12.00 36.00 12.00 58.00 11.00 57.00 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.00 6.50 5.00 6.50 4.00 6.50 4.00 6.50 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.00 32.50 7.00 29.50 8.00 52.00 7.00 50.50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.00 34.50 9.00 21.50 10.00 44.26 8.33 52.50 Green Extension Time (p_c) 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.91 0.00 7.69 0.00 0.00 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 56.1 HCM 2010 Level of Service E HCM 2010 TWSC Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak 12: Mathews Street & Swallow Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 1.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Volume (vph) 195 15 10 170 20 25 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0000 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 100 100 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2222 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 212 16 11 185 22 27 Number of Lanes 1011 1 1 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 0 0 228 0 427 220 Stage 1 ---- 220 - Stage 2 ---- 207 - Follow-up Headway - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver - - 1376 - *638 *1273 Stage 1 ---- *1273 - Stage 2 ---- *828 - Time blocked-Platoon(%) - - 15 - 15 15 Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver - - 1376 - *633 *1273 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ---- *633 - Stage 1 ---- *1273 - Stage 2 ---- *821 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay (s) 0 0.4 9.2 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (vph) *633 *1273 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.9 7.9 - - 7.637 - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.034 0.021 - - 0.008 - HCM Lane LOS B A - - A - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.107 0.065 - - 0.024 - HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak 13: College Avenue & Monroe Drive 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 65 15 70 50 10 65 40 2110 30 35 2265 40 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 110111130130 Capacity, veh/h 237 35 165 163 230 196 173 3579 51 224 3555 63 Arriving On Green 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.69 0.69 Sat Flow, veh/h 1398.0 287.0 1339.4 1298.6 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 5166.7 73.3 1774.0 5146.3 90.6 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 70.7 0.0 92.4 54.3 10.9 70.7 43.5 1503.6 822.4 38.0 1619.4 886.0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1398.0 0.0 1626.4 1298.6 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 1695.1 1849.8 1774.0 1695.1 1846.8 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.8 0.0 5.3 4.1 0.5 4.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 28.7 28.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.3 0.0 5.3 9.5 0.5 4.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.6 28.7 28.9 Proportion In Lane 1.000 0.824 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.040 1.000 0.049 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 236.6 0.0 200.9 162.9 230.2 195.6 173.2 2348.1 1281.2 224.4 2341.6 1275.6 V/C Ratio(X) 0.299 0.000 0.460 0.334 0.047 0.361 0.251 0.640 0.642 0.170 0.692 0.695 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 450.1 0.0 449.3 361.3 514.6 437.4 228.8 2348.1 1281.2 406.0 2358.4 1284.7 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.357 0.357 0.357 1.000 1.000 1.000 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.5 0.0 41.3 45.7 39.2 40.7 10.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 9.3 9.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 0.0 1.6 1.2 0.1 1.1 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.4 1.7 3.1 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 42.2 0.0 42.9 46.9 39.2 41.9 10.2 0.5 0.9 4.5 11.0 12.5 Lane Group LOS D DDDDBAAABB Approach Volume, veh/h 163 136 2370 2543 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.6 43.6 0.8 11.4 Approach LOS D D A B Timer Assigned Phase 4 8 5 2 1 6 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.52 18.52 6.82 76.19 6.63 76.00 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.00 28.00 6.00 63.00 13.00 70.50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.35 11.46 2.71 2.00 2.63 30.91 Green Extension Time (p_c) 1.14 1.06 0.02 59.71 0.03 39.04 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 8.4 HCM 2010 Level of Service A HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak 15: Stanford Road & Horsetooth Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 35 1215 15 55 1180 30 10 10 55 35 25 30 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 120120111111 Capacity, veh/h 294 2365 29 375 2348 60 319 371 316 333 371 316 Arriving On Green 0.05 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.65 0.65 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774.0 3672.2 45.3 1774.0 3617.4 91.9 1377.5 1862.7 1583.3 1398.0 1862.7 1583.3 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 38.0 669.7 667.2 59.8 660.1 655.1 10.9 10.9 59.8 38.0 27.2 32.6 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774.0 1862.7 1854.7 1774.0 1862.7 1846.5 1377.5 1862.7 1583.3 1398.0 1862.7 1583.3 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.3 22.7 22.7 0.8 0.6 3.7 2.7 1.4 2.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.3 22.7 22.7 2.2 0.6 3.7 3.2 1.4 2.0 Proportion In Lane 1.000 0.024 1.000 0.050 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 293.8 1199.9 1194.8 375.3 1209.2 1198.6 319.5 371.4 315.7 333.3 371.4 315.7 V/C Ratio(X) 0.129 0.558 0.558 0.159 0.546 0.547 0.034 0.029 0.189 0.114 0.073 0.103 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 326.2 1199.9 1194.8 444.0 1217.1 1206.5 319.5 371.4 315.7 333.3 371.4 315.7 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.817 0.817 0.817 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 8.7 0.0 0.0 6.3 11.2 11.2 39.2 38.0 39.2 39.3 38.3 38.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.3 0.7 0.4 0.7 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 8.8 0.5 0.5 6.5 11.7 11.8 39.4 38.1 40.6 40.0 38.7 39.2 Lane Group LOS AAAABBDDDDDD Approach Volume, veh/h 1375 1375 82 98 Approach Delay, s/veh 0.7 11.5 40.1 39.4 Approach LOS A B D D Timer Assigned Phase 7 4 3 8 2 6 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.85 81.41 7.43 82.00 29.00 29.00 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.00 5.50 4.00 5.50 5.50 5.50 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.00 73.50 8.00 77.00 23.50 23.50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.85 2.00 3.32 24.73 5.70 5.21 Green Extension Time (p_c) 0.01 42.33 0.04 35.00 0.53 0.54 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 8.2 HCM 2010 Level of Service A HCM 2010 AWSC Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak 16: JFK Parkway & Monroe Drive 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 7 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh) 7.6 Intersection LOS A Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Volume (vph) 5 25 25 30 35 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2222 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 5 27 27 33 38 33 Number of Lanes 1111 1 1 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 2 2 0 Conflicting Approach Left NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 0 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 0 2 HCM Control Delay 7 7.8 7.7 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 Volume Left (%) 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% Volume Thru (%) 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% Volume Right (%) 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume by Lane 35 30 5 25 25 30 Left Turning Volume 0050030 Through Volume 0 30 0 25 0 0 Right Turning Volume 35 0 0 0 25 0 Lane Flow Rate 38 33 5 27 27 33 Geometry Group 777777 Degree of Utilization, X 0.055 0.036 0.007 0.03 0.039 0.042 Departure Headway, Hd 5.189 3.988 4.688 3.987 5.174 4.674 Convergence(Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Capacity 686 889 756 887 688 761 Service Time 2.955 1.754 2.46 1.758 2.934 2.433 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.055 0.037 0.007 0.03 0.039 0.043 HCM Control Delay 8.3 6.9 7.5 6.9 8.1 7.6 HCM Lane LOS AAAAAA HCM 95th Percentile Queue 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 HCM 2010 TWSC Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak 17: Stanford Road & Monroe Drive 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 1.9 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Volume (vph) 10 20 5 70 45 5 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 200 0 0 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 2 2 2 2 2 2 Movement Flow Rate 11 22 5 76 49 5 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 138 52 54 0 0 0 Stage 1 52 - - - - - Stage 2 86 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 877 1016 1551 - - - Stage 1 970 - - - - - Stage 2 952 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon(%) 3 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 874 1016 1551 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 874 - - - - - Stage 1 970 - - - - - Stage 2 949 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 8.8 0.5 0 HCM LOS A A A Lane NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Capacity (vph) 874 1016 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.329 - 9.2 8.6 - - HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.004 - 0.012 0.021 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A A - - HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.011 - 0.038 0.066 - - HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak 18: JFK Parkway & Horsetooth Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 60 905 105 210 900 30 85 50 240 40 65 35 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Queue, veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow Rate 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 Lanes 120120111120 Capacity, veh/h 423 1827 212 473 2147 72 302 324 388 312 283 240 Arriving On Green 0.06 1.00 1.00 0.14 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.17 0.17 0.03 0.15 0.15 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774.0 3278.2 380.2 1774.0 3584.9 119.5 1774.0 1583.3 1583.3 1774.0 1862.7 1583.3 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 65.2 558.8 539.0 228.3 508.3 502.6 92.4 54.3 260.9 43.5 70.7 38.0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774.0 1862.7 1795.6 1774.0 1862.7 1841.7 1774.0 1862.7 1583.3 1774.0 1862.7 1583.3 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 5.0 2.9 17.6 2.4 4.0 2.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.9 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 5.0 2.9 17.6 2.4 4.0 2.5 Proportion In Lane 1.000 0.212 1.000 0.065 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 423.2 1038.3 1000.9 472.5 1115.8 1103.1 302.1 324.0 388.5 311.8 282.9 240.4 V/C Ratio(X) 0.154 0.538 0.539 0.483 0.456 0.456 0.306 0.168 0.671 0.139 0.250 0.158 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 445.1 1038.3 1000.9 675.1 1123.6 1110.9 302.1 324.0 388.5 321.1 290.7 247.1 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.235 0.235 0.235 0.825 0.825 0.825 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.2 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 37.3 41.7 40.4 40.8 44.3 43.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.6 1.1 8.9 0.2 2.1 1.4 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 Lane Group Delay (d), s/veh 10.2 0.1 0.1 7.2 0.2 0.2 37.9 42.8 49.3 41.0 46.4 45.1 Lane Group LOS BAAAAADDDDDD Approach Volume, veh/h 1163 1239 408 152 Approach Delay, s/veh 0.7 1.5 45.9 44.5 Approach LOS A A D D Timer Assigned Phase 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phase Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.53 72.07 12.46 77.00 10.00 26.62 7.38 24.00 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 5.00 54.00 22.00 71.50 6.00 20.00 4.00 18.50 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.88 2.00 7.93 2.00 7.02 19.64 4.44 5.96 Green Extension Time (p_c) 0.01 24.50 0.54 27.18 0.00 0.08 0.00 1.49 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Control Delay 9.5 HCM 2010 Level of Service A HCM 2010 AWSC Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak 22: Stanford Road & Swallow Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 10 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh) 9 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph) 10 180 20 35 135 10 25 10 35 5 5 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 222222222222 Movement Flow Rate 11 196 22 38 147 11 27 11 38 5 5 11 Number of Lanes 110110010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2211 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1122 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1122 HCM Control Delay 9.5 8.9 8.3 8 HCM LOS AAAA Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 Volume Left (%) 36% 100% 0% 100% 0% 25% Volume Thru (%) 14% 0% 90% 0% 93% 25% Volume Right (%) 50% 0% 10% 0% 7% 50% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume by Lane 70 10 200 35 145 20 Left Turning Volume 10 0 180 0 135 5 Through Volume 35 0 20 0 10 10 Right Turning Volume 25 10 0 35 0 5 Lane Flow Rate 76 11 217 38 158 22 Geometry Group 277772 Degree of Utilization, X 0.1 0.016 0.294 0.058 0.215 0.029 Departure Headway, Hd 4.742 5.441 4.868 5.46 4.91 4.797 Convergence(Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Capacity 756 659 739 657 731 745 Service Time 2.771 3.166 2.593 3.185 2.634 2.832 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.101 0.017 0.294 0.058 0.216 0.03 HCM Control Delay 8.3 8.3 9.6 8.5 9 8 HCM Lane LOS AAAAAA HCM 95th Percentile Queue 0.3 0 1.2 0.2 0.8 0.1 HCM 2010 TWSC Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak 30: Remington & Swallow Road 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 11 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh): 2.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph) 15 175 25 10 160 20 15 5 15 20 5 35 Conflicting Peds.(#/hr) 000000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Right Turn Channelized None None None None None None None None None None None None Storage Length 50 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 Median Width 12 12 0 0 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 222222222222 Movement Flow Rate 16 190 27 11 174 22 16 5 16 22 5 38 Number of Lanes 110110010010 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Minor 1 Minor 2 Conflicting Flow Rate - All 196 0 0 217 0 0 465 454 109 453 456 98 Stage 1 ------ 236 236- 207 207- Stage 2 ------ 229 218- 246 249- Follow-up Headway 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 1377 - - 1382 - - 557 534 *1309 569 532 958 Stage 1 ------ 839 744- 795 731- Stage 2 ------ 774 723- 827 732- Time blocked-Platoon(%) 0 - - 13 - - 13 13 13 13 13 0 Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 1377 - - 1382 - - 523 524 *1309 549 521 958 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ------ 523 524- 549 521- Stage 1 ------ 829 735- 786 725- Stage 2 ------ 732 717- 802 724- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay (s) 0.5 0.4 10.4 10.4 HCM LOS AABB Lane NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (vph) *704 *727 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.4 7.646 0 - 7.626 0 - 10.4 HCM Lane VC Ratio 0.054 0.012 - - 0.008 - - 0.09 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th Percentile Queue (veh) 0.171 0.036 - - 0.024 - - 0.295 HCM 2010 AWSC Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak 33: Stanford Road & N Monroe 11/5/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Background Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Intersection Intersection Delay (sec/veh) 7.4 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Volume (vph) 5 10 10 10 10 20 5 65 10 5 25 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles(%) 222222222222 Movement Flow Rate 5 11 11 11 11 22 5 71 11 5 27 22 Number of Lanes 110010010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1211 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1121 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1112 HCM Control Delay 7.5 7.3 7.5 7.2 HCM LOS AAAA Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBLn1 Volume Left (%) 6% 100% 0% 25% 10% Volume Thru (%) 81% 0% 50% 25% 50% Volume Right (%) 12% 0% 50% 50% 40% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Volume by Lane 80 5 20 40 50 Left Turning Volume 65 0 10 10 25 Through Volume 10 0 10 20 20 Right Turning Volume 5 5 0 10 5 Lane Flow Rate 87 5 22 43 54 Geometry Group 27752 Degree of Utilization, X 0.097 0.008 0.027 0.049 0.059 Departure Headway, Hd 4.034 5.304 4.451 4.049 3.901 Convergence(Y/N) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Capacity 883 670 797 875 910 Service Time 2.084 3.071 2.218 2.119 1.959 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.099 0.007 0.028 0.049 0.059 HCM Control Delay 7.5 8.1 7.3 7.3 7.2 HCM Lane LOS AAAAA HCM 95th Percentile Queue 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.2 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix D APPENDIX D TOTAL TRAFFIC OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 1: College Avenue & Swallow Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 25 40 50 230 45 160 60 1960 110 240 2250 40 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 111111130130 Cap, veh/h 169 109 93 346 316 269 151 2690 151 244 3069 54 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.17 0.17 0.03 0.55 0.55 0.08 0.60 0.60 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 1774 4928 276 1774 5147 90 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 27 43 54 250 49 174 65 1462 788 261 1609 880 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 1774 1695 1814 1774 1695 1847 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 2.4 3.7 12.3 2.5 11.3 1.8 37.8 38.4 9.0 40.1 40.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 2.4 3.7 12.3 2.5 11.3 1.8 37.8 38.4 9.0 40.1 40.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.05 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 169 109 93 346 316 269 151 1851 990 244 2022 1101 V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.39 0.58 0.72 0.15 0.65 0.43 0.79 0.80 1.07 0.80 0.80 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 262 237 202 387 390 331 273 1851 990 244 2022 1101 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) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.3 49.8 50.4 31.2 38.9 42.6 20.7 19.9 20.0 33.7 17.0 17.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 2.3 5.6 5.8 0.2 3.1 1.9 3.5 6.6 77.6 3.3 6.1 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.7 1.3 1.6 6.0 1.2 4.8 1.0 16.1 18.5 12.2 17.0 19.5 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 47.8 52.1 56.0 36.9 39.1 45.6 22.6 23.4 26.7 111.3 20.4 23.2 Lane Grp LOS D D E DDDCCCFCC Approach Vol, veh/h 124 473 2315 2750 Approach Delay, s/veh 52.9 40.4 24.5 29.9 Approach LOS DDCC Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.2 12.5 18.5 24.7 7.5 66.0 13.0 71.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 14.0 17.0 23.0 11.0 60.0 9.0 58.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 5.7 14.3 13.3 3.8 39.8 11.0 42.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.9 0.1 20.0 0.0 15.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 29.1 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 2: College Avenue & Foothills PKWY 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 15 10 40 210 10 120 30 1980 75 245 2265 25 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 111111131230 Cap, veh/h 126 79 67 282 357 303 41 2630 819 409 3299 36 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.19 0.00 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1398 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 1774 5085 1583 3442 5186 57 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 16 11 43 228 11 0 33 2152 0 266 1608 881 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1398 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 1774 1695 1583 1721 1695 1853 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 0.6 2.9 10.0 0.5 0.0 2.0 43.8 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 0.6 2.9 10.0 0.5 0.0 2.0 43.8 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 126 79 67 282 357 303 41 2630 819 409 2156 1178 V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.14 0.64 0.81 0.03 0.00 0.80 0.82 0.00 0.65 0.75 0.75 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 262 260 221 282 538 457 83 2630 819 513 2156 1178 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.8 49.5 50.6 44.9 35.3 0.0 53.0 39.6 0.0 38.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.8 9.7 16.0 0.0 0.0 28.2 3.0 0.0 2.0 2.4 4.4 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.4 0.3 1.3 2.6 0.2 0.0 1.2 20.8 0.0 3.1 0.7 1.4 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 50.2 50.3 60.2 60.8 35.3 0.0 81.2 42.6 0.0 40.9 2.4 4.4 Lane Grp LOS D D E E D F D D A A Approach Vol, veh/h 70 239 2185 2755 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.4 59.7 43.2 6.7 Approach LOS E E D A Timer Assigned Phs 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.6 16.0 26.6 6.5 62.0 18.8 74.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 15.0 10.0 31.0 5.0 55.5 16.0 68.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 12.0 2.5 4.0 45.8 9.5 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 8.4 3.3 45.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 25.0 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 4: College Avenue & Horsetooth Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 190 755 105 205 750 155 215 1655 135 175 1975 300 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 120221131131 Cap, veh/h 177 790 110 228 808 361 194 2152 670 217 2152 670 Arrive On Green 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.46 0.46 0.07 0.42 0.42 0.15 0.85 0.85 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 3122 434 3442 3539 1583 1774 5085 1583 1774 5085 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 207 465 470 223 815 168 234 1799 147 190 2147 326 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1770 1786 1721 1770 1583 1774 1695 1583 1774 1695 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.0 30.5 30.5 7.8 27.5 8.8 9.0 38.0 7.1 7.6 50.2 6.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.0 30.5 30.5 7.8 27.5 8.8 9.0 38.0 7.1 7.6 50.2 6.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 177 448 452 228 808 361 194 2152 670 217 2152 670 V/C Ratio(X) 1.17 1.04 1.04 0.98 1.01 0.46 1.20 0.84 0.22 0.88 1.00 0.49 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 177 448 452 228 808 361 194 2152 670 217 2152 670 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.57 0.57 0.57 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.3 45.0 45.0 52.2 32.8 27.7 35.0 31.0 22.1 24.8 9.2 5.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 121.5 53.0 52.8 46.4 30.5 0.7 130.0 4.0 0.8 20.0 14.1 1.4 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 11.5 20.4 20.6 4.7 13.9 3.1 10.2 17.0 2.9 4.0 8.5 1.8 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 175.7 98.0 97.8 98.5 63.2 28.4 165.0 35.1 22.8 44.8 23.3 7.3 Lane Grp LOS FFFFFCFDCDCA Approach Vol, veh/h 1142 1206 2180 2663 Approach Delay, s/veh 112.0 64.9 48.2 22.8 Approach LOS F E D C Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.0 37.0 13.0 34.0 13.0 57.5 13.0 57.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.5 5.0 6.5 4.0 6.5 4.0 6.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 30.5 8.0 27.5 9.0 51.0 9.0 50.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.0 32.5 9.8 29.5 11.0 40.0 9.6 52.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 51.7 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. HCM 2010 TWSC Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 11: Mall Entrance & Foothills PKWY/Mathews Street 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 6.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 30 140 130 35 145 15 175 5 30 10 5 25 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized None None None None None None None None None None None None Storage Length 150 0 100 100 100 0 0 0 Median Width 12 12 0 0 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 33 152 141 38 158 16 190 5 33 11 5 27 Number of Lanes 111111010010 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Minor 1 Minor 2 Conflicting Flow All 158 0 0 152 0 0 467 451 152 470 451 158 Stage 1 ------ 217 217- 234 234- Stage 2 ------ 250 234- 236 217- Follow-up Headway 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 1422 - - 1429 - - 506 504 894 504 504 887 Stage 1 ------ 785 723- 769 711- Stage 2 ------ 754 711- 767 723- Time blocked-Platoon, % 0 - - 0 - - 000000 Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 1422 - - 1429 - - 468 479 894 463 479 887 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ------ 468 479- 463 479- Stage 1 ------ 767 706- 751 692- Stage 2 ------ 706 692- 716 706- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 1.4 18 10.8 HCM LOS - - C B Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Cap, veh/h 502 1422 - - 1429 - - 664 HCM Control Delay, s 18 7.591 - - 7.588 - - 10.8 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.46 0.02 - - 0.03 - - 0.07 HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - B HCM 95th-tile Q, veh 2.3 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 0.2 Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 TWSC Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 12: Mathews Street & Swallow Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 1.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Vol, veh/h 310 70 35 345 45 45 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0000 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 100 100 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2222 2 2 Mvmt Flow 337 76 38 375 49 49 Number of Lanes 1011 1 1 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 413 0 826 375 Stage 1 ---- 375 - Stage 2 ---- 451 - Follow-up Headway - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver - - 1146 - 342 671 Stage 1 ---- 695 - Stage 2 ---- 642 - Time blocked-Platoon, % - - 0 - 0 0 Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver - - 1146 - 331 671 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ---- 449 - Stage 1 ---- 695 - Stage 2 ---- 621 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.8 12.4 HCM LOS - - B Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Cap, veh/h 449 671 - - 1146 - HCM Control Delay, s 14 10.8 - - 8.249 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.11 0.07 - - 0.03 - HCM Lane LOS B B - - A - HCM 95th-tile Q, veh 0.4 0.2 - - 0.1 - Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 13: College Avenue & Monroe Drive 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 45 25 60 165 35 235 30 1790 195 145 2350 30 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 110111130130 Cap, veh/h 267 100 240 269 383 325 175 2826 305 227 3277 42 Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.03 0.81 0.81 0.10 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1082 486 1170 1299 1863 1583 1774 4660 504 1774 5174 67 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 0 92 179 38 255 33 1411 747 158 1671 916 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1082 0 1656 1299 1863 1583 1774 1695 1774 1774 1695 1851 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.4 0.0 5.4 15.5 1.9 17.6 0.8 20.8 21.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.4 0.0 5.4 20.9 1.9 17.6 0.8 20.8 21.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.04 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 267 0 340 269 383 325 175 2056 1076 227 2147 1172 V/C Ratio(X) 0.18 0.00 0.27 0.67 0.10 0.78 0.19 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.78 0.78 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 288 0 373 294 420 357 243 2056 1076 263 2147 1172 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.45 0.45 0.45 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.8 0.0 38.6 47.4 37.2 43.4 8.0 6.4 6.5 16.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.4 5.0 0.1 10.1 0.2 0.9 1.7 6.5 2.9 5.2 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.3 0.0 2.3 5.6 0.9 8.0 0.3 6.0 6.6 4.8 0.9 1.7 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 40.1 0.0 39.0 52.4 37.3 53.5 8.3 7.3 8.1 22.9 2.9 5.2 Lane Grp LOS D DDDDAAACAA Approach Vol, veh/h 141 472 2191 2745 Approach Delay, s/veh 39.4 51.8 7.6 4.8 Approach LOS D D A A Timer Assigned Phs 4 8 5 2 1 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 29.7 29.7 6.6 76.0 9.7 79.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.0 26.0 7.0 70.0 8.0 71.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.4 22.9 2.8 22.8 5.7 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.2 0.8 0.0 46.3 0.1 67.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 10.8 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 15: Stanford Road & Horsetooth Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 100 1200 20 110 1290 125 25 30 135 150 55 75 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 120120111111 Cap, veh/h 257 2309 39 399 2121 205 256 343 291 264 343 291 Arrive On Green 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.65 0.65 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 3562 60 1774 3262 315 1241 1863 1583 1199 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 109 648 678 120 757 781 27 33 147 163 60 82 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1770 1852 1774 1770 1807 1241 1863 1583 1199 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 0.0 0.0 2.6 30.6 31.1 2.2 1.7 9.8 15.3 3.2 5.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 0.0 0.0 2.6 30.6 31.1 5.4 1.7 9.8 17.0 3.2 5.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 257 1147 1201 399 1150 1175 256 343 291 264 343 291 V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.56 0.56 0.30 0.66 0.66 0.11 0.10 0.50 0.62 0.18 0.28 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 312 1147 1201 450 1150 1175 256 343 291 264 343 291 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.82 0.82 0.82 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.6 0.0 0.0 6.0 12.5 12.6 42.5 39.6 42.9 46.7 40.2 41.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 1.6 1.6 0.4 3.0 3.0 0.8 0.6 6.1 10.3 1.1 2.4 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.1 0.5 0.5 1.1 13.4 13.8 0.8 0.9 4.5 5.5 1.6 2.3 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 12.5 1.6 1.6 6.5 15.5 15.6 43.3 40.2 49.1 57.0 41.3 43.5 Lane Grp LOS BAAABBDDDEDD Approach Vol, veh/h 1435 1658 207 305 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.4 14.9 46.9 50.3 Approach LOS A B D D Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 2 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.4 81.3 8.6 81.5 27.0 27.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 75.5 8.0 76.0 21.5 21.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 2.0 4.6 32.6 11.8 19.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 49.4 0.1 33.8 1.4 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 14.8 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes HCM 2010 AWSC Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 16: JFK Parkway & Monroe Drive 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 15.4 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 150 110 35 85 155 15 60 145 90 15 130 175 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 163 120 38 92 168 16 65 158 98 16 141 190 Number of Lanes 111110011011 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2322 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2232 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2223 HCM Control Delay 14.8 15.6 16.6 14.7 HCM LOS B C C B Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 29% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 10% 0% Vol Thru, % 71% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 91% 90% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 9% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 205 90 150 110 35 85 170 145 175 LT Vol 145 0 0 110 0 0 155 130 0 Through Vol 0 90 0 0 35 0 15 0 175 RT Vol 60 0 150 0 0 85 0 15 0 Lane Flow Rate 223 98 163 120 38 92 185 158 190 Geometry Grp 888888888 Degree of Util (X) 0.5 0.196 0.385 0.265 0.077 0.221 0.413 0.349 0.38 Departure Headway (Hd) 8.081 7.217 8.504 7.99 7.272 8.618 8.039 7.962 7.195 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 443 495 422 447 490 415 445 449 498 Service Time 5.863 4.999 6.288 5.775 5.056 6.404 5.825 5.743 4.975 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.503 0.198 0.386 0.268 0.078 0.222 0.416 0.352 0.382 HCM Control Delay 18.7 11.8 16.6 13.7 10.7 13.9 16.4 15 14.4 HCM Lane LOS C B C B B B C B B HCM 95th-tile Q 2.7 0.7 1.8 1.1 0.2 0.8 2 1.5 1.8 Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 TWSC Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 17: Stanford Road & Monroe Drive 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 9 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 2.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 30 40 40 220 180 15 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 200 0 0 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 33 43 43 239 196 16 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow All 530 204 212 0 - 0 Stage 1 204 - - - - - Stage 2 326 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 510 837 1358 - - - Stage 1 830 - - - - - Stage 2 731 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon, % 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 491 837 1358 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 491 - - - - - Stage 1 830 - - - - - Stage 2 704 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11 1.2 0 HCM LOS B - - Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Cap, veh/h 1358 - 491 837 - - HCM Control Delay, s 7.739 0 12.9 9.5 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.03 - 0.07 0.05 - - HCM Lane LOS AABA-- HCM 95th-tile Q, veh 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - - Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 18: JFK Parkway & Horsetooth Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 205 805 85 265 915 100 120 80 280 120 115 125 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 120120111120 Cap, veh/h 415 1607 169 512 1715 188 279 362 308 300 344 308 Arrive On Green 0.12 0.99 0.99 0.19 1.00 1.00 0.05 0.19 0.19 0.05 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 3233 340 1774 3218 352 1774 1863 1583 1774 1770 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 223 479 488 288 547 557 130 87 304 130 125 136 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1770 1803 1774 1770 1801 1774 1863 1583 1774 1770 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.0 0.4 0.4 9.3 0.0 0.0 6.0 4.8 23.2 6.0 7.4 9.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.0 0.4 0.4 9.3 0.0 0.0 6.0 4.8 23.2 6.0 7.4 9.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 415 879 896 512 943 960 279 362 308 300 344 308 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.58 0.47 0.24 0.99 0.43 0.36 0.44 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 415 879 896 521 943 960 279 362 308 300 344 308 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.71 0.71 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.2 0.2 0.2 8.7 0.0 0.0 39.1 41.2 48.6 38.2 42.3 43.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.8 1.8 1.2 1.6 48.5 1.0 3.0 4.6 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 3.1 0.2 0.2 3.1 0.5 0.5 0.8 2.5 13.6 0.6 3.7 4.1 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 13.5 0.8 0.7 9.6 1.8 1.8 40.3 42.8 97.1 39.2 45.2 47.5 Lane Grp LOS BAAAAADDFDDD Approach Vol, veh/h 1190 1392 521 391 Approach Delay, s/veh 3.1 3.4 73.9 44.0 Approach LOS A A E D Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 66.1 15.4 70.5 10.0 29.5 10.0 29.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 59.0 12.0 64.5 6.0 23.0 6.0 23.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.0 2.4 11.3 2.0 8.0 25.2 8.0 9.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 24.7 0.1 25.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 18.4 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes HCM 2010 AWSC Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 22: Stanford Road & Swallow Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 11 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 14.8 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 15 275 70 95 300 5 125 15 75 5 5 15 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 16 299 76 103 326 5 136 16 82 5 5 16 Number of Lanes 110110010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2211 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1122 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1122 HCM Control Delay 16.9 14.3 12.9 9.8 HCM LOS C B B A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 58% 100% 0% 100% 0% 20% Vol Thru, % 7% 0% 80% 0% 98% 20% Vol Right, % 35% 0% 20% 0% 2% 60% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 215 15 345 95 305 25 LT Vol 15 0 275 0 300 5 Through Vol 75 0 70 0 5 15 RT Vol 125 15 0 95 0 5 Lane Flow Rate 234 16 375 103 332 27 Geometry Grp 277772 Degree of Util (X) 0.39 0.029 0.606 0.183 0.541 0.048 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.01 6.466 5.814 6.396 5.877 6.357 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 598 553 619 561 613 560 Service Time 4.064 4.212 3.56 4.142 3.623 4.437 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.391 0.029 0.606 0.184 0.542 0.048 HCM Control Delay 12.9 9.4 17.2 10.6 15.4 9.8 HCM Lane LOS B A C B C A HCM 95th-tile Q 1.8 0.1 4.1 0.7 3.2 0.2 Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 TWSC Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 24: Stanford Road & North Mall 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 15 25 15 210 160 15 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 0 Median Width 12 0 0 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 16 27 16 228 174 16 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow All 443 182 190 0 - 0 Stage 1 182 - - - - - Stage 2 261 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 572 861 1384 - - - Stage 1 849 - - - - - Stage 2 783 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon, % 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 565 861 1384 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 565 - - - - - Stage 1 849 - - - - - Stage 2 773 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.2 0.5 0 HCM LOS B - - Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Cap, veh/h 1384 - 565 861 - - HCM Control Delay, s 7.632 0 11.6 9.3 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - 0.03 0.03 - - HCM Lane LOS AABA-- HCM 95th-tile Q, veh 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - - Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 TWSC Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 25: College Avenue & South Right In/Out 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 13 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh/h 0 95 1985 95 0 2515 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 150 0 Median Width 0 12 12 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2222 Mvmt Flow 0 103 2158 103 0 2734 Number of Lanes 0 1 3103 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow All 3251 1079 0 0 2158 0 Stage 1 2158 - ---- Stage 2 1093 - ---- Follow-up Headway 3.82 3.92 - - 3.12 - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver *183 *447 - - *563 - Stage 1 *459 - ---- Stage 2 *323 - ---- Time blocked-Platoon, % 81 51 - - 51 - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver *183 *447 - - *563 - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver *183 - ---- Stage 1 *459 - ---- Stage 2 *323 - ---- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 15.5 0 0 HCM LOS C - - Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT Cap, veh/h - - *447 563 - HCM Control Delay, s - - 15.5 0 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.23 - - HCM Lane LOS - - C A - HCM 95th-tile Q, veh - - 0.9 0.0 - Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 TWSC Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 30: Remington & Swallow Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 14 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 3.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 25 320 45 20 340 35 35 5 20 40 5 60 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized None None None None None None None None None None None None Storage Length 50 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 Median Width 12 12 0 0 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 27 348 49 22 370 38 38 5 22 43 5 65 Number of Lanes 110110010010 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Minor 1 Minor 2 Conflicting Flow All 408 0 0 397 0 0 894 878 372 872 883 389 Stage 1 ------ 427 427- 432 432- Stage 2 ------ 467 451- 440 451- Follow-up Headway 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 1151 - - 1162 - - 262 287 674 271 285 659 Stage 1 ------ 606 585- 602 582- Stage 2 ------ 576 571- 596 571- Time blocked-Platoon, % 0 - - 0 - - 000000 Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 1151 - - 1162 - - 225 275 674 250 273 659 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ------ 225 275- 250 273- Stage 1 ------ 592 571- 588 571- Stage 2 ------ 504 560- 558 558- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.5 0.4 20.6 18 HCM LOS - - C C Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Cap, veh/h 295 1151 - - 1162 - - 390 HCM Control Delay, s 20.6 8.203 - - 8.157 - - 18 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.22 0.02 - - 0.02 - - 0.29 HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - C HCM 95th-tile Q, veh 0.8 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 1.2 Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 TWSC Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 33: Stanford Road & N Monroe 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 15 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 3.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 60 10 20 5 20 10 45 205 5 10 170 15 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None None None None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Median Width 12 12 0 0 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 65 11 22 5 22 11 49 223 5 11 185 16 Number of Lanes 110010010010 Major/Minor Minor 2 Minor 1 Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow All 555 541 193 554 546 226 201 0 0 228 0 0 Stage 1 215 215 - 323 323 ------- Stage 2 340 326 - 231 223 ------- Follow-up Headway 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 442 448 849 443 445 813 1371 - - 1340 - - Stage 1 787 725 - 689 650 ------- Stage 2 675 648 - 772 719 ------- Time blocked-Platoon, % 0000000--0-- Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 403 426 849 407 423 813 1371 - - 1340 - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 403 426 - 407 423 ------- Stage 1 755 718 - 661 623 ------- Stage 2 616 621 - 734 713 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.8 13 1.4 0.4 HCM LOS B B - - Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Cap, veh/h 1371 - - 403 517 487 1340 - - HCM Control Delay, s 7.723 0 - 15 12.8 13 7.709 0 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.04 - - 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.01 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - C BBAA- HCM 95th-tile Q, veh 0.1 - - 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.0 - - Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 TWSC Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 36: College Avenue & North Right-In/Out 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 16 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh/h 0 55 2075 40 0 2530 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 0 Median Width 0 24 24 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2222 Mvmt Flow 0 60 2255 43 0 2750 Number of Lanes 0 1 3003 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow All 3377 1149 0 0 2299 0 Stage 1 2277 - ---- Stage 2 1100 - ---- Follow-up Headway 3.82 3.92 - - 3.12 - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver *81 *449 - - 88 - Stage 1 *37 - ---- Stage 2 *323 - ---- Time blocked-Platoon, % 66 51 - - 0 - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver *81 *449 - - 88 - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver *81 - ---- Stage 1 *37 - ---- Stage 2 *323 - ---- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.2 0 0 HCM LOS B - - Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT Cap, veh/h - - *449 88 - HCM Control Delay, s - - 14.2 0 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.13 - - HCM Lane LOS - - B A - HCM 95th-tile Q, veh - - 0.5 0.0 - Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 TWSC Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 38: Stanford Road & Parking Garage Access 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 17 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 3.4 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 40 70 85 185 145 40 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 0 Median Width 12 0 0 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 43 76 92 201 158 43 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow All 565 179 201 0 - 0 Stage 1 179 - - - - - Stage 2 386 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 486 864 1371 - - - Stage 1 852 - - - - - Stage 2 687 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon, % 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 449 864 1371 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 449 - - - - - Stage 1 852 - - - - - Stage 2 635 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.2 2.5 0 HCM LOS B - - Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Cap, veh/h 1371 - 449 864 - - HCM Control Delay, s 7.815 0 13.9 9.6 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.07 - 0.10 0.09 - - HCM Lane LOS AABA-- HCM 95th-tile Q, veh 0.2 - 0.3 0.3 - - Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 1: College Avenue & Swallow Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 60 125 105 80 100 135 80 2045 65 185 2105 60 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 111111130130 Cap, veh/h 228 214 181 220 238 202 176 2865 91 231 3051 86 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.57 0.57 0.07 0.60 0.60 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 1774 5063 161 1774 5084 144 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 65 136 114 87 109 147 87 1486 808 201 1523 830 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 1774 1695 1834 1774 1695 1837 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 7.3 7.2 4.4 5.7 9.3 2.1 35.3 35.6 5.4 34.0 34.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 7.3 7.2 4.4 5.7 9.3 2.1 35.3 35.6 5.4 34.0 34.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 0.08 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 228 214 181 220 238 202 176 1919 1038 231 2035 1103 V/C Ratio(X) 0.28 0.64 0.63 0.40 0.46 0.73 0.50 0.77 0.78 0.87 0.75 0.75 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 270 465 395 239 465 395 246 1919 1038 241 2035 1103 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) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.4 44.1 44.0 36.9 42.1 43.7 18.7 17.5 17.6 26.9 15.1 15.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 3.1 3.5 1.2 1.4 5.0 2.2 3.1 5.8 26.3 2.6 4.8 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.5 3.7 3.1 2.1 2.8 4.0 1.4 15.1 17.1 7.1 14.1 16.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 39.1 47.2 47.6 38.0 43.5 48.7 20.8 20.6 23.3 53.2 17.7 20.0 Lane Grp LOS DDDDDDCCCDBB Approach Vol, veh/h 315 343 2381 2554 Approach Delay, s/veh 45.7 44.4 21.5 21.2 Approach LOS DDCC Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.5 18.0 9.9 19.3 7.9 65.0 11.4 68.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 26.0 7.0 26.0 8.0 59.0 8.0 59.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.3 9.3 6.4 11.3 4.1 37.3 7.4 36.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.0 0.1 21.4 0.0 22.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 24.2 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 2: College Avenue & Foothills PKWY 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 25 15 20 260 15 150 35 2005 100 335 1935 30 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 111111131230 Cap, veh/h 115 66 56 363 441 375 48 2399 747 420 3040 48 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.15 0.24 0.00 0.04 0.63 0.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1392 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 1774 5085 1583 3442 5158 81 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 27 16 22 283 16 0 38 2179 0 364 1382 754 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1392 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 1774 1695 1583 1721 1695 1848 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 0.9 1.5 16.0 0.7 0.0 2.3 40.5 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 0.9 1.5 16.0 0.7 0.0 2.3 40.5 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.04 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 115 66 56 363 441 375 48 2399 747 420 1998 1090 V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.24 0.39 0.78 0.04 0.00 0.79 0.91 0.00 0.87 0.69 0.69 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 244 239 203 363 614 522 97 2399 747 473 1998 1090 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.8 51.2 51.5 41.7 32.1 0.0 52.3 18.3 0.0 40.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 1.9 4.4 10.4 0.0 0.0 24.2 6.4 0.0 14.4 2.0 3.6 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.8 0.5 0.7 8.5 0.3 0.0 1.4 16.1 0.0 5.2 0.6 1.1 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 52.8 53.1 55.9 52.1 32.1 0.0 76.5 24.7 0.0 54.9 2.0 3.6 Lane Grp LOS D D E D C E C D A A Approach Vol, veh/h 65 299 2217 2500 Approach Delay, s/veh 53.9 51.0 25.6 10.2 Approach LOS D D C B Timer Assigned Phs 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.9 22.0 31.9 7.0 58.0 19.3 70.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 16.0 36.0 6.0 51.5 15.0 62.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 18.0 2.7 4.3 42.5 13.1 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 7.9 0.2 35.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 19.9 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 4: College Avenue & Horsetooth Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 255 760 140 245 530 130 225 1655 165 160 1775 285 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 120221131131 Cap, veh/h 265 877 161 229 775 347 207 2071 645 166 1902 592 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.29 0.29 0.13 0.44 0.44 0.08 0.41 0.41 0.10 0.75 0.75 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 2986 549 3442 3539 1583 1774 5085 1583 1774 5085 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 277 490 488 266 576 141 245 1799 179 174 1929 310 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1770 1766 1721 1770 1583 1774 1695 1583 1774 1695 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 18.0 32.5 32.5 8.0 16.3 7.3 10.0 39.1 9.1 6.0 45.0 9.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 18.0 32.5 32.5 8.0 16.3 7.3 10.0 39.1 9.1 6.0 45.0 9.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 265 520 519 229 775 347 207 2071 645 166 1902 592 V/C Ratio(X) 1.04 0.94 0.94 1.16 0.74 0.41 1.18 0.87 0.28 1.05 1.01 0.52 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 265 522 521 229 779 349 207 2071 645 166 1902 592 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.62 0.62 0.62 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 51.2 41.5 41.5 52.2 31.0 28.5 36.6 32.7 23.8 33.5 15.2 10.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 67.2 25.6 25.6 107.0 3.4 0.7 120.4 5.3 1.1 67.3 19.9 2.0 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 13.2 18.2 18.2 6.7 6.6 2.7 10.3 17.7 3.8 5.4 14.9 2.9 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 118.4 67.1 67.1 159.1 34.4 29.2 157.0 38.0 24.9 100.8 35.1 12.8 Lane Grp LOS F E E F C C F D C F F B Approach Vol, veh/h 1255 983 2223 2413 Approach Delay, s/veh 78.4 67.4 50.1 37.0 Approach LOS E E D D Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 22.0 41.8 13.0 32.8 14.0 55.5 10.0 51.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.5 5.0 6.5 4.0 6.5 4.0 6.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 35.5 8.0 26.5 10.0 49.0 6.0 44.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 20.0 34.5 10.0 18.3 12.0 41.1 8.0 47.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.8 0.0 5.9 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 53.1 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. HCM 2010 TWSC Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 11: Mall Entrance & Foothills PKWY/Mathews Street 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 45 190 180 50 175 20 215 5 40 15 5 35 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized None None None None None None None None None None None None Storage Length 150 0 100 100 100 0 0 0 Median Width 12 12 0 0 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 49 207 196 54 190 22 234 5 43 16 5 38 Number of Lanes 111111010010 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Minor 1 Minor 2 Conflicting Flow All 190 0 0 207 0 0 625 603 207 628 603 190 Stage 1 ------ 304 304- 299 299- Stage 2 ------ 321 299- 329 304- Follow-up Headway 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 1384 - - 1364 - - 397 413 833 395 413 852 Stage 1 ------ 705 663- 710 666- Stage 2 ------ 691 666- 684 663- Time blocked-Platoon, % 0 - - 0 - - 000000 Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 1384 - - 1364 - - 354 383 833 350 383 852 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ------ 354 383- 350 383- Stage 1 ------ 680 640- 685 640- Stage 2 ------ 629 640- 620 640- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.8 1.6 35.3 12.1 HCM LOS - - E B Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Cap, veh/h 389 1384 - - 1364 - - 567 HCM Control Delay, s 35.3 7.696 - - 7.749 - - 12.1 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.73 0.04 - - 0.04 - - 0.11 HCM Lane LOS E A - - A - - B HCM 95th-tile Q, veh 5.6 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 0.4 Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 TWSC Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 12: Mathews Street & Swallow Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 2.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Vol, veh/h 265 90 45 245 50 60 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0000 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 100 100 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2222 2 2 Mvmt Flow 288 98 49 266 54 65 Number of Lanes 1011 1 1 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 386 0 701 337 Stage 1 ---- 337 - Stage 2 ---- 364 - Follow-up Headway - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver - - 1172 - 405 705 Stage 1 ---- 723 - Stage 2 ---- 703 - Time blocked-Platoon, % - - 0 - 0 0 Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver - - 1172 - 388 705 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ---- 495 - Stage 1 ---- 723 - Stage 2 ---- 674 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.3 11.8 HCM LOS - - B Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Cap, veh/h 495 705 - - 1172 - HCM Control Delay, s 13.2 10.6 - - 8.205 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.11 0.09 - - 0.04 - HCM Lane LOS B B - - A - HCM 95th-tile Q, veh 0.4 0.3 - - 0.1 - Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 13: College Avenue & Monroe Drive 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 65 30 70 240 25 235 40 1845 165 225 1950 40 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 110111130130 Cap, veh/h 318 123 284 308 458 389 144 2622 232 279 3042 62 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.05 1.00 1.00 0.02 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1093 502 1156 1279 1863 1583 1774 4757 422 1774 5131 104 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 71 0 109 261 27 255 43 1425 759 245 1400 763 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1093 0 1659 1279 1863 1583 1774 1695 1788 1774 1695 1844 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 0.0 6.3 22.7 1.3 17.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 5.8 45.3 45.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.6 0.0 6.3 29.0 1.3 17.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 5.8 45.3 45.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.06 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 318 0 408 308 458 389 144 1868 986 279 2010 1093 V/C Ratio(X) 0.22 0.00 0.27 0.85 0.06 0.65 0.30 0.76 0.77 0.88 0.70 0.70 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 318 0 408 308 458 389 204 1868 986 310 2010 1093 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.41 0.41 0.41 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.9 0.0 35.9 48.2 34.0 40.0 19.3 0.0 0.0 17.3 37.6 37.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.3 19.4 0.1 3.9 0.5 1.2 2.4 22.2 2.0 3.7 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.8 0.0 2.7 9.6 0.6 7.3 0.5 0.3 0.7 6.4 21.8 24.3 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 37.3 0.0 36.2 67.6 34.1 43.9 19.8 1.2 2.4 39.5 39.6 41.3 Lane Grp LOS D D E C D B A A D D D Approach Vol, veh/h 180 543 2227 2408 Approach Delay, s/veh 36.6 54.8 2.0 40.1 Approach LOS D D A D Timer Assigned Phs 4 8 5 2 1 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 35.0 35.0 7.0 71.0 11.9 75.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.0 29.0 7.0 65.0 10.0 68.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.6 31.0 3.2 2.0 7.8 47.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.6 0.0 0.0 60.1 0.2 20.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 25.6 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 15: Stanford Road & Horsetooth Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 110 1000 15 55 975 145 10 25 55 130 40 70 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 120120111111 Cap, veh/h 354 2413 36 453 2061 307 248 310 264 263 310 264 Arrive On Green 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.67 0.67 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 3571 53 1774 3091 460 1268 1863 1583 1305 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 120 539 564 60 606 612 11 27 60 141 43 76 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1770 1853 1774 1770 1782 1268 1863 1583 1305 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 20.3 20.4 0.9 1.4 3.8 12.0 2.3 4.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 20.3 20.4 3.2 1.4 3.8 13.4 2.3 4.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.03 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 354 1196 1253 453 1180 1188 248 310 264 263 310 264 V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.45 0.45 0.13 0.51 0.52 0.04 0.09 0.23 0.54 0.14 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 408 1196 1253 553 1180 1188 248 310 264 263 310 264 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.85 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.5 0.0 0.0 5.6 9.9 9.9 42.9 41.2 42.2 46.9 41.6 42.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 1.1 1.0 0.1 1.6 1.6 0.3 0.6 2.0 7.6 0.9 2.7 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.5 8.6 8.7 0.3 0.7 1.7 4.6 1.2 2.2 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 7.9 1.1 1.0 5.7 11.5 11.5 43.3 41.8 44.2 54.5 42.5 45.4 Lane Grp LOS AAAABBDDDDDD Approach Vol, veh/h 1223 1278 98 260 Approach Delay, s/veh 1.7 11.2 43.4 49.9 Approach LOS A B D D Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 2 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.5 84.6 7.4 83.5 25.0 25.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 75.5 10.0 78.0 19.5 19.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 2.0 3.2 22.3 5.8 15.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 33.6 0.0 29.8 1.1 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 11.8 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. HCM 2010 AWSC Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 16: JFK Parkway & Monroe Drive 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 21.9 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 200 140 25 75 185 25 35 200 130 15 160 215 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 217 152 27 82 201 27 38 217 141 16 174 234 Number of Lanes 111110011011 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2322 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2232 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2223 HCM Control Delay 21.4 22.5 23.3 20.5 HCM LOS CCCC Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 EBLn3 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 15% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 9% 0% Vol Thru, % 85% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 88% 91% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 12% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 235 130 200 140 25 75 210 175 215 LT Vol 200 0 0 140 0 0 185 160 0 Through Vol 0 130 0 0 25 0 25 0 215 RT Vol 35 0 200 0 0 75 0 15 0 Lane Flow Rate 255 141 217 152 27 82 228 190 234 Geometry Grp 888888888 Degree of Util (X) 0.653 0.33 0.584 0.387 0.064 0.225 0.592 0.483 0.543 Departure Headway (Hd) 9.2 8.402 9.678 9.159 8.433 9.944 9.336 9.138 8.372 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 391 427 372 393 423 360 386 394 430 Service Time 6.977 6.178 7.455 6.936 6.21 7.725 7.116 6.915 6.148 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.652 0.33 0.583 0.387 0.064 0.228 0.591 0.482 0.544 HCM Control Delay 27.8 15.3 25.3 17.6 11.8 15.6 24.9 20.2 20.7 HCM Lane LOS DCDCBCCCC HCM 95th-tile Q 4.5 1.4 3.6 1.8 0.2 0.9 3.7 2.5 3.2 Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 TWSC Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 17: Stanford Road & Monroe Drive 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 9 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 1.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 25 40 30 250 175 20 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 200 0 0 0 Median Width 12 12 12 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 27 43 33 272 190 22 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow All 538 201 212 0 - 0 Stage 1 201 - - - - - Stage 2 337 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 504 840 1358 - - - Stage 1 833 - - - - - Stage 2 723 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon, % 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 489 840 1358 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 489 - - - - - Stage 1 833 - - - - - Stage 2 702 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.8 0.8 0 HCM LOS B - - Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Cap, veh/h 1358 - 489 840 - - HCM Control Delay, s 7.716 0 12.8 9.5 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.02 - 0.06 0.05 - - HCM Lane LOS AABA-- HCM 95th-tile Q, veh 0.1 - 0.2 0.2 - - Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 18: JFK Parkway & Horsetooth Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 10 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 235 735 120 225 700 125 100 80 255 135 90 130 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 120120111120 Cap, veh/h 528 1588 258 526 1576 282 266 299 392 298 285 255 Arrive On Green 0.17 1.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 3049 496 1774 3001 536 1774 1863 1583 1774 1770 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 255 464 465 245 449 448 109 87 277 147 98 141 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1770 1775 1774 1770 1768 1774 1863 1583 1774 1770 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.8 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 6.1 5.0 19.3 8.0 5.9 9.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.8 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 6.1 5.0 19.3 8.0 5.9 9.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 528 922 925 526 929 929 266 299 392 298 285 255 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.50 0.50 0.47 0.48 0.48 0.41 0.29 0.71 0.49 0.34 0.55 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 528 922 925 636 929 929 267 299 392 298 285 255 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.85 0.85 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.2 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 39.0 44.7 41.5 39.7 45.0 46.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.0 2.4 10.3 1.3 3.3 8.3 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 3.0 0.2 0.2 2.9 0.4 0.4 2.8 2.6 8.9 3.9 3.0 4.7 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 10.5 0.7 0.7 10.2 1.5 1.5 40.0 47.1 51.7 41.0 48.3 55.0 Lane Grp LOS BAABAADDDDDE Approach Vol, veh/h 1184 1142 473 386 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.8 3.4 48.2 48.0 Approach LOS A A D D Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.0 69.0 14.5 69.5 11.9 25.4 12.0 25.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 55.0 18.0 63.5 8.0 19.0 8.0 19.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.8 2.0 10.1 2.0 8.1 21.3 10.0 7.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 19.5 0.4 20.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.2 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes HCM 2010 AWSC Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 22: Stanford Road & Swallow Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 11 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.3 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 25 215 75 85 170 10 90 10 80 5 5 25 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 27 234 82 92 185 11 98 11 87 5 5 27 Number of Lanes 110110010010 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2211 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1122 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1122 HCM Control Delay 12.5 10.5 10.7 8.9 HCM LOS BBBA Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 50% 100% 0% 100% 0% 14% Vol Thru, % 6% 0% 74% 0% 94% 14% Vol Right, % 44% 0% 26% 0% 6% 71% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 180 25 290 85 180 35 LT Vol 10 0 215 0 170 5 Through Vol 80 0 75 0 10 25 RT Vol 90 25 0 85 0 5 Lane Flow Rate 196 27 315 92 196 38 Geometry Grp 277772 Degree of Util (X) 0.29 0.046 0.472 0.157 0.303 0.058 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.461 6.076 5.388 6.12 5.575 5.529 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 661 592 671 589 648 648 Service Time 3.461 3.786 3.097 3.83 3.285 3.56 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.297 0.046 0.469 0.156 0.302 0.059 HCM Control Delay 10.7 9.1 12.8 10 10.7 8.9 HCM Lane LOS BABABA HCM 95th-tile Q 1.2 0.1 2.5 0.6 1.3 0.2 Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 TWSC Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 24: Stanford Road & North Mall 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 12 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 15 35 20 165 180 20 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 0 Median Width 12 0 0 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 16 38 22 179 196 22 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow All 430 207 217 0 - 0 Stage 1 207 - - - - - Stage 2 223 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 582 833 1353 - - - Stage 1 828 - - - - - Stage 2 814 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon, % 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 572 833 1353 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 572 - - - - - Stage 1 828 - - - - - Stage 2 799 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.1 0.8 0 HCM LOS B - - Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Cap, veh/h 1353 - 572 833 - - HCM Control Delay, s 7.704 0 11.5 9.5 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.02 - 0.03 0.05 - - HCM Lane LOS AABA-- HCM 95th-tile Q, veh 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - - Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 TWSC Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 25: College Avenue & South Right In/Out 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 13 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh/h 0 120 2025 125 0 2210 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 150 0 Median Width 0 12 12 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2222 Mvmt Flow 0 130 2201 136 0 2402 Number of Lanes 0 1 3103 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow All 3162 1101 0 0 2201 0 Stage 1 2201 - ---- Stage 2 961 - ---- Follow-up Headway 3.82 3.92 - - 3.12 - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver *43 *425 - - *535 - Stage 1 *436 - ---- Stage 2 *391 - ---- Time blocked-Platoon, % 95 54 - - 54 - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver *43 *425 - - *535 - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver *43 - ---- Stage 1 *436 - ---- Stage 2 *391 - ---- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 17.2 0 0 HCM LOS C - - Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT Cap, veh/h - - *425 535 - HCM Control Delay, s - - 17.2 0 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.31 - - HCM Lane LOS - - C A - HCM 95th-tile Q, veh - - 1.3 0.0 - Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 TWSC Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 30: Remington & Swallow Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 14 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 2.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 15 305 60 25 250 20 30 5 30 20 5 35 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized None None None None None None None None None None None None Storage Length 50 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 Median Width 12 12 0 0 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 16 332 65 27 272 22 33 5 33 22 5 38 Number of Lanes 110110010010 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Minor 1 Minor 2 Conflicting Flow All 293 0 0 397 0 0 756 745 364 753 766 283 Stage 1 ------ 397 397- 337 337- Stage 2 ------ 359 348- 416 429- Follow-up Headway 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 1269 - - 1162 - - 325 342 681 326 333 756 Stage 1 ------ 629 603- 677 641- Stage 2 ------ 659 634- 614 584- Time blocked-Platoon, % 0 - - 0 - - 000000 Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 1269 - - 1162 - - 296 330 681 298 321 756 Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver ------ 296 330- 298 321- Stage 1 ------ 621 595- 668 626- Stage 2 ------ 606 619- 572 577- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0.7 15.8 14 HCM LOS - - C B Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Cap, veh/h 405 1269 - - 1162 - - 465 HCM Control Delay, s 15.8 7.874 - - 8.172 - - 14 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.17 0.01 - - 0.02 - - 0.14 HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - B HCM 95th-tile Q, veh 0.6 0.0 - - 0.1 - - 0.5 Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 TWSC Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 33: Stanford Road & N Monroe 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 15 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 4.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 35 25 35 10 25 35 60 205 10 20 150 40 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 000000000000 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None None None None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Median Width 12 12 0 0 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 38 27 38 11 27 38 65 223 11 22 163 43 Number of Lanes 110010010010 Major/Minor Minor 2 Minor 1 Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow All 619 592 185 620 609 228 207 0 0 234 0 0 Stage 1 228 228 - 359 359 ------- Stage 2 391 364 - 261 250 ------- Follow-up Headway 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - - 2.218 - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 401 419 857 400 410 811 1364 - - 1333 - - Stage 1 775 715 - 659 627 ------- Stage 2 633 624 - 744 700 ------- Time blocked-Platoon, % 0000000--0-- Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 341 388 857 342 380 811 1364 - - 1333 - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 341 388 - 342 380 ------- Stage 1 732 701 - 623 593 ------- Stage 2 544 590 - 670 687 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.1 13.4 1.7 0.7 HCM LOS B B - - Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Cap, veh/h 1364 - - 341 514 507 1333 - - HCM Control Delay, s 7.772 0 - 16.4 13.3 13.4 7.745 0 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.05 - - 0.07 0.15 0.15 0.02 - - HCM Lane LOS A A - C BBAA- HCM 95th-tile Q, veh 0.2 - - 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.1 - - Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 TWSC Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 36: College Avenue & North Right-In/Out 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 16 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh/h 0 70 2135 55 0 2295 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 0 Median Width 0 24 24 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2222 Mvmt Flow 0 76 2321 60 0 2495 Number of Lanes 0 1 3003 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow All 3349 1190 0 0 2380 0 Stage 1 2351 - ---- Stage 2 998 - ---- Follow-up Headway 3.82 3.92 - - 3.12 - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver *63 *449 - - 80 - Stage 1 *34 - ---- Stage 2 *369 - ---- Time blocked-Platoon, % 61 51 - - 0 - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver *63 *449 - - 80 - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver *63 - ---- Stage 1 *34 - ---- Stage 2 *369 - ---- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.6 0 0 HCM LOS B - - Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT Cap, veh/h - - *449 80 - HCM Control Delay, s - - 14.6 0 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.17 - - HCM Lane LOS - - B A - HCM 95th-tile Q, veh - - 0.6 0.0 - Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 TWSC Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 38: Stanford Road & Parking Garage Access 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Short Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 17 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 4.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 50 90 115 175 140 55 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 0 Median Width 12 0 0 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 54 98 125 190 152 60 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow All 622 182 212 0 - 0 Stage 1 182 - - - - - Stage 2 440 - - - - - Follow-up Headway 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 450 861 1358 - - - Stage 1 849 - - - - - Stage 2 649 - - - - - Time blocked-Platoon, % 0 0 0 - - - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 404 861 1358 - - - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 404 - - - - - Stage 1 849 - - - - - Stage 2 582 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.7 3.1 0 HCM LOS B - - Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 EBLn2 SBT SBR Cap, veh/h 1358 - 404 861 - - HCM Control Delay, s 7.92 0 15.3 9.7 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.09 - 0.14 0.11 - - HCM Lane LOS A A C A - - HCM 95th-tile Q, veh 0.3 - 0.5 0.4 - - Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 1: College Avenue & Swallow Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 25 40 50 230 45 160 60 2500 110 240 2900 40 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 111111130130 Cap, veh/h 168 109 93 344 315 268 121 2700 118 225 3099 42 Arrive On Green 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.17 0.17 0.03 0.54 0.54 0.09 0.60 0.60 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 1774 4997 218 1774 5170 70 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 27 43 54 250 49 174 65 1832 1005 261 2062 1133 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 1774 1695 1824 1774 1695 1850 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.6 2.5 3.7 12.4 2.5 11.4 1.8 60.0 60.0 10.0 66.5 66.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.6 2.5 3.7 12.4 2.5 11.4 1.8 60.0 60.0 10.0 66.5 66.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 0.04 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 168 109 93 344 315 268 121 1832 986 225 2032 1109 V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.40 0.58 0.73 0.16 0.65 0.54 1.00 1.02 1.16 1.01 1.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 244 235 200 367 386 328 242 1832 986 225 2032 1109 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) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.8 50.4 51.0 31.6 39.4 43.1 26.8 25.5 25.5 39.7 22.2 22.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 2.3 5.7 6.6 0.2 3.2 3.6 21.1 33.5 110.7 23.7 32.6 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.7 1.3 1.7 6.2 1.2 4.8 1.1 30.0 35.7 13.3 33.2 39.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 48.3 52.7 56.7 38.2 39.6 46.3 30.4 46.6 59.0 150.4 46.0 54.9 Lane Grp LOS D D E DDDCFFFFF Approach Vol, veh/h 124 473 2902 3456 Approach Delay, s/veh 53.5 41.3 50.5 56.8 Approach LOS D D D E Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.3 12.5 18.5 24.8 7.5 66.0 14.0 72.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 14.0 16.0 23.0 11.0 60.0 10.0 59.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 5.7 14.4 13.4 3.8 62.0 12.0 68.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 53.1 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 2: College Avenue & Foothills PKWY 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 15 10 40 210 10 120 30 2565 75 245 2990 25 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 111111131230 Cap, veh/h 126 79 67 297 372 317 41 2712 844 328 3269 27 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.20 0.00 0.02 0.36 0.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1398 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 1774 5085 1583 3442 5202 43 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 16 11 43 228 11 0 33 2788 0 266 2115 1162 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1398 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 1774 1695 1583 1721 1695 1855 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.2 0.6 2.9 11.0 0.5 0.0 2.0 57.5 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.2 0.6 2.9 11.0 0.5 0.0 2.0 57.5 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.02 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 126 79 67 297 372 317 41 2712 844 328 2130 1166 V/C Ratio(X) 0.13 0.14 0.64 0.77 0.03 0.00 0.80 1.03 0.00 0.81 0.99 1.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 235 225 191 297 518 441 132 2712 844 479 2130 1166 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.0 49.7 50.8 43.9 34.7 0.0 52.8 34.7 0.0 42.7 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.8 9.8 11.5 0.0 0.0 28.1 25.0 0.0 6.6 17.9 25.6 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.5 0.3 0.2 1.8 0.2 0.0 1.2 31.8 0.0 3.5 5.3 8.3 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 50.5 50.5 60.7 55.4 34.7 0.0 80.9 59.6 0.0 49.4 17.9 25.6 Lane Grp LOS D D E E C F F D B C Approach Vol, veh/h 70 239 2821 3543 Approach Delay, s/veh 56.8 54.5 59.9 22.8 Approach LOS E D E C Timer Assigned Phs 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.6 17.0 27.6 6.5 64.0 16.3 73.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 11.0 30.0 8.0 57.5 15.0 66.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.9 13.0 2.5 4.0 59.5 10.0 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 58.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 40.0 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 4: College Avenue & Horsetooth Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 190 965 105 205 980 155 215 2140 135 175 2570 300 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 120221131131 Cap, veh/h 191 762 83 257 749 335 164 2279 710 165 2279 710 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.24 0.24 0.07 0.21 0.21 0.06 0.45 0.45 0.12 0.90 0.90 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 3221 350 3442 3539 1583 1774 5085 1583 1774 5085 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 207 576 587 223 1065 168 234 2326 147 190 2793 326 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1770 1801 1721 1770 1583 1774 1695 1583 1774 1695 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.0 28.5 28.5 7.7 25.5 11.3 7.0 54.0 6.8 7.0 54.0 4.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.0 28.5 28.5 7.7 25.5 11.3 7.0 54.0 6.8 7.0 54.0 4.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 191 419 426 257 749 335 164 2279 710 165 2279 710 V/C Ratio(X) 1.08 1.38 1.38 0.87 1.42 0.50 1.43 1.02 0.21 1.15 1.23 0.46 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 191 419 426 257 749 335 164 2279 710 165 2279 710 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.53 0.53 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 0.15 0.15 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.8 46.0 46.0 55.2 47.5 41.9 33.3 33.3 20.2 29.6 6.2 3.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 88.5 183.8 184.3 15.2 194.1 0.6 223.7 24.3 0.7 78.7 102.2 0.3 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 10.7 34.3 34.9 4.0 31.7 4.6 12.8 27.9 2.8 6.0 24.1 1.1 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 142.2 229.8 230.3 70.4 241.6 42.5 257.0 57.5 20.9 108.3 108.4 4.0 Lane Grp LOS F F F E F D F F C F F A Approach Vol, veh/h 1370 1456 2707 3309 Approach Delay, s/veh 216.8 192.4 72.8 98.1 Approach LOS F F E F Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.0 35.0 14.0 32.0 11.0 60.5 11.0 60.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.5 5.0 6.5 4.0 6.5 4.0 6.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 13.0 28.5 9.0 25.5 7.0 54.0 7.0 53.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.0 30.5 9.7 27.5 9.0 56.0 9.0 56.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 124.3 HCM 2010 LOS F Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 13: College Avenue & Monroe Drive 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 45 25 60 165 35 235 30 2330 195 145 3080 30 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 110111130130 Cap, veh/h 265 99 239 266 381 324 102 2859 234 184 3305 32 Arrive On Green 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.02 0.60 0.60 0.08 0.85 0.85 Sat Flow, veh/h 1082 486 1170 1299 1863 1583 1774 4791 393 1774 5193 51 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 0 92 179 38 255 33 1777 968 158 2182 1199 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1082 0 1656 1299 1863 1583 1774 1695 1793 1774 1695 1854 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.5 0.0 5.5 15.8 1.9 17.9 0.8 52.1 55.5 5.3 74.7 74.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.5 0.0 5.5 21.3 1.9 17.9 0.8 52.1 55.5 5.3 74.7 74.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.03 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 265 0 339 266 381 324 102 2023 1070 184 2158 1180 V/C Ratio(X) 0.19 0.00 0.27 0.67 0.10 0.79 0.32 0.88 0.90 0.86 1.01 1.02 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 283 0 367 289 413 351 168 2023 1070 195 2158 1180 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.13 0.13 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.5 0.0 39.3 48.2 37.9 44.2 29.5 20.0 20.7 35.4 9.0 9.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.4 5.4 0.1 10.6 0.2 0.8 2.0 28.4 22.2 30.3 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.3 0.0 2.4 5.7 0.9 8.2 0.6 21.5 24.5 6.1 23.6 28.5 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 40.8 0.0 39.7 53.7 38.0 54.8 29.8 20.9 22.7 63.8 31.2 39.3 Lane Grp LOS D DDDDCCCEFF Approach Vol, veh/h 141 472 2778 3539 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.1 53.0 21.6 35.4 Approach LOS DDCD Timer Assigned Phs 4 8 5 2 1 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.0 30.0 6.6 76.0 11.3 80.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.0 26.0 7.0 70.0 8.0 71.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.5 23.3 2.8 54.1 7.3 76.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.2 0.7 0.0 15.9 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 31.2 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 15: Stanford Road & Horsetooth Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 100 1585 20 110 1710 125 25 30 135 150 55 75 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 120120111111 Cap, veh/h 184 2385 30 277 2238 162 227 295 250 236 295 250 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.89 0.89 0.04 0.67 0.67 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 3579 46 1774 3348 242 1241 1863 1583 1199 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 109 851 894 120 972 1023 27 33 147 163 60 82 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1770 1855 1774 1770 1820 1241 1863 1583 1199 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 16.8 16.9 2.3 44.7 47.1 2.1 1.7 9.5 14.9 3.1 5.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 16.8 16.9 2.3 44.7 47.1 5.2 1.7 9.5 16.6 3.1 5.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 184 1179 1236 277 1183 1217 227 295 250 236 295 250 V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.72 0.72 0.43 0.82 0.84 0.12 0.11 0.59 0.69 0.20 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 342 1179 1236 431 1183 1217 227 295 250 236 295 250 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.66 0.66 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.9 3.0 3.1 7.4 13.5 13.9 42.8 39.9 43.2 47.0 40.5 41.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 2.6 2.5 1.1 6.5 7.1 1.1 0.8 9.7 15.2 1.6 3.5 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 3.2 3.7 3.8 0.9 19.9 21.7 0.8 0.9 4.5 5.6 1.6 2.3 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 24.9 5.6 5.5 8.5 20.0 21.0 43.9 40.7 53.0 62.3 42.1 44.8 Lane Grp LOS C AAABCDDDEDD Approach Vol, veh/h 1854 2115 207 305 Approach Delay, s/veh 6.7 19.8 49.8 53.6 Approach LOS A B D D Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 2 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.2 79.3 8.4 79.5 23.0 23.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 73.5 14.0 74.0 17.5 17.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.2 18.8 4.3 46.7 11.5 18.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 50.9 0.2 26.3 1.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 18.1 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 18: JFK Parkway & Horsetooth Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 205 1065 85 265 1220 100 120 80 280 120 115 125 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 120120111120 Cap, veh/h 393 1633 130 454 1693 139 283 339 452 293 281 252 Arrive On Green 0.17 0.98 0.98 0.21 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 3322 264 1774 3313 271 1774 1863 1583 1774 1770 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 223 616 634 288 706 729 130 87 304 130 125 136 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1770 1816 1774 1770 1815 1774 1863 1583 1774 1770 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.5 2.3 2.3 9.5 0.0 0.0 6.8 4.7 19.8 6.0 7.4 9.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.5 2.3 2.3 9.5 0.0 0.0 6.8 4.7 19.8 6.0 7.4 9.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 393 870 893 454 904 927 283 339 452 293 281 252 V/C Ratio(X) 0.57 0.71 0.71 0.63 0.78 0.79 0.46 0.26 0.67 0.44 0.44 0.54 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 457 870 893 575 904 927 288 339 452 293 281 252 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.45 0.45 0.45 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.0 0.5 0.5 9.4 0.0 0.0 35.0 40.9 36.8 39.6 44.3 45.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.7 3.1 3.1 1.2 1.8 7.8 1.1 5.0 8.1 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 2.7 0.4 0.4 3.2 0.8 0.8 3.2 2.4 8.9 0.5 3.8 4.3 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 11.1 1.0 1.0 10.0 3.1 3.1 36.2 42.7 44.6 40.6 49.4 53.2 Lane Grp LOS BAABAADDDDDD Approach Vol, veh/h 1473 1723 521 391 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.5 4.3 42.2 47.8 Approach LOS A A D D Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.8 63.2 16.1 65.5 12.7 27.2 10.0 24.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 14.0 53.0 20.0 59.5 9.0 21.0 6.0 18.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.5 4.3 11.5 2.0 8.8 21.8 8.0 9.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 34.2 0.6 38.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 12.6 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes HCM 2010 TWSC Long Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 25: College Avenue & South Right In/Out 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 7 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh/h 0 95 2580 95 0 3245 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 150 0 Median Width 0 12 12 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2222 Mvmt Flow 0 103 2804 103 0 3527 Number of Lanes 0 1 3103 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow All 4215 1402 0 0 2804 0 Stage 1 2804 - ---- Stage 2 1411 - ---- Follow-up Headway 3.82 3.92 - - 3.12 - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 7 *293 - - *368 - Stage 1 17 - ---- Stage 2 170 - ---- Time blocked-Platoon, % 85 68 - - 68 - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 7 *293 - - *368 - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 7 - ---- Stage 1 17 - ---- Stage 2 170 - ---- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 23.8 0 0 HCM LOS C - - Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT Cap, veh/h - - *293 368 - HCM Control Delay, s - - 23.8 0 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.35 - - HCM Lane LOS - - C A - HCM 95th-tile Q, veh - - 1.5 0.0 - Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 TWSC Long Term Total Traffic - PM Peak 36: College Avenue & North Right-In/Out 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Total Traffic - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh/h 0 55 2665 40 0 3265 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 0 Median Width 0 24 24 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2222 Mvmt Flow 0 60 2897 43 0 3549 Number of Lanes 0 1 3003 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow All 4338 1470 0 0 2940 0 Stage 1 2918 - ---- Stage 2 1420 - ---- Follow-up Headway 3.82 3.92 - - 3.12 - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver *2 *449 - - 41 - Stage 1 *14 - ---- Stage 2 *142 - ---- Time blocked-Platoon, % 85 51 - - 0 - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver *2 *449 - - 41 - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver *2 - ---- Stage 1 *14 - ---- Stage 2 *142 - ---- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.2 0 0 HCM LOS B - - Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT Cap, veh/h - - *449 41 - HCM Control Delay, s - - 14.2 0 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.13 - - HCM Lane LOS - - B A - HCM 95th-tile Q, veh - - 0.5 0.0 - Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 1: College Avenue & Swallow Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 60 125 105 80 100 135 80 2585 65 185 2655 60 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 111111130130 Cap, veh/h 228 213 181 220 237 202 142 2786 70 231 3069 69 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.55 0.55 0.09 0.60 0.60 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 1774 5102 128 1774 5118 114 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 65 136 114 87 109 147 87 1860 1021 201 1905 1046 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 1774 1695 1840 1774 1695 1843 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 7.3 7.2 4.4 5.7 9.3 2.2 57.0 57.0 7.5 53.6 54.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 7.3 7.2 4.4 5.7 9.3 2.2 57.0 57.0 7.5 53.6 54.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 0.06 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 228 213 181 220 237 202 142 1851 1005 231 2033 1105 V/C Ratio(X) 0.28 0.64 0.63 0.40 0.46 0.73 0.61 1.00 1.02 0.87 0.94 0.95 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 270 464 394 238 464 394 211 1851 1005 239 2033 1105 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) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.5 44.1 44.1 36.9 42.2 43.8 24.8 23.7 23.7 34.8 19.1 19.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.7 3.1 3.5 1.2 1.4 5.0 4.2 22.0 32.5 26.8 9.8 17.0 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.5 3.7 3.1 2.1 2.8 4.0 1.4 28.8 34.2 7.1 23.7 28.8 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 39.2 47.3 47.6 38.1 43.6 48.8 29.0 45.7 56.2 61.6 28.9 36.4 Lane Grp LOS DDDDDDCFFECD Approach Vol, veh/h 315 343 2968 3152 Approach Delay, s/veh 45.7 44.4 48.9 33.5 Approach LOS DDDC Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.5 18.0 9.9 19.3 7.9 63.0 13.5 68.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 26.0 7.0 26.0 8.0 57.0 10.0 59.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.3 9.3 6.4 11.3 4.2 59.0 9.5 55.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.1 0.0 2.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 3.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 41.3 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 2: College Avenue & Foothills PKWY 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 25 15 20 260 15 150 35 2580 100 335 2535 30 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 111111131230 Cap, veh/h 113 65 55 324 400 340 48 2534 789 417 3184 38 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.21 0.00 0.05 1.00 0.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1392 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 1774 5085 1583 3442 5180 62 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 27 16 22 283 16 0 38 2804 0 364 1800 988 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1392 1863 1583 1774 1863 1583 1774 1695 1583 1721 1695 1852 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 0.9 1.5 14.0 0.8 0.0 2.4 55.5 0.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 0.9 1.5 14.0 0.8 0.0 2.4 55.5 0.0 11.3 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 113 65 55 324 400 340 48 2534 789 417 2084 1138 V/C Ratio(X) 0.24 0.25 0.40 0.87 0.04 0.00 0.79 1.11 0.00 0.87 0.86 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 215 201 171 324 535 455 96 2534 789 463 2084 1138 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 52.9 52.3 52.6 45.3 34.7 0.0 52.4 0.2 0.0 41.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 1.9 4.5 22.1 0.0 0.0 24.3 54.5 0.0 15.6 5.1 9.0 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 0.8 0.5 0.7 2.0 0.4 0.0 1.4 12.9 0.0 5.4 1.5 2.9 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 54.0 54.2 57.1 67.5 34.7 0.0 76.7 54.7 0.0 56.9 5.1 9.0 Lane Grp LOS D D E E C E F E A A Approach Vol, veh/h 65 299 2842 3152 Approach Delay, s/veh 55.1 65.7 55.0 12.3 Approach LOS E E D B Timer Assigned Phs 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.9 20.0 29.9 7.0 62.0 19.5 74.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.0 14.0 32.0 6.0 55.5 15.0 66.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.1 16.0 2.8 4.4 57.5 13.3 2.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 51.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 34.3 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 4: College Avenue & Horsetooth Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 255 955 140 245 680 130 225 2110 165 160 2280 285 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 120221131131 Cap, veh/h 162 836 122 200 866 388 178 2194 683 165 2152 670 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.27 0.27 0.08 0.33 0.33 0.07 0.43 0.43 0.12 0.85 0.85 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 3099 453 3442 3539 1583 1774 5085 1583 1774 5085 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 277 592 598 266 739 141 245 2293 179 174 2478 310 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1770 1783 1721 1770 1583 1774 1695 1583 1774 1695 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.0 32.5 32.5 7.0 23.5 8.2 8.0 52.0 8.7 7.0 51.0 6.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.0 32.5 32.5 7.0 23.5 8.2 8.0 52.0 8.7 7.0 51.0 6.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 162 477 481 200 866 388 178 2194 683 165 2152 670 V/C Ratio(X) 1.71 1.24 1.24 1.33 0.85 0.36 1.38 1.04 0.26 1.05 1.15 0.46 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 162 477 481 200 866 388 178 2194 683 165 2152 670 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.77 0.77 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.32 0.32 0.32 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 54.8 44.0 44.0 55.6 38.6 33.5 34.5 34.3 22.0 28.4 9.2 5.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 344.5 125.1 126.1 172.7 6.5 0.4 202.2 32.2 0.9 54.9 70.1 0.7 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 20.5 31.2 31.5 7.8 10.9 3.2 12.8 28.7 3.6 5.1 19.7 1.6 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 399.3 169.1 170.1 228.3 45.1 33.9 236.7 66.4 22.9 83.3 79.3 6.5 Lane Grp LOS FFFFDCFFCFFA Approach Vol, veh/h 1467 1146 2717 2962 Approach Delay, s/veh 213.0 86.2 78.9 72.0 Approach LOS F F E E Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.0 39.0 12.0 36.0 12.0 58.5 11.0 57.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.5 5.0 6.5 4.0 6.5 4.0 6.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 32.5 7.0 29.5 8.0 52.0 7.0 50.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.0 34.5 9.0 25.5 10.0 54.0 9.0 53.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 101.2 HCM 2010 LOS F Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 13: College Avenue & Monroe Drive 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 65 30 70 240 25 235 40 2385 165 225 2525 40 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 110111130130 Cap, veh/h 303 117 270 289 435 369 116 2554 173 252 3136 49 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.05 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 1093 502 1156 1279 1863 1583 1774 4865 330 1774 5158 80 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 71 0 109 261 27 255 43 1792 979 245 1800 988 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1093 0 1659 1279 1863 1583 1774 1695 1805 1774 1695 1849 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.5 0.0 6.5 21.5 1.4 17.7 1.3 0.0 63.0 12.5 58.6 59.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.8 0.0 6.5 28.0 1.4 17.7 1.3 0.0 63.0 12.5 58.6 59.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 1.00 0.04 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 303 0 387 289 435 369 116 1780 947 252 2061 1124 V/C Ratio(X) 0.23 0.00 0.28 0.90 0.06 0.69 0.37 1.01 1.03 0.97 0.87 0.88 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 303 0 387 289 435 369 160 1780 947 252 2061 1124 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.67 0.67 0.67 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.09 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.8 0.0 37.7 50.5 35.8 42.0 26.4 0.0 0.0 46.0 31.3 31.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.4 29.1 0.1 5.4 0.2 8.2 19.1 48.6 5.5 9.9 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.9 0.0 2.8 10.5 0.7 7.7 0.7 2.0 5.0 8.2 27.7 32.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 39.2 0.0 38.1 79.6 35.8 47.4 26.6 8.2 19.1 94.6 36.8 41.3 Lane Grp LOS D D E D D C F F F D D Approach Vol, veh/h 180 543 2814 3033 Approach Delay, s/veh 38.6 62.3 12.2 42.9 Approach LOS D E B D Timer Assigned Phs 4 8 5 2 1 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 34.0 34.0 7.0 69.0 17.0 79.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 28.0 28.0 6.0 63.0 13.0 70.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.8 30.0 3.3 2.0 14.5 60.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.6 0.0 0.0 60.6 0.0 9.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 31.3 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 15: Stanford Road & Horsetooth Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 110 1310 15 55 1275 145 10 25 55 130 40 70 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 120120111111 Cap, veh/h 267 2423 27 360 2137 242 248 310 264 263 310 264 Arrive On Green 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.67 0.67 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 3585 40 1774 3205 363 1268 1863 1583 1305 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 120 703 737 60 761 783 11 27 60 141 43 76 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1770 1856 1774 1770 1799 1268 1863 1583 1305 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 29.4 30.1 0.9 1.4 3.8 12.0 2.3 4.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 29.4 30.1 3.2 1.4 3.8 13.4 2.3 4.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.02 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 267 1196 1254 360 1180 1199 248 310 264 263 310 264 V/C Ratio(X) 0.45 0.59 0.59 0.17 0.65 0.65 0.04 0.09 0.23 0.54 0.14 0.29 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 320 1196 1254 459 1180 1199 248 310 264 263 310 264 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.74 0.74 0.74 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 11.4 11.5 42.9 41.2 42.2 46.9 41.6 42.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 1.6 1.5 0.2 2.7 2.8 0.3 0.6 2.0 7.6 0.9 2.7 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 12.7 13.1 0.3 0.7 1.7 4.6 1.2 2.2 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 11.9 1.6 1.5 5.8 14.1 14.3 43.3 41.8 44.2 54.5 42.5 45.4 Lane Grp LOS BAAABBDDDDDD Approach Vol, veh/h 1560 1604 98 260 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.3 13.9 43.4 49.9 Approach LOS A B D D Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 2 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.5 84.6 7.4 83.5 25.0 25.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.5 4.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 75.5 10.0 78.0 19.5 19.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.5 2.0 3.2 31.4 5.8 15.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 52.5 0.0 37.2 1.1 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 12.3 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 18: JFK Parkway & Horsetooth Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 235 965 120 225 930 125 100 80 255 135 90 130 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 120120111120 Cap, veh/h 461 1651 204 461 1647 221 266 299 392 298 285 255 Arrive On Green 0.17 1.00 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 3171 393 1774 3136 422 1774 1863 1583 1774 1770 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 255 585 594 245 570 577 109 87 277 147 98 141 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1770 1793 1774 1770 1788 1774 1863 1583 1774 1770 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.8 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 6.1 5.0 19.3 8.0 5.9 9.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.8 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 6.1 5.0 19.3 8.0 5.9 9.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.22 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 461 922 934 461 929 939 266 299 392 298 285 255 V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.63 0.64 0.53 0.61 0.61 0.41 0.29 0.71 0.49 0.34 0.55 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 461 922 934 570 929 939 267 299 392 298 285 255 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.71 0.71 0.71 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 10.2 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 39.0 44.7 41.5 39.7 45.0 46.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.7 2.2 2.2 1.0 2.4 10.3 1.3 3.3 8.3 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 3.0 0.1 0.1 2.9 0.6 0.6 2.8 2.6 8.9 3.9 3.0 4.7 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 10.4 0.3 0.3 10.3 2.2 2.2 40.0 47.1 51.7 41.0 48.3 55.0 Lane Grp LOS BAABAADDDDDE Approach Vol, veh/h 1434 1392 473 386 Approach Delay, s/veh 2.1 3.6 48.2 48.0 Approach LOS A A D D Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.0 69.0 14.5 69.5 11.9 25.4 12.0 25.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 10.0 55.0 18.0 63.5 8.0 19.0 8.0 19.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.8 2.0 10.1 2.0 8.1 21.3 10.0 7.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 29.3 0.4 31.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 13.4 HCM 2010 LOS B Notes HCM 2010 TWSC Long Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 25: College Avenue & South Right In/Out 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 7 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh/h 0 120 2610 125 0 2815 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 150 0 Median Width 0 12 12 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2222 Mvmt Flow 0 130 2837 136 0 3060 Number of Lanes 0 1 3103 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow All 4061 1418 0 0 2837 0 Stage 1 2837 - ---- Stage 2 1224 - ---- Follow-up Headway 3.82 3.92 - - 3.12 - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver 24 *293 - - *368 - Stage 1 16 - ---- Stage 2 216 - ---- Time blocked-Platoon, % 85 68 - - 68 - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver 24 *293 - - *368 - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver 24 - ---- Stage 1 16 - ---- Stage 2 216 - ---- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 26.8 0 0 HCM LOS D - - Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT Cap, veh/h - - *293 368 - HCM Control Delay, s - - 26.8 0 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.45 - - HCM Lane LOS - - D A - HCM 95th-tile Q, veh - - 2.2 0.0 - Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 TWSC Long Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak 36: College Avenue & North Right-In/Out 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Total Traffic - SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 8 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Vol, veh/h 0 70 2715 55 0 2905 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized None None None None None None Storage Length 0 0 0 0 Median Width 0 24 24 Grade, % 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2222 Mvmt Flow 0 76 2951 60 0 3158 Number of Lanes 0 1 3003 Major/Minor Major 1 Major 2 Conflicting Flow All 4244 1505 0 0 3011 0 Stage 1 2981 - ---- Stage 2 1263 - ---- Follow-up Headway 3.82 3.92 - - 3.12 - Pot Capacity-1 Maneuver *3 *449 - - 37 - Stage 1 *13 - ---- Stage 2 *233 - ---- Time blocked-Platoon, % 75 51 - - 0 - Mov Capacity-1 Maneuver *3 *449 - - 37 - Mov Capacity-2 Maneuver *3 - ---- Stage 1 *13 - ---- Stage 2 *233 - ---- Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14.6 0 0 HCM LOS B - - Minor Lane / Major Mvmt NBT NBR WBLn1 SBL SBT Cap, veh/h - - *449 37 - HCM Control Delay, s - - 14.6 0 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.17 - - HCM Lane LOS - - B A - HCM 95th-tile Q, veh - - 0.6 0.0 - Notes ~ : Volume Exceeds Capacity; $ : Delay Exceeds 300 Seconds; Error : Computation Not Defined HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Total Traffic Alt Geo - PM Peak 4: College Avenue & Horsetooth Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Total Traffic Alt Geo - PM Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 190 965 105 205 980 155 215 2140 135 175 2570 300 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 220221231231 Cap, veh/h 160 867 94 183 999 447 160 2433 757 183 2467 768 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.27 0.27 0.11 0.56 0.56 0.05 0.48 0.48 0.11 0.97 0.97 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3221 350 3442 3539 1583 3442 5085 1583 3442 5085 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 207 576 587 223 1065 168 234 2326 147 190 2793 326 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 1801 1721 1770 1583 1721 1695 1583 1721 1695 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.0 40.5 40.5 8.0 42.5 8.8 7.0 66.2 8.0 8.0 73.0 1.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.0 40.5 40.5 8.0 42.5 8.8 7.0 66.2 8.0 8.0 73.0 1.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 160 476 485 183 999 447 160 2433 757 183 2467 768 V/C Ratio(X) 1.29 1.21 1.21 1.22 1.07 0.38 1.46 0.96 0.19 1.04 1.13 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 160 476 485 183 999 447 160 2433 757 183 2467 768 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63 0.63 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.28 0.28 0.28 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 71.8 55.0 55.0 67.3 32.8 25.4 71.8 37.7 22.6 67.3 2.2 1.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 170.3 112.6 112.9 125.4 42.3 0.3 238.8 10.5 0.6 45.5 61.2 0.5 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 6.9 33.4 34.1 6.6 22.2 3.1 8.5 30.8 3.3 4.6 15.0 0.5 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 242.1 167.6 167.9 192.7 75.0 25.7 310.5 48.2 23.1 112.7 63.5 1.7 Lane Grp LOS FFFFFCFDCFFA Approach Vol, veh/h 1370 1456 2707 3309 Approach Delay, s/veh 179.0 87.4 69.6 60.2 Approach LOS F F E E Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 47.0 13.0 49.0 11.0 78.5 12.0 79.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.5 5.0 6.5 4.0 6.5 4.0 6.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 40.5 8.0 42.5 7.0 72.0 8.0 72.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.0 42.5 10.0 44.5 9.0 68.2 10.0 75.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 86.0 HCM 2010 LOS F Notes HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Long Term Total Traffic Alt Geo- SAT Peak 4: College Avenue & Horsetooth Road 12/19/2012 9/13/2012 Long Term Total Traffic Alt Geo- SAT Peak Synchro 8 Report Page 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 255 955 140 245 680 130 225 2110 165 160 2280 285 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 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 Adj Sat Flow veh/h/ln 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 186.3 Lanes 220221231231 Cap, veh/h 327 752 110 252 805 360 183 2467 768 183 2467 768 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.24 0.24 0.10 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.49 0.00 0.11 0.97 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 3442 3099 453 3442 3539 1583 3442 5085 1583 3442 5085 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 277 592 598 266 739 0 245 2293 0 174 2478 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1721 1770 1783 1721 1770 1583 1721 1695 1583 1721 1695 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.9 36.5 36.5 11.0 30.4 0.0 8.0 63.6 0.0 7.6 73.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.9 36.5 36.5 11.0 30.4 0.0 8.0 63.6 0.0 7.6 73.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 327 429 432 252 805 360 183 2467 768 183 2467 768 V/C Ratio(X) 0.85 1.38 1.38 1.06 0.92 0.00 1.34 0.93 0.00 0.95 1.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 412 429 432 252 805 360 183 2467 768 183 2467 768 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 0.80 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 67.0 57.0 57.0 67.9 51.2 0.0 71.3 36.3 0.0 67.1 2.2 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 12.6 185.0 186.1 66.6 13.0 0.0 184.7 7.7 0.0 31.0 12.9 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 Back of Q (50%), veh/ln 6.0 38.9 39.3 7.2 15.0 0.0 8.3 29.2 0.0 4.0 3.9 0.0 Lane Grp Delay (d), s/veh 79.7 242.0 243.1 134.6 64.1 0.0 256.0 44.1 0.0 98.1 15.1 0.0 Lane Grp LOS E F F F E F D F F Approach Vol, veh/h 1467 1005 2538 2652 Approach Delay, s/veh 211.8 82.8 64.5 20.6 Approach LOS F F E C Timer Assigned Phs 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.3 43.0 16.0 40.7 12.0 79.5 12.0 79.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 6.5 5.0 6.5 4.0 6.5 4.0 6.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.0 36.5 11.0 30.5 8.0 73.0 8.0 72.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.9 38.5 13.0 32.4 10.0 65.6 9.6 75.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 79.9 HCM 2010 LOS E Notes Foothills Mall Redevelopment Traffic Impact Analysis Appendix E APPENDIX E PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT PLAN PDP Submittal A104 CONNECTIVITY PEDESTRIAN EXHIBIT DEC 28, 2012 LEGEND * MALL/CINEMA ENTRANCE PEDESTRIAN ROUTE TRANSPORTATION NODE * PROPOSED HARD SURFACE MULTI USE MAX BRT TRANSIT HUB BUS STOP EXISTING CROSSWALK * * BIKE RACK LOCATIONS BUS STOP BUS STOP E. SWALLOW RD. S. COLLEGE AVE. STANFORD RD. E. MONROE DRIVE REMINGTON ST. MATHEWS ST. J.F.K. PARKWAY E. MONROE DRIVE * PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED 0’ SCALE: 1”=150’ 75’ 150’ 300’ _________________________________________________________________________98 ___________Spruce ________________________Street, ________________________________Suite ________________________201 _________________________| _________________Denver ____________________________Colorado ___________________________________80230 __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 303 220 8900 | __________303 _________________220 __ 0708 Fax www.SEMarchitects.com 008901\0002\1788658.2 Foothills Mall Redevelopment Requests for Modification to the Project Development Plan Standards Item 1: Parking Stall Dimensions FORT COLLINS LUC PROVISION 3.2.2 (L) Table A Article 3 General Development Standards – Article 3.2.2 -- Access, Circulation, and Parking, Paragraph L. Parking Stall Dimensions, Table A, requirement is a 19’ stall length and a 20’ one-way drive aisle. REVIEW CRITERIA LUC 2.8.2 The City may grant a modification of standards only if it finds the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the City's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. EXPLANATION Recent trends in shopping center parking design have transitioned towards angled parking as opposed to perpendicular parking. The proposed design includes a 56’ bay dimension that maintains the 20’ drive aisle and provides an industry standard 18’ stall length which accommodates all car models. This configuration is within parameters Foothills Mall Redevelopment Requests for Modification Page | 2 008901\0002\1788658.2 recommended in the Parking Consultants Council, National Parking Association, Recommended Guidelines for Parking Geometrics (Washington DC: NPA, 1989) as published jointly by the Urban Land Institute ("ULI") and the National Parking Association ("NPA"), The Dimensions of Parking, Third Edition. This modification would not be detrimental to the public good because, although different from the specific dimensions specified in the LUC, the proposed configuration is consistent with nationally recognized standards for shopping center parking design. These standards were developed jointly by ULI and the NPA, and take into account functionality and safety, among other things. Therefore, adhering to this standard in lieu of the LUC standard dimensions would not be detrimental to the public good. Additionally, the proposed modification meets several of the other criteria, as follows: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested because the proposed plan accommodates all models of cars for which the facility is intended, and provides equal, if not better, safety and functionality compared to the LUC dimensions; (2) exceptional physical conditions exist on the current mall site that prevent the strict application of the standard without a significant compromise in parking and circulation patterns; and (3) the plan as submitted will result in a nominal, inconsequential revision when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan; and (4) the proposed configuration is within parameters stated in the Parking Consultants Council, National Parking Association, Recommended Guidelines for Parking Geometrics (Washington DC: NPA, 1989) as published jointly by ULI and NPA, The Dimensions of Parking, Third Edition, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code. Item 2: Sidewalk Widths FORT COLLINS LUC PROVISION 3.5.4 (C)(4)(b) Article 3 General Development Standards – Article 3.5.4 -- Access, Large Retail Establishments, Paragraph(C). This section of the LUC requires, under Development Standards, Item (4) Pedestrian Circulation, Article (b) that “continuous internal pedestrian walkways, no less than eight (8) feet in width shall be provided along the full length of the building along any façade featuring a customer entrance of all large retail establishments on the site. At a minimum, walkways shall connect focal points of Foothills Mall Redevelopment Requests for Modification Page | 3 008901\0002\1788658.2 pedestrian activity such as, but not limited to, transit stops, street crossings, building and store entry points, and shall feature adjoining landscaped areas that include trees, shrubs, benches, flower beds, ground covers or other such materials for no less than fifty (50) percent of the length of the walkway.” The proposed site plan leaves in place some existing sidewalks that are 5' – 6' wide, some of which are also attached. REVIEW CRITERIA LUC 2.8.2 The City may grant a modification of standards only if it finds the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the City's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. EXPLANATION It is important to remember that the existing Foothills Mall was built before these standards were in place in the LUC. While the redevelopment seeks to bring the entire property up to current code wherever possible, due to the size of the site, and the configuration of the circulation patterns, in some areas it is not possible to retrofit the existing sidewalks to bring them up to code without creating major impacts to the rest of the site design. Foothills Mall Redevelopment Requests for Modification Page | 4 008901\0002\1788658.2 The Application implements 8’ sidewalks at the perimeter of the site and 5’-6’ sidewalks throughout the interior of the site. The interior sidewalks are continuous and connect focal points of activity and feature adjoining landscape areas concentrated at the existing building frontages. The existing tree lawns, curb lines, and parking/ access alignments internal to the site require narrower sidewalks to offer adequate space for tree lawns and landscaping. These sidewalks feature adjoining landscaped areas where the existing site plan allows and concentrate pedestrian scaled elements at the building entries and facades. Thus the overall intent of the standard – to provide safe, connected, and aesthetically pleasing pedestrian experience – is still met. This modification would not be detrimental to the public good because the existing sidewalks in question generally have been in place since the original construction of the Mall without causing any detriment to the public good. Further, many of the sidewalks throughout the project site will be upgraded to the current standards reflected in the LUC, thus greatly improving the status quo with respect to the pedestrian environment. Additionally, this modification request meets several other criteria, as follows: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested because leaving some of the existing sidewalks in place does not detract from the overall significant improvement to the pedestrian circulation to and through the site as compared to existing conditions; and (2) exceptional physical conditions exist on the current mall site that prevent the strict application of the standard without a significant compromise in parking and circulation patterns; and (3) the plan as submitted will result in a nominal, inconsequential deviation when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan. The majority of the sidewalks within the project site will meet the standard, and overall the plan significantly enhances pedestrian and vehicular circulation and wayfinding. Item 2: Large Retail Establishments FORT COLLINS LUC PROVISION 3.5.4 (C)(1)(a) and (c) Article 3 General Development Standards – Article 3.5.4 -- Access, Large Retail Establishments, Paragraph(C). Development Standards, Item (1) Aesthetic Character, Article (a) Facades and Exterior Walls: Foothills Mall Redevelopment Requests for Modification Page | 5 008901\0002\1788658.2 1. Facades greater than one hundred (100) feet in length, measured horizontally, shall incorporate wall plane projections or recesses having a depth of at least three (3) percent of the length of the facade and extending at least twenty (20) percent of the length of the facade. No uninterrupted length of any facade shall exceed one hundred (100) horizontal feet. 2. Ground floor facades that face public streets shall have arcades, display windows, entry areas, awnings or other such features along no less than sixty (60) percent of their horizontal length. Article (c) Detail Features: Building facades must include: 1. a repeating pattern that includes no less than three (3) of the following elements: a. color change; b. texture change; c. material module change; d. an expression of architectural or structural bays through a change in plane no less than twelve (12) inches in width, such as an offset, reveal or projecting rib. Note: At least one (1) of elements a, b or c shall repeat horizontally. All elements shall repeat at intervals of no more than thirty (30) feet, either horizontally or vertically. REVIEW CRITERIA LUC 2.8.2 The City may grant a modification of standards only if it finds the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good, and that: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested; or (2) the granting of a modification from the strict application of any standard would, without impairing the intent and purpose of this Land Use Code, substantially alleviate an existing, defined and described problem of city-wide concern or would result in a substantial benefit to the city by reason of the fact that the proposed project would substantially address an important community need specifically and expressly defined and described in the City's Comprehensive Plan or in an adopted policy, ordinance or resolution of the City Council, and the strict application of such a standard would render the project practically infeasible; or (3) by reason of exceptional physical conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations, unique to such property, including, but not limited to, physical conditions such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness or topography, or physical conditions which hinder the owner's ability to install a solar energy system, the strict application of the standard sought to be modified would result in unusual and exceptional practical Foothills Mall Redevelopment Requests for Modification Page | 6 008901\0002\1788658.2 difficulties, or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of such property, provided that such difficulties or hardship are not caused by the act or omission of the applicant; or (4) the plan as submitted will not diverge from the standards of the Land Use Code that are authorized by this Division to be modified except in a nominal, inconsequential way when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan, and will continue to advance the purposes of the Land Use Code as contained in Section 1.2.2. EXPLANATION This requested modification applies only to the existing Macy's building. The PDP application contemplates improvements to the existing Macy’s building facades that include enhanced entrance features, landscaping and pedestrian scale elements. The design focuses on pedestrian scaled elements, “touch points," and landscape elements placed to articulate the existing building facades and to enhance the pedestrian environment that these building improvements define. Although the proposed design does not meet all the specific requirements of (a) and (c) regarding texture, color, surface articulation and horizontal offsets, and vertical articulation and parapet articulation, it does create ground plane textures, hardscape and softscape interaction, and pedestrian activity zones through the use of paving patterns, landscape materials, and architectural entry elements. The overall purpose of this set of standards is to break up the visual massing of large retail establishments, and render them more approachable from a pedestrian scale. The proposed design achieves these goals using a variety of physical improvements and architectural techniques, although the plan does not strictly comply with all of the requirements. This modification would not be detrimental to the public good because implementation of the plan as proposed is still a significant improvement over the status quo in terms of the features this standard is designed to encourage. This project is a redevelopment, not new construction, so the plan must work within certain constraints relative to the existing structure. The structure has been in place without these enhancements for many years. Retrofitting some, but not all, of the enhancements required by this standard will not be detrimental to the public good but will only improve the situation. Additionally, the proposed modification meets several of the other criteria, as follows: (1) the plan as submitted will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally well or better than would a plan Foothills Mall Redevelopment Requests for Modification Page | 7 008901\0002\1788658.2 which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested by maintaining the existing building in an operational condition throughout the proposed remodel; and (2) exceptional physical conditions exist on the current mall site that prevent the strict application of the standard without a significant compromise in the existing merchant’s operations, and (3) the plan as submitted will result in a nominal, inconsequential deviation when considered from the perspective of the entire development plan by enhancing existing pedestrian wayfinding, scale, and amenities. PROPOSED PARKING 01/21/13 NORTH SCALE: 1”=50’ 0’ 25’ 50’ 100’ FOOTHILLS Redevelopment LOT REVISIONS NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY PROJECT: Foothills Mall Redevelopment MEETING DATE: September 17, 2012 APPLICANT: Alberta Development Partners, 5750 DTC Parkway, Suite 210, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 CITY PLANNER: Courtney Levingston, City Planner, City of Fort Collins The meeting commenced at approximately 6:05 p.m. with an introduction of the Applicant’s team and then City Staff. After the introduction, City Staff explained the City’s review process as it relates to this development proposal and explained opportunities for citizens to engage in the process. At 6:30 p.m. the Applicant gave a project description and then took questions, comments and input from citizens as well as responding to questions and comments. The meeting adjourned around 8:05 p.m. Unless otherwise noted, all responses to questions and comments are from Mr. Donald Provost, Principal, Alberta Development Partners. QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS Q: How many large anchor tenants (department stores) will there be? A: Macy’s is the only large department store anchor tenant featured in the plan, with junior anchors. Foothills Mall Redevelopment Neighborhood Meeting September 17, 2012 Page 2 Q: The current parking at Foothills Mall is a disaster. What will the parking structure accommodate in terms of parking spaces? R: We are working to create a traffic study to look what type of traffic is generated from this site. Different types of stores and tenants produce different types of parking needs. The plan for the parking garage is very flexible to add additional levels if needed. Q: There are rumors going around the mall that there may be a Dave & Buster’s. Is this true? A: Many entertainment tenants are in discussion. Q: Where will the residential component of this plan be located? A: The residential component will be on the far eastern edge of the property, primarily along Stanford Road. It will not be student housing; it will be very upscale. There may be row homes to create an urban edge. There also may be a wrapped product along the southeastern corner. The product is highly amenitized and caters to a young executive rental profile. Q: I have two main concerns; traffic and noise. During the demolition and construction phase, I would like no work to be done at night. If there are to be open air concerts, I would like to see that end at a reasonable hour. A: No demolition will be undertaken past 5:00 p.m. Typically, the latest outdoor events such as movies or concerts (family events) will wrap up at 9:00 p.m. or 9:30 p.m. These events may take place around 6 or so evenings a summer. Q: I represent a nearby business located on the mall’s periphery, and have concerns. A: The subject property is not part of Urban Renewal Authority. The developer is happy to have an offline discussion and to be a good neighbor. Q: I live in the neighborhood to the northeast. I notice a lot more density, geared towards Stanford Road. Will the intersection be signalized? A: The commercial density is almost the same as the existing. There is a large residential density component to the project. Foothills Mall Redevelopment Neighborhood Meeting September 17, 2012 Page 3 C: The developer did not answer the question. I am concerned about traffic on Stanford Road in terms of the new, dense residential. A: We are in the process of completing a traffic study and will submit the study to the City to review in late October. A: Chris from developer’s team (traffic engineering): The residential component is less than 10% of the total site. Most traffic will still access the site via the main entrance off of South College Avenue. Q: Will the intersection be signalized? A: Possibly. We are still in the infancy of the traffic study. Sometimes traffic signals are not warranted. Additionally, putting in a traffic signal is not taken lightly, sometimes creates unintended problems. Q: What are your plans for adding contributions by the community, diversity in participation in the project? Q: What alternatives were considered in devising the parking space layout where the Arc and Ross stores are located? What was considered in retaining these (Arc and Ross) spaces? A: As this project is being reimagined, this may not be the place for an Arc Thrift Store. There is discussion on where Arc should be located in Fort Collins, but it may not be appropriate at this site. Ross and Arc do a very good job in their current space, but they are not appropriate for this best-in-class mall; even if it is appropriate for the overall community. Q: Can there be further discussion and understanding on the role of thrift stores and their market in the community? Q: What happened to Arc, Ross, other stores currently located on site? A: There are existing retailers that have carved out their place in the current environment of the mall. Are they viable? Yes. Do they have a place in Fort Collins? Yes. They may not have a place at this redeveloped space. Q: The current pedestrian crossing at Foothills and College Avenue is not good; what can be done to increase pedestrian access across College Avenue? What can be done with enhancing connections to the Mason Corridor? Foothills Mall Redevelopment Neighborhood Meeting September 17, 2012 Page 4 A: We are fully engaged with the City and evaluating alternatives; both at-grade and below-grade crossings that are enhanced and safe for pedestrians. Q: Thank you for taking an interest in this project and stepping up and for being a developer that knows what they’re doing. There is still a lot to work out, but I am excited that someone is making this happen. As a shopper, I know great malls, and I’m tired of having to spend my shopping dollars in Denver. A big reason people shop down there are shops like Pottery Barn, J Crew, etc. – if this had been done 10 years ago, Centerra may have not been built. Does the retail mix at Centerra hurt the mix at the redevelopment site? Ideally, I would like a Nordstrom. A: Our goal is to talk to those types of tenants. We’d love to have a full line Nordstrom store; the overall market of the trade area does not meet Nordstrom’s criteria for location. We are talking to Nordstrom Rack. From a tenant mix, we are talking best in class. You can go into Flatirons and Park Meadows and those are the types of tenants we are talking to. Centerra doesn’t have the mouse trap to support those types of tenants. A: Our goal is to capture the imagination of shoppers of everyone in Fort Collins. The current arrangement is driving on I-25 to the south side of metro Denver, but we can be very aspiration and engage in and have a good shot of getting these types of retail up here. Q: I built my place on Swallow Road – if you put all those apartments in there, I have concerns. Are the renderings with a 4-story building accurate? A: There will be some 4-story product and 3-story apartment product. C: I have lived behind the mall and you have 4 story apartments shown in there. Swallow and Stanford Road can not handle the traffic created by the proposed apartments. If you add in all this traffic, there will be backed up traffic at this intersection. A: We need to carefully study and prepare a detailed traffic study based on the mix of residential/retail. Q: Are you going to go for LEED certification, which one? Will there be public art incorporated? Foothills Mall Redevelopment Neighborhood Meeting September 17, 2012 Page 5 A: With respect to LEED, the City of Fort Collins has an ambitious standard already put in place, and we will meet and exceed this. The firm is a believer in sustainability, but concerns about LEEDs governance of the issue. At the Streets of Southglenn there is a LEED building; LEED certification involves a points system; if you put in a solar collector, you get a point. However, we want to work within the framework of the City of Fort Collins system. We will have electric car stations put in. Will be a very good steward of the environment. Public Art: There will be sculpture and art throughout the project. Not that far into the project yet, but there will be art in the project. Q: What are your plans for deconstruction and recycling of those buildings? Do you plan to remodel these buildings to be efficient? A: Any material we can recycle will be used in the project or recycled. Q: We are a tenant in one of your older rental spaces. This is affordable rental retail space. I’m not the demographic that cares about Nordstrom. Are there spaces that will be refurbished. We are a very sustainable community, but tearing down current spaces is rough and we don’t know where we are going to relocate. What is the timeframe for getting tenants out and have you discussed with other buildings space for rent. What will happen to the affordable rental space? A: There are a lot of great businesses that exist in the current mall campus. Their models don’t fit in the redevelopment, but there are other places in the community with these rents. One of the reasons space has become so affordable at the mall Start talking with the team for solutions and there will be months to help plan the transition, and potential solutions for businesses. Q: Will the mall be geared toward the elderly and disabled? A: The mall will be 100% ADA compliant. Colorado Cross Coalition best practices are involved in the mall design process. From an ADA standpoint, we believe being 100% compliant and going above and beyond requirements. We will bring them in during construction to review and look over plans and have made modifications to plans in the past based on their input. We are very in tune with these issues during and after the plans. Foothills Mall Redevelopment Neighborhood Meeting September 17, 2012 Page 6 The elderly and disabled are a growing demographic and we are in tune with them. We strive to create an environment conducive to them and a retail environment to capture their desires. Q: As you probably know, Larimer County is a very large county. I live in Loveland and work in Fort Collins. Many people come to the Foothills mall for the specific purpose of walking – will you be friendly towards those walking the mall? A: There is a pretty good environment to walk around in, we’re happy to have anyone come walk to mall and encourage this. Q: What is your target opening, when will this happen? A: There is still a lot of internal discussion needed on our end. Our goal is to have a holiday 2014 opening. Q: What is the time frame of starting? When should the north-end tenants plan to vacate? A: There needs to be a dialogue between us and those tenants – we intend to sit down and discuss timelines with affected property owners and tenants. There is asbestos in the mall and remediation will be required before deconstruction. The earliest that would start would be April 2013. The northern buildings may have more time and may be deconstructed next summer. Q: What is the brown building on the site plan and where is it in the rendering? A: (Top) of aerial perspective refers to a movie theater. Q: Where is the parking garage proposed to be located? A: In-between Macy’s and Sears. The drawings are still evolving. Q: Do you own the property where The Square is? Foothills Mall Redevelopment Neighborhood Meeting September 17, 2012 Page 7 A: No, we do not own anything south of Monroe Drive. Q: Why not covered bridges? Will there be a food store? We would like to see a covered bridge over the irrigation ditch. A: The canal will be relocated and a culvert put in, there will be no open canal for a bridge. A: There will be a food store, talking to several stores. Q: Will there be shade for the outside store fronts? Centerra and Council Tree/Front Range Village have very little shade along their store fronts, but lots of shade in Boulder. A: There will be an aggressive shade/street tree program. There are a lot of existing large, mature trees and we intend on transplanting as many as possible on site. Currently, we are in the middle of a tree survey to see which trees we can transplant and use on site. In addition, there will be canopies on buildings, especially signature buildings. We are aware of the shade issue and hear your input for additional canopy tree internal landscaping. Q: Who will be the contractors? Local (our own Fort Collins home boys) or someone from out of town (Denver)? A: We could have hired all our consultants from out of state, but we did not., There is a pre- construction presence from Beck and they have a Denver office. Our Architects are out of Michigan. In terms of construction, there will be 95% local trades. Steel, tile, landscapers - Beck will bid the work to from the community. There may be a specialty trade that will be from out of state. 90% or more contractors executed by Colorado and Fort Collins companies. Q: I work closely with the Youth Activity Center, a City Recreation Department program. The YAC works with 800 families per year to provide alternative solutions. \ Will you consider a discussion about how they can still be part of the project? A: The existing YAC will not physically stay in its current location. It is not leaving the City of Fort Collins. We will work with the City and those involved in the idea of the YAC Foothills Mall Redevelopment Neighborhood Meeting September 17, 2012 Page 8 so it is bigger and better and can serve more people than it does today, and may be relocated somewhere else on the mall site. Q: What are your plans for including the Youth Activity Center? A: We’re not going to move it 8 miles south, it will be moved in the immediate vicinity. We are starting to understand the programming needs of the facility. Q: Will there be a food court in the mall? The current food court is not that great. A: There will be food dispersed through the mall; however there will be no food court environment. There will be several thousand restaurant seats from different types of food establishments. We are looking at food clusters such as a raised platform coffee café with free Wi-Fi. Currently, we are looking at alternatives to a traditional Food Court such as casual grab and go food, fast casual and sit-down restaurant fair. Q: Follow up on the shade issue: all the pictures are of warm weather. As proposed, there is no real cover, and sometimes we get a lot of snow. Thinking about our elderly or kids with strollers this design does not accommodate our needs - it is all open air. In addition to the soft covered awnings, is there something to help the walkways going in to cover them and not absolutely drenched by the time you get to the front door with that large parking lot? A: In the parking lot there will be handicap parking much closer to the mall. If it is all of the sudden in climate weather, the mall is not all open-air. If you’re out shopping at the other buildings, there is less than a block to the mall. To put any projecting structure out in front of the mall (arcade), retailers don’t like that because you can’t see them from College Avenue. We don’t have long distances that are all open the entire time. We tried to make it compact and concentrated from the core out. What are the most famous streets to shop in the world? Michigan Avenue in Chicago, 5th Avenue in New York City, etc.? It is sometimes cold there and it is all part of the experience. Q: I was wondering if there were any plans for roundabouts for any new/existing streets. I feel they are not pedestrian friendly. A: I am not a fan of traffic circles/roundabouts. They do move traffic through intersections, but Vail has been very aggressive with roundabouts and they can become confusing. No roundabouts are planned at this time. Foothills Mall Redevelopment Neighborhood Meeting September 17, 2012 Page 9 Q: Is there a reason why it is only a 1-story project and not multi-level? A: Cost is the reason Foothills will not be multi-story. To take an existing structure and go vertical that may not be supportable. We feel that combining the indoor and outdoor space, close to 375,000 square feet is a good balance of indoor and outdoor. Q: How many commercial tenants total do you envision? A: We envision somewhere between 100-125 commercial tenants. Q: I am really excited about this project. I live in Fort Collins and traveled to the mall ever since I was young. People love being in Fort Collins because it is bicycle friendly. What types of bicycling amenities will there be onsite? Is it within your power to provide a discount for Fort Collins residents/workers? A: City of Fort Collins has very progressive bicycle requirements that we will meet. For example, we will have a lot of bike racks that will be scattered throughout the project. There is a unique opportunity for open-air bike racks and covered bike racks because of the parking structure. If someone wants to keep their bike covered there will be an opportunity. A: Individual retailers control discounts, but there may be some opportunity of mall-wide discounts. Q: What is the final number of apartments that you are anticipating? A: This is still being reviewed. We are looking at products that are very dense and some that are more traditional. The range of units could be between 500 - 800 units depending on market research. Q: There has been a lot of talk about national retailers. What are the opportunities for small, independent retailers to come and open shop? A: We have done a lot of small local tenant leasing. We are looking for local tenants who are smart, creative and offer differentiation and blend well. Local retailers make it Foothills Mall Redevelopment Neighborhood Meeting September 17, 2012 Page 10 different than going to Park Meadows. We are looking to weave in retailers and restaurant operators; both national and local. Q: Where can we see the pictures and plans after tonight? A: You can contact Courtney Levingston by e-mail (clevingston@fcgov.com) or telephone (970-416-2283) or come to the City (281 North College Avenue). Can send you the plans (pdf) or hard copy. The City will be happy to get with anyone who wishes to view the plan. Q: Can you put them on the City website? A: The City can look into doing this. Q: I read in the paper about an added sales tax similar to Centerra. What are the probabilities of this? A: This is a several hundred million dollar project and we (Alberta) are evaluating financing options which may include an added sales tax. C: Independent films, no stores that sell dogs or cats. Health clubs, Trader Joe’s. Q: Are you talking to Trader Joe’s? A: Yes. Q: No Sears in the plan, why not? A: We made an offer to buy the Sears. We don’t believe Sears is a retailer that works in the redevelopment plan. Q: Who do we contact to make arrangements to sit down and talk about what’s happening? Especially regarding the tenants in the north. Foothills Mall Redevelopment Neighborhood Meeting September 17, 2012 Page 11 A: Please contact Laura Carstenson or Cynthia Eichler– we’d be happy to sit down with you. Laura Carstenson’s e-mail is lac@albdev.com. Q: We see there will be a movie theater, will this be an IMAX movie theater? A: No, as long as CineMark operates the theater on Harmony Road, there is a restriction from anyone else operating an IMAX. We are looking at operators with large screens. Q: In relation to the movie theater, do we have enough business to sustain this? Every time we build a new theater, it kills the business for older theaters. Other theaters have been put out of business by newer ones. A: We are trying to create the best overall project for the Foothills redevelopment. We are not a believer in restriction of trade. A brand new, best in class, leading edge theater is what we are proposing. Unless other operators invest dollars to compete against this, the market dictates that you are going to go to the place with the best facilities. Q: What will happen to the old, existing businesses inside the mall? A: Some will be retained (such as Buckle, Victoria’s Secret) and there will be other retailers relocated throughout the community, whatever works for them. We are having discussions with these retailers. Q: While the mall is under construction, will there be a time the mall is completely closed? A: No, the mall will stay open the entire time. It will be done in phases and there will be certain parts of the mall that will not be open but the mall will stay open to the greatest extent possible. Some spaces may open ahead of others. The goal is to always have some retail activity even through redevelopment. Q: Will there be any improvement upon the Macy’s we already have? Foothills Mall Redevelopment Neighborhood Meeting September 17, 2012 Page 12 A: Visiting with Macy’s – when the malls are redeveloped and need approval from the anchor stores. Macy’s has been a great asset at other redevelopments and having an active dialogue with them. Their entrances will all be redone and they will invest capital into their store. How much they invest may be a direct correlation to the tenant mix at the mall. Macy’s does very well at this location. Q: Please further describe the health club concept. A: We are a believer of health clubs because we believe they can share parking. They also bring in a lot of traffic, which is good for the mall in terms of retailers. We previously built a multi-level Ultrasport facility in Denver. We are looking at 50,000 square foot best in class health club facility complete with swimming pools and tennis courts. We are talking with these folks and looking to make it happen. Q: Are the mall boundaries changing, and where is the boundary on every side? A: The site is bounded by Monroe to the south, Stanford Road to the east, College Avenue to the West and zig-zags on the north. The colored portion on the site plan constitutes the mall. Q: I am curious about the timeline for the application for submittal of apartments. Will the original submittal be just commercial or will it also contain residential? A: Currently, the formal submittal on October 24th will include both the residential and commercial component. Comments from the public on note cards: C: Please look into including a small dog park complete with grass, trees and water for dogs. C: We would like to discuss the prospect of no stores that sell animals like cats and dogs. C: This needs to be posted on Alberta’s site for online viewing. This is an excellent start for outreach. C: The residential on the perimeter does not appear to have enough parking. Foothills Mall Redevelopment Neighborhood Meeting September 17, 2012 Page 13 C: Less concrete, more grass stretches. C: Very excited about the whole project, renewal of this project is overdue. Thanks for allowing C: Need to engage with the jewelry store. Q: Is there an Alberta Development site we can go to with these graphics? A: This is a competitive environment, and we don’t want Centerra going on the website and pulling off this information. Some of this stuff will be there. We are putting together a website for this project that will be an online forum if you have a question you can submit online. We’ll correspond with you and provide important dates through the process – a parallel path with the City process. There will be a future announcement of retailers. A press room further along in the process. Closing Remarks from Alberta Development Partners There is another open house on September 24th in the former GAP space that will be more intimate than tonight’s meeting. You may drop in at your leisure from 6 – 8 p.m. and have another conversation with us. We want to catalogue your questions and input and will pass along to the City. We want to do additional outreach and research and gather your comments. All in all, there are very few opportunities to develop projects like this. We love this community and the Front Range of Colorado and I grew up here. We much prefer of taking advantage of opportunities here locally. We are looking forward to this process and looking to see you at the grand reopening of this project in a few years. Thank you. August 30, 2012 Dear Resident or Property Owner: On Monday, September 17, 2012, from 6:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. at the Youth Activity Center (415 Monroe Drive), the City of Fort Collins Current Planning Division will facilitate a neighborhood meeting to discuss the redevelopment of the Foothills Mall. From 6:00 – 6:30 p.m., City Staff will give an overview of the development review process. Staff will explain how the City reviews development proposals and outline opportunities for your involvement in the process. After the development review process and opportunities for engagement are discussed, the Applicant will give an overview of their proposed mall redevelopment and answer questions regarding the proposal. The purpose of this portion of the meeting is to provide neighbors the opportunity to ask the Applicant questions, get the facts about the project, and provide input on the proposed project. Please note that the site plan (at this point) is not finalized; the redevelopment plan may evolve to better meet the City’s requirements as well as address citizens’ concerns. At this neighborhood meeting, an official decision of approval or denial for this project will not be reached. You will have additional opportunity later to provide input at the Planning and Zoning Board public hearing, at which time you will receive a similar notification via mail regarding the date, time and place of the public hearing. The list of affected property owners for this neighborhood meeting is derived from official records of the Larimer County Assessor. Because of the lag time between home occupancy and record keeping, or because of rental situations, a few affected property owners may have been missed. Please feel free to notify your neighbor of this (and future) meetings so all may have the opportunity to attend. If you are unable to attend the neighborhood meeting, but have questions, please feel free to call our office at 970-221-6750. If you would like to provide input, written comments are welcome via U.S. mail to the address above or you may e-mail them to me at currentplanning@fcgov.com. Sincerely, Courtney Levingston, AICP, LEED AP ND City Planner The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 970-221-6750 for assistance. Planning, Development and Transportation Current Planning 281 North College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 970.221.6750 970.224.6134 - fax fcgov.com/developmentreview 2 1 1/7/2013 3:44 Amy Olson, amy.p.olson@gmail.com Hi Courtney and Sarah, Thank you for sending me the link to the mall redevelopment plans. It is really nice that the City has those online! I was wondering after looking through all of the documents on the site if some files were not posted? I found that other than a very general statement on pages four and five of the Planning Objectives, building outlines and finished floor elevations, I was unable to find any substantive information on the residential units. Even within the land use breakdown, or tabulations, the notes indicate that they do NOT include the residential. I know that it is possible that in meetings with the City that some of that information has been discussed, but there is nothing within the application, or posted portions of it, that cover that. My concern is that in the Planning Objectives the applicant states that they are planning a five story wrap around building on lot 6, yet there are no lot labels (and really there are few if any labels on the plans that should be there to help understand and orient the reader.) There are no examples of elevations, of the buildings nor the character that they are trying to establish in this described transition zone. I am very well aware of how much work has gone into the development of these plans. The overall vision and visual communication of the design elements is very similar to what was presented at the neighborhood meeting, and so it is with disappointment to find that there is very little detail on the actual plans, and there was little to none for the residential portion. I know that it is important for many within the city that this plan succeed and be approved. And for the mall portion, I am excited about the detail and character that is envisioned. However, in it's current state, without any information on a significant portion of the project that will effect and affect the surrounding residential area, as a resident of the city, and as an affected property owner I must request that more information be provided on these areas before the plans go before approval. While there is residential on the eastern side of Stanford, there has never been residential (and certainly not this density) on the western side. After having listened to and been part of several of the conversations with the residents of the housing on the east side of Stanford, I am certain that they will be vocal about the lack of information on mid to high density residential that will directly affect them. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from you. ----------------------- 1/27/2013 8:45 PM Anthony Frey anthonylfrey1@juno.com Dear Ms. Levingston: 2 Thank you for your very prompt response. Do you ever get any time to enjoy your own preferences? I was not concerned the shortcut did not work that was just for your information. I did appreciate the site plan you attached as I was able to read that more successfully. I do appreciate the develper's plans to not do low income housing. I think that will not increase difficulty for school administrators regarding school capacity in the neighborhood. I am not centain where low income housing is located in Fort Collins, but hopefully their needs are met as well. Now that I have examined all the information you provided I do have an opinion as the future effect of this development. I am aware that many potential renters of housing wish to live near "old town" which I believe is a urban like environment near downtown. Renters may not mind driving to work, but in the evening they prefer walking and mass transit in case they would like to enjoy alcoholic beverages. If I were to attend the meeting Thursday February 7, I would like to suggest the establishment of an additional mass transit protocol. This would be bus not light rail or fancy. It would be lower cost, shorter distance, and very frequent. It would traverse South College from Old Town south to the new mall with a loop through the downtown and a loop through the mall to the apartments. CSU is near a potential bus stop on South College. I wonder if a quarter per ride could support the service? You can see I foresee a new urban center established by this development. Next the mall is surrounded in part by single house structures. These structures may not be very different than the three bedroom apartments in the development if they are three bedroom houses. However there are also four bedroom houses. No apartments exhist for that size. I do not know for sure, but I have been told that some houses closer to CSU may rent to four non related individuals. I think the area near the new development might be limited now to three non related. As our planner do you think the structures near the proposed development could be permitted to four non related persons? Or possibly limit the number of non related persons to the number of legal bedrooms? We are trusting you to oversee the developing trends in Fort Collins. If I ever did offer any suggestions, which would have to be approved by you, so as not to interfer with your work, I would send a certified letter addressed to you in advance of the meeting. Anthony Frey, trustee for the the Constance Mae Frey Memorial Trust ------------ 10/3/2012 9:36 PM Ellen Edwards ln1010@mns.com Many that I have talked to in my neighborhood by Foothills Fashion Mall are in favor of rejuvenating the mall. However, we cringe to think of saturating the area with 800 condo/apartment units. 3 That could be easily 1600 people. Wouldn't this block our views as well? What about traffic?? What can we do? Write letters? To who? What address? Also, what is the timeline to get this in??? We also hate to see, "Go Green," getting kicked out of a perfect, prime, central location. Also, don't like Sears, and Arc, and Ross getting booted. Please tell us what we can do. Thanks, Ellen Edwards LN1010@msn.com 215-1110 9/26/2012 11:51 a.m. Linda Vrooman rsvlgv @hotmail.com I attended the September 17, neighborhood meeting and here are my thoughts. Please forward to the Alberta Development Partners. * I am so excited about the plans. We moved here 5 years ago and live in Indian Hills, about half way between Old Town and the mall. The mall has never been a destination for us, and we have walked, biked, and driven to downtown several times a week since we moved here. * My #2 complaint about the mall, after #1 - no stores of interest (including Macy's), is the configuration of the parking lot and traffic patterns. I have many times been disappointed that there wasn't a chunk of cheese at the end of my being lost in the maze. * Stores myself and friends would love to see here: Dillards (no one understands why it isn't on the list); Nordstrom's - and Nordstrom's Rack would even be more welcome due to our income brackets; Trader Joe's; CVS; J. Jill, J. Crew. The mix and class of stores that were discussed as the 9/17 meeting sound great. * Concern about the Arc and the small businesses - There is so much empty commercial space in town it seems that all can be accommodated. At Drake and College there is a K-Mart next to an abandoned PayLess Shoes. The old shoe store seems perfect for the Arc. The site is between Mason Corridor and College, which will eventually be even more accessible than the current location of the Arc. Rumors say that someday King Soopers will move into all of the K-Mart building, which, if true, leaves a different large empty space in the same area that could be used, although the empty shoe store space could be used ASAP. I'm guessing that Alberta Development is getting Urban Renewal help. Is there any city assistance that can help the small businesses in the surrounding parking lot find new space, and help with moving, set up, "hardship" costs? We are excited about the whole idea and plans. Well thought out and inviting for all seasons, with things to do in addition to shop. Thanks to all in the city who have worked so hard to make this happen. 4 Linda Vrooman 9/21/2012 7:43 a.m. Nancy Downing Hansen, nhansen@fielding.edu Dear Courtney, I saw your email address in the Colorodoan as a contact to provide citizen input for the Foothills Mall renovation. I would like to strongly endorse bringing a Trader Joe’s store to Fort Collins. I have come to love their stores, often traveling great distances to shop at one when I am traveling in other cities. I have found the service, products and prices to be consistently excellent. Thanks, in advance, for passing along my “two cents.” Sincerely, Nancy Hansen Nancy Downing Hansen, Ph.D. School of Psychology Fielding Graduate University c/o 2028 Evergreen Drive Fort Collins CO 80521 (970) 221-5318 (voice and fax) nhansen@fielding.edu 1/28/2013 7:19 a.m. Donita Lindamood donibell@comcast.net Hi...I live on Alamo Ave close to the mall. That the development includes 800 apartments on the back side of the mall is awful. That means 1600 cars a day out of there...just from the folks living there. Tearing down a perfectly good youth activity center is a wholesale waste of money.....use what we have. Using eminent domain to kick out Sears is NOT THE AMERICAN WAY.....kicking out someone who owns the land and wants to stay just so another business can have the area is Hitler tactics. (Hitlers sister saw a house she wanted but the owner was not willing to sell, so Hitler kicked the owner out and gave it to his sister) I realize that Sears objected to their property tax as too high some time ago, and got it reduced. However, properties do not sell on the tax evaluation.....it just looks to me like City Council and Planning are bulling ahead and are going to make some real mistakes. Or already have...did they have an agreement with Alberta that Sears would go before they signed a contract with Alberta? Can you not 5 find an American company to sell the mall to? I do not like the idea that people from another country can buy things here....things hooked to the land. I do not think you have found the best and highest use for that property. Donita Lindamood 2925 Alamo Ave, FC donibell@comcastt.net A304 2.1 BUILDING ENTRY ID. 3.1 VEHICULAR DIRECTIONAL SIGN 4.1 VALET DROP-OFF 1.1 PROJECT ENTRY PYLON 1.2 PROJECT ENTRY MONUMENT 1.3 SECONDARY PROJECT ENTRY MONUMNET 1.4 PROJECT ENTRY MARKER SIGN FAMILY EXTERIOR SITE SIGNAGE EXTERIOR PROJECT ENTRY PYLON 1.1 QTY: 02 PROJECT ENTRY MONUMENT 1.2 QTY: 02 BUILDING ENTRY ID. 2.1 QTY: 04 VEHICULAR DIRECTIONAL SIGN 3.1 QTY: 03 VALET DROP-OFF 4.1 QTY: 03 SECONDARY ENTRY MONUMENT 1.3 QTY: 03 PROJECT ENTRY MARKER 1.4 QTY: 03 A305 PLAN VIEW: EXTERIOR SITE PLAN N 1 SCALE - 1” = 100’ 1.1 006 1.4 005 1.3 020 1.4 002 1.2 003 1.2 004 1.1 001 2.1 016 3.1 028 3.1 029 1.4 022 1.4 021 1.4 024 1.4 030 1.4 025 1.4 031 1.3 019 2.1 017 2.1 008 3.1 011 4.1 014 3.1 012 3.1 026 3.1 023 2.1 027 3.1 018 3.1 007 3.1 009 3.1 010 4.1 015 1.3 A 013 SIGN TYPE POWER REQUIRED LOCATION NUMBER X.X 000 SIGN LOCATION PLAN EXTERIOR LOCATION PLAN - DETAILS A, B, C, D, E & F SIGN TYPE / LOCATION KEY: 2.1 BUILDING ENTRY ID. 3.1 VEHICULAR DIRECTIONAL SIGN 1.1 PROJECT ENTRY PYLON 1.2 PROJECT ENTRY MONUMENT 1.3 SECONDARY PROJECT ENTRY MONUMENT 1.4 PROJECT ENTRY MARKER SIGN TYPE KEY: SITE SIGNAGE 4.1 VALET DROP-OFF A306 SIGN TYPE POWER REQUIRED LOCATION NUMBER X.X 000 SIGN LOCATION PLAN EXTERIOR LOCATION PLAN - DETAILS A, B, C, D, E & F SIGN TYPE / LOCATION KEY: 2.1 BUILDING ENTRY ID. 3.1 VEHICULAR DIRECTIONAL SIGN 1.1 PROJECT ENTRY PYLON 1.2 PROJECT ENTRY MONUMENT 1.3 SECONDARY PROJECT ENTRY MONUMENT 1.4 PROJECT ENTRY MARKER SIGN TYPE KEY: SITE SIGNAGE PLAN DETAIL A PLAN DETAIL B PLAN DETAIL C PLAN DETAIL D PLAN DETAIL E PLAN DETAIL F 1.1 001 1.1 006 1.4 002 1.4 005 1.2 004 1.2 003 4.1 VALET DROP-OFF PROJECT: Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study APPLICANT: City of Fort Collins Planning Division PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This item consists of a package of Land Use Code changes to address the impacts of large new single-family house construction and house additions occurring in the Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (N-C-L) and Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (N-C-M) zoning districts, which occur in the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods near Downtown. This package was developed largely by the consulting firm of Winter and Company, with review and assistance by staff and was based on a wide range of public input by residents and other interested citizens, keeping the original project goal in mind. The Ordinance would amend the Land Use Code in the following ways:  Expand the notification distance for some Zoning Board of Appeals variance requests from 150 feet to 500 feet.  Incorporate a variable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standard to lower the largest allowable house sizes to better reflect prevailing established development patterns.  Adjust the method for measuring the height of a new wall along a side lot line to account for the effect of raised lot grading associated with new construction.  Lower the maximum wall height at the minimum side yard setback on the north side of lots to preserve solar access.  Incorporate new standards with a menu of options for shaping the mass of new construction over certain size thresholds using front and side building façade features to promote pedestrian orientation and compatible mass and scale. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Planning and Zoning Board make a recommendation to City Council regarding an Ordinance for proposed Land Use Code changes related to implementation of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods Character Study. East Side & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study February 7, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Page 2 Background: A similar study was conducted in 2010 for the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods with a resulting Ordinance approved by City Council that was later repealed in response to a citizen petition. In 2011, City Council directed staff to take a fresh look at neighborhood compatibility and character issues in the core area neighborhoods near Downtown in response to concerns with potential impacts of additions and new construction in the city’s oldest neighborhoods. While the previous effort led to a primary focus on building size aspects, the current study has emphasized a broader perspective to understand the character, larger context of compatibility, and threshold for change in these neighborhoods. The public process included initial direction with a goal developed by a Council Ad Hoc Committee to: Retain and enhance the unique character and context of the neighborhoods as they continue to change with renovations, additions, and new housing construction, with a well- supported and effective public process resulting in appropriate and mutually agreeable solutions. The 2012 study is summarized in a highly illustrated Strategy Report with information on the character and context of the neighborhoods, community engagement, issues, and strategy options for City Council consideration. The study identified and clarified a number of key issues with ongoing changes that affect existing residents and the unique character and context of the neighborhoods. These issues led to the strategy options. Key issues include:  New construction that appears to be overly large in relation to its context  Building walls that appear to loom over neighbors  Reduced solar access/shading issues  Incompatible design features  Loss of older/more affordable houses that make the neighborhoods unique  Loss of green space and mature trees At the November 27, 2012 City Council work session, Council directed staff to proceed with implementation of five strategy options. Some of these strategies involve Land Use Code changes that are the subject of the Ordinance, and others are administrative or involve future actions as follows:  Promote the City's existing Design Assistance Program. This involves ongoing administrative actions, including such measures as a marketing brochure, newsletter, neighborhood mailings, and posting program information online. East Side & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study February 7, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Page 3  Expand neighborhood notification of variance requests (New LUC change).  Create voluntary design handbooks/guidelines to provide specialized information for interested owners and builders on compatible development in unique character areas throughout the neighborhoods. These products would be developed as part of future planning efforts. Staff is recommending implementation of this action concurrent with neighborhood plan updates for the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods in 2014.  Adjust existing height-at-setback and floor area ratio (FAR) measurement methods in the Land Use Code for the N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts.  Address building mass and solar access, including revisions to existing FAR standards, and new design standards to address mass and solar impacts.  Illustrate the effect of potential standards on new construction. Description of Ordinance Provisions The proposed draft Ordinance is not included in the packet, but will be provided at the work session following legal review, which is currently underway. The majority of the content in the Ordinance has been discussed with the Board previously in the study process, and is described in this staff report. Following is a description of Land Use Code changes contained in the proposed Ordinance, to implement the corresponding strategies per City Council direction. 1. Expand notification area for variance requests. This LUC change would add a new standard regarding neighborhood notification for Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) variance requests exceeding a certain project size threshold. Feedback was received by many residents indicating that the current notification distance of 150 feet for ZBA variances was not sufficient given the concerns that property owners have voiced in the past about the impact that new houses or significant additions have not just on the adjacent properties, but also on the neighborhood in general. Because of the concern about the impact of variances on the larger neighborhood, some residents believe that notice of ZBA variances should be sent to more properties, resulting in greater information and participation. Staff recommends that the notice area for ZBA hearings be extended from 150 feet to 500 feet for variance requests for any construction that results in a two-story house where only a one- story house previously existed and where there is an abutting one-story house on either side; or that proposes a new house larger than 2,500 square feet; or an addition that results in a total house size of more than 3,000 square feet. 2. Address building massing and scale. The first proposed Code change pertaining to building massing and scale revises the minimum lot area standards that currently relate lot area to the total floor area of buildings on the lot in the East Side & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study February 7, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Page 4 N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts. This would apply new or adjusted design standards to address the scale and solar access impacts of larger new construction and additions. City Council directed that this strategy option be developed to complement the mass and scale tools suggested in the Strategy Report. For lots less than 5,000 square feet in the N-C-L district, the existing FAR of 0.4 would still apply. For lots that are between 5,000 and 10,000 SF, the FAR would be changed to 0.20 plus 1,000 SF and would include an additional 250 SF of detached accessory structure on a lot. Lots larger than 10,000 SF would have an FAR of 0.30 and an additional 250 SF for a detached accessory structure. The 250 SF for an accessory structure is provided for lots over 5,000 SF as part of the new formula, to encourage the construction of a detached one car garage. (Note: Current FARs include total floor area for a house, as well as any detached accessory structures). For lots less than 4,000 square feet in the N-C-M district, the existing FAR of 0.5 would still apply. For lots that are between 4,000 SF and10,000 SF, the FAR would be changed to 0.25 plus 1,000 SF and would include an additional 250 SF of detached accessory structure on a lot. Lots larger than 10,000 SF would have an FAR of 0.35 and an additional 250 SF for a detached accessory structure. The 250 SF for an accessory structure is provided for lots over 4,000 SF as part of the new formula, to encourage the construction of a detached one car garage. (Note: Current FARs include total floor area for a house, as well as any detached accessory structures). The sliding scale would generally result in reductions of allowed floor area for larger lots in both districts. The second change incorporates adjusted measurement methods for calculating floor area. For purposes of calculating maximum permitted FAR, the measurement method would be adjusted to:  Count large volume spaces (i.e. vaulted ceilings) with floor-to-ceiling heights above 14' as two floors.  Count basement floor areas that have ceiling heights that are more than 3' above ground level (out of ground basements) while exempting all other basement floor area.  Not count up to 250 square feet of a detached accessory building located at least 10' behind the principal building. These proposed measurement method adjustments would address the issues of high volume spaces not being counted as floor area (which created the potential for single-story homes being twice as large as a two-story home); including basement floor area in calculation where the new construction raises the finish floor elevation above a certain threshold; and providing some allowance for accessory structures to promote separate building masses. East Side & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study February 7, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Page 5 3. Adjust measurement method for building wall height and reduced height for solar access. The first part of this Code change would adjust the method for measuring building height at the minimum side yard setback, to better account for the impact of tall walls on raised grade. The LUC includes basic standards in the N-C-L and N-C-M districts that relate to height and solar access. They currently include:  A maximum overall height limit standard (two stories); and  A standard relating maximum height to distance from minimum side setback (18’ at the 5’ minimum side yard setback, increasing by 2’ for every 1’ of additional setback) Numerous public outreach events and an online survey have been offered as part of the study process and residents expressed concern that existing LUC standards do not sufficiently address façade height/scale and solar access/shading impacts of new construction on neighboring properties. Staff recommends implementation of a revised measurement method for maximum height at the minimum side yard to better account for potential looming impacts related to grade changes on a property. The building side wall height is proposed to be measured from the existing grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, rather than at the improved grade. A second new standard is proposed to reduce the potential solar access impacts of large new houses or additions on neighboring property to the north. Solar access setbacks would apply to building construction that results in: 1. a two-story house where a one-story house previously existed, or 2. a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or 3. an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, and where there is an abutting house on the north lot line that is one-story, and 4. where there is an abutting house on the north lot line that is one-story. The side wall height would be reduced to14' from the currently allowed 18' and the side wall height could increase by 1' for each 1' of additional setback. 4. Add new standards for building façades over certain size thresholds. Façade design standards are proposed to provide a menu of options to shape the character of front and side building facades for compatibility. These façade standards would apply when building construction results in:  a two-story house where a one-story house previously existed and where this is an abutting house on either side that is one-story, or  a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or East Side & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study February 7, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Page 6  a second-story addition that results in a total square footage of more than 3,000 square feet (not applicable for side façade character). At least one façade feature from a design menu would be required to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of the structures on the block face. The front façade options would promote pedestrian orientation and the appearance of compatible mass and scale as viewed from the street by using one-story elements, front porches, etc. The proposed options for side building facades are intended to reduce potential looming and privacy impacts on adjacent lots. The maximum length of a two-story façade wall (greater than 14' tall) within 10' of the minimum setback would be limited to 40'. A menu of design options are provided to promote compatibility where two-story walls exceed 40' in length (offsets, changes in roof place, reductions in height, etc.). Comparison of 2011 Ordinance and proposed 2013 Ordinance At the November 27, 2012 work session, Council directed staff to develop the proposed 2013 Ordinance “in some other form” in comparison to the previous 2011 Ordinance, since it was repealed. Staff has provided a comparison of the two Ordinances (see attached tables). The City Attorney’s Office has made a determination that the proposed Ordinance meets State requirements pertaining to the original repealed essential elements. Staff believes that the proposed 2013 Ordinance, as a package of proposed changes, is significantly different from the previous 2011 Ordinance. The key changes include:  No requirement for Landmark Preservation Commission recommendations on variance requests;  New expanded notification area for some variance requests;  New thresholds for applying all new standards in both districts;  Different formula for calculating maximum Floor Area Ratios (FARs);  FARs applied separately to the N-C-L and N-C-M districts;  FARs applied on a sliding scale, based on lot size;  More generous FAR allowance in the N-C-M district; and  New standards for solar access and building front and side façade design. Public Process The following activities were included in the public process used for this study: Phase 1 – Understand the character and context of the neighborhoods (May – July, 2012)  Email notice for meetings, post card mailing for work shops  Posted project information on web page East Side & Westside Neighborhoods Character Study February 7, 2013 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Page 7  Initial working group meetings (June)  2 public work shop meetings (July 10/12)  On-line questionnaire  Updates to Boards and Commissions  City Council Work Session (July 24) Phase 2 – Develop a Strategy (August – November, 2012)  Series of working group meetings (August/September)  On-line survey  Public work shop meeting (November 5)  Updates to Boards and Commissions  City Council Work Session (November 27) Phase 3 – Implementation of Strategy Options (December, 2012 – February, 2013)  Series of working group meetings (January 16, 2013)  Public Open House meeting (January 30)  Updates to Boards and Commissions  Planning & Zoning Board Hearing – Recommendation (February 7)  Landmark Preservation Commission Hearing – Recommendation (February 13)  Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing (February 14)  City Council Hearing (February 19 – 1st Reading) List of Attachments: 1. Tables comparing Ordinances (2011 Ordinance; Proposed 2013 changes) 2. Summary of January 16, 2013 public comments from working group meetings 3. Summary of January 30, 2013 open house (to be provided at work session) 4. Draft Proposed 2013 Land Use Code changes (to be provided at work session) 5. Eastside and Westside Zoning Districts Map 6. Overview of potential mass and scale standards ) Lot Size Lot Size Max. FAR Additional Accessory Structure Floor Area Allowance Total Allowed Floor Area Max. FAR Allowed Floor Area Additional 1,000 sf Floor Area Lots ≥ 5,000 sf & < 10,000 sf Additional Accessory Structure Floor Area Allowance Total Floor Area Actual FAR Max. FAR Additional Accessory Structure Floor Area Allowance Total Floor Area Max. FAR Allowed Floor Area Additional 1,000 sf Floor Area Lots ≥ 5,000 sf & < 10,000 sf Additional Accessory Structure Floor Area Allowance Total Floor Area Actual Table 2. 2011 Proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standards Lot Size (sf) First 3,000 sf @ .45 Remainder @ .25 Accessory Structure Allowance Total Floor Area (sf) Floor Area Ratio 3,000 1,350 0 0 1,350 0.45 4,000 1,350 250 0 1,600 0.40 5,000 1,350 500 0 1,850 0.37 6,000 1,350 750 250* 2,100 0.35 7,000 1,350 1,000 250* 2,350 0.34 8,000 1,350 1,250 250* 2,600 0.33 9,000 1,350 1,500 250* 2,850 0.32 10,000 1,350 1,750 250* 3,100 0.31 11,000 1,350 2,000 250* 3,350 0.30 12,000 1,350 2,250 250* 3,600 0.30 13,000 1,350 2,500 250* 3,850 0.30 14,000 1,350 2,750 250* 4,100 0.29 15,000 1,350 3,000 250* 4,350 0.29 * Allowance of 250 square feet for detached accessory structure on lots 6,000 square feet or greater in size Table 3. Comparison of 2011 Ordinance with Proposed 2013 Ordinance 2011 Action Description 2013 Action Description Comparison Ordinance 0003, 2011 Proposed 2013 Ordinance Lowering current limits for Building Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Option B Revised (Adopted Version)  Applies the same to both the NCL and NCM Zoning  Allowable floor area of street fronting single‐family dwelling shall not exceed forty‐five (45) percent of the first 3,000 sq. ft. of lot area, plus twenty‐five (25) percent of the remaining lot area. Lowering current limits for Building Floor Area Ratio (FAR) NCL –Maximum permitted total floor areas:  Lots less than 5,000 SF= 0.40 FAR (Existing)  Lots equal/greater than 5,000 SF, and less than 10,000 = 0.2 + 1,000 SF (+ 250 SF detached accessory structure)  Lots equal/greater than 10,000 SF = 0.3  (+ 250 SF detached accessory structure) NCM – Maximum permitted total floor areas:  Lots less than 4,000 SF= 0.50 FAR (Existing)  Lots equal/greater than 4,000 SF and less than 10,000 SF = 0.25 + 1,000 SF(+ 250 SF detached accessory structure)  Lots equal/greater than 10,000 SF= 0.35  (+ 250 SF detached accessory structure) Amendment to reduce total FAR has the following differences:  Method of calculation is different  Application based on lot size  Application different for NCL and NCM Zoning  More allowance for total square footage in NCM than 2011 FAR Expand Notification Area for Variance Requests Not considered with 2011 Ordinance Expand Notification Area for Variance Requests  Expanded notice applies for single‐family houses in the N‐C‐L and N‐C‐M districts changes from “150 feet” to “500 feet”  For building construction over a certain size threshold New standard for expanded notice for variances Landmark Preservation Commission Variance Recommendation  Variance requests to floor area limits must have a recommendation from a LPC committee to the Zoning Board of Appeals. NA NA No requirement for Landmark Preservation Commission recommendations on variance requests Adjust Measurement Method for Maximum T T c W S 1 3 Two neighbo The agenda f changes relat Westside Ne Summary of 1. & 2. Whe  Of th 20 ar 3. Do you h area ratio  Allow house  Over reign  Look car ga  Like  Like with  Movi FAR  When into c  What  How  How  Clari  How too q  What be be  How  You’ conce acces  Over E Januar S orhood work for the meeti ting to imple eighborhoods f all written a ere do you li he 22 people re residents o have comme o (FAR) stan w home own e or mother- all, I really l ning in some Page 2  Should the FAR of 0.33 for the back half of the lot be retained or removed – given these lower FARs?  Do large patios and decks count toward FAR? 4. Do you have comments and feedback on the potential standards for solar access?  Suggest a lower front home and put more sq.ft. in a back unit/addition or detached carriage house.  For the most part, I like this one as well. Case study four freaks me out a little because the folks to the north keep their sunshine, but the folks to the south lose privacy and have a big wall along their yard. I also don’t want a bunch of awkward, slanty houses in the neighborhood.  Looks good – like the setback/height adjustment plan.  Great ideas! There should be a standard for lots under 40 ft. wide such as 15 ft. max height at min. side yard setback and 12 ft. at 40 ft. and over. Keep 1 ft. to 1 ft. increase in max height for each additional setback. Not 2 ft. for 1 ft. setback. Second story additions that result in over 2,500 sq.ft. should fall under the new façade standards for solar access, not 3,000 sq.ft.  Access to light/sun is a key criteria for a livable space for me.  I like access rules but don’t want lots of asymmetrical roof lines or asymmetrical side lot setbacks.  Do solar access requirements apply to major remodels as well as new construction? Will this create asymmetrical buildings (rooflines)?  Does solar access address or include trees (evergreens)? They also shade adjacent buildings; should also look at evergreen placement in new landscaping  Does solar access address or require solar panels or collectors?  Would solar apply to narrow lots? Would apply only those lots less than 40’ wide?  Concerned about solar with corner lots because they have wider setbacks so lot is more difficult to build on, especially when lot is also narrow...  What is side wall height limit for solar access?  Solar access will push houses to the south side – this is one solution, but there may be other ways to address on lots  Could a variance be requested to solar access? 5. Do you have comments and feedback on the potential additional façade standards?  This all looks good to me.  Looks good.  Generally these standards are an improvement.  How about apply in relation to the specific buildings on adjacent lots – be sure to apply to major remodels.  Can a façade/porch encroach into the setback? 6. What additional evaluation do you feel is necessary?  A second story deck is a different animal from a first floor deck. I think it should be counted somehow.  Open decks need to be counted in FAR and /or the impacts on neighbor’s privacy. 7. Do you have other comments and feedback?  There should be notification for neighbors for new building and demolition even when it doesn’t require a variance. These can be “big deals” even when they follow the current rules. Page 3 Neighbors shouldn’t be taken by surprise. I think you all have done a great job. You seem to be thorough, considerate and fair. I really appreciate all you’ve done.  Expand notification in a timely manner for variance requests and especially for demolition/deconstructions.  Please don’t use flat roof houses for examples in your case studies – they aren’t realistic. Can you provide photos of Boulder or other places where solar access standards apply? Also, what Boulder is doing to respond to solar access problems that result in asymmetrical roof lines? We’ll have some problems – might as well address it now.  How to get information out about requirements like these – maybe through REALTORS – so people know before they buy.  Suggest city modify requirements for elevations to be submitted on projects to require elevations that show context (block face where house is and opposite block face) – would be more useful.  Suggest looking at building permits from past 5 years to see how many would/would not meet these standards (like what Ben Manvel did before).  How were houses on Wood Street allowed? Variances?  Compare previous proposal to current proposal and show how they are different and similar or the same.  Standards only apply to single-family not multi-family. Why does NCM have greater allowance?  Does City Council attend these meetings (open house, etc.) on this project?  Suggest a comparison table be made to show what was passed before and what is proposed now.  These standards don’t completely address compatibility – the future design guidelines/standards will also help with compatibility.  Suggest that input with your neighbors can help reduce surprises and result in better design (mentioned variance for the turret on Whitcomb Street).  Like the use of “privacy” as a term for what we’re trying to protect. ![ c ; ; 9 å å å å å å ? å å å å å å å ¿À ¿À "u H m p s h i r e Tarragon Ln. wood Briarwood Rd. Briarwood Rd. N. Ct. Sp r i n g f i e l d D r . Cragmore Dr. Skyline Dr. McAllister Skyline Sycamore St. F oxb r o o k L 1 Overview of Potential Mass and Scale Standards OPEN HOUSE DRAFT - January 28, 2013 The Eastside and Westside Neighborhood Character Study seeks to identify tools to retain and enhance the unique character and context of the Eastside and Westside Neighborhoods as they continue to change with renovations, additions and new housing construction. A Strategy Report dated November 15, 2012 describes the study's extensive public process and a range of strategy options to address the objectives and issues identified within the neighborhoods. City Council provided the following direction on the strategy options at a Work Session on November 27, 2012: • Develop a strategy to promote the City's existing design assistance program (strategy option 1) • Expand notification of variances (strategy option 2) • Create voluntary design guidelines (strategy option 3 - to be developed as part of future planning efforts) • Adjust height-at-setback and floor area ratio (FAR) measurement methods (strategy option 4) • Address building mass and solar access (strategy option 5), including revisions to existing FAR standards (strategy option 5a), and new standards to address mass and solar impacts (strategy option 5c) • Illustrate the effect of potential standards on new construction and additions This document provides an illustrated overview of the effect of the potential measurement and mass and scale standards included in strategy options 4 and 5. Per direction from City Council, it also introduces a potential revision to the existing maximum floor area ratio (FAR) standard that applies in the N-C-L and N-C-M zone districts. A series of case studies illustrating the effect of the potential mass and scale standards on new construc- tion and additions that have occurred in the neighbor- hoods over the last ten years is also included. The potential standards described in this document incorporate revisions to acknowledge initial community feedback. In the project's next steps, City Council will consider the potential standards in a series of public hearings. Objectives and Issues As described in the Strategy Report, the study's public process identified a range of neighborhood objec- tives and issues. Objectives include: 1. Promote awareness of what makes the neigh- borhoods great 2. Promote compatible re- development 3. Maintain a sense of community 4. Encourage communica- tion among neighbors 5. Preserve flexibility for 2 Overview of Potential Standards Eastside and Westside Character Study Adjusted In response to direction Measurement from City Council, this Methods would implement strategy option 4 by adjusting the method for measuring building height at the minimum side yard setback and FAR to better account for the impact of tall walls on raised grade and high volume spaces. Side Wall Height Measurement This would adjust the measurement method for maximum wall height at the minimum side yard to measure height from the natural grade at the side lot line, rather than improved grade (i.e., artificially-raised ground level). The effect of adjusting the height measurement method is illustrated in the following pages. Floor Area Measurement This would adjust measurement of floor area for purposes of calculating maximum permitted floor area ratio (FAR). The measurement method would be adjusted to: • Count large volume spaces with floor-to-ceiling heights above 14' as two floors • Count basement floor areas with ceiling heights more than 3' above ground level (out of ground basements) while exempting all other basement floor area. • Not count up to 250 square feet of a detached accessory building located at least 10' behind the principal building to promote separate building masses. The effect of adjusting the FAR measurement method is illustrated in the following pages. Existing Height at Side Setback Measurement Adjusted Height at Side Setback Measurement 5’ Set Back 1’ 9’ 1’ 7’ 18’ 12’ Second Floor First Floor Raised Grade Side Property Line 5’ Set Back 1’ 2’ 9’ 1’ 5’ 18’ 12’ Second Floor First Floor Raised Grade Side Property Line Where grade has been raised, or a property slopes upward from the property line, the ex- isting method measures height from the raised level at the base of the wall. Because the adjusted method would measure building height from the natural grade at the side property line, the height of a second story would be lower where grade has been raised. Overview of Potential Standards 3 Eastside and Westside Character Study Design and In response Solar to Standards direction Impacts from City Council, to Address this would implement Building strategy option Mass 5 by developing new and revised design standards (zoning requirements) to address the scale and solar access impacts of larger new construction and additions. Revisions to Existing Maximum FAR Standards This would implement strategy option 5a by revising the minimum lot area standards that currently relate lot area to the total floor area of buildings on the lot in the N-C-L and N-C-M zoning districts. City Council directed that this strategy option be developed to complement the mass and scale tools suggested in the Strategy Report. A potential revised standard would reduce the maximum FAR from the currently permitted 0.40 in the N-C-L district and 0.50 in the N-C-M district according to a sliding scale as summarized in the table below. Potential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Formula N-C-L N-C-M Lot<5,000 sf = 0.40 Lot<4,000 sf = 0.50 Lot≥5,000 sf and<10,000 sf = 0.20 + 1,000 sf Lot≥4,000 sf and<10,000 sf = 0.25 + 1,000 sf Lot≥10,000 sf = 0.30 Lot≥10,000 sf = 0.35 For example, formula above would limit floor area on a 7,000 square foot lot in the N-C-M district to 2,750 square feet ((7,000x0.25)+1,000=2,750) with an additional allowance for 250 square feet in a detached rear accessory (acc.) structure on a lot of 6,000 square feet or more, for a total of 3,000 square feet. The table below compares existing and potential floor area standards on a variety of lot sizes. Comparison of Existing and Potential Floor Area Standards N-C-L Zone District N-C-M Zone District Existing Standard Potential Standard Existing Standard Potential Standard Lot Size (Sq. Ft.) Max. FAR Floor Area Allowance for Acc. Structure Total Allowed Floor Area Max. FAR Floor Area Allowance for Acc. Structure Total Allowed Floor Area Max. FAR Floor Area Allowance for Acc. Structure Total Allowed Floor Area Max. 4 Overview of Potential Standards Eastside and Westside Character Study Side Wall Height for Solar Access This would implement strategy option 5c by introducing façade standards to reduce the potential solar access impacts of large new houses or additions on neighbors to the north. A variety of potential façade standards may be considered to address solar access. Such standards should be balanced with the objective to preserve flexibility for change and reinvestment. One potential standard is described below. Façade standards for solar access would only apply to building walls that face a one-story neighbor to the north as part of construction that results in: • A two-story house where a one-story house previously existed, or • A new house that is greater than 2,500 square feet, or • A second-story addition that results in a total square footage of more than 3,000 square feet. To preserve solar access, maximum height at the minimum side yard setback where a property faces a neighbor to the north would: • Be reduced to 14' from the currently allowed 18'* • Increase by 1' for each 1' of additional setback Neighboring Property to the North Lower maximum wall height at the minimum side setback Maximum wall height raises at an angle to maintain solar access for northern neighbor New building Over 2,500 Square Feet Property Line The potential façade standards for solar access would reduce wall height where a property faces a one-story neighbor to the north. Limiting height to 14' at the minimum side yard setback would preserve solar access to most of the south-facing roof of a one-story house built at the minimum side yard setback on the property to the north at noon on December 21. *To allow additional flexibility on lots 40' or less in width, the 14' starting height can increase by 1' for each 1' of decreased lot width up to a maximum starting height of 18' Overview of Potential Standards 5 Eastside and Westside Character Study Additional Building Design Standards This would implement strategy option 5c by introducing additional building design standards to address the character of front and side building façades. Front Façade Character Additional building design standards for front façade character are intended to encourage larger new construction and additions to incorporate pedestrian-friendly façade designs that are compatible with street character in the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods. They would only apply to: • A two-story house where a one-story house previously existed and where there is an abutting house on either side that is one-one story, or • A new house that is greater than 2,500 square feet, or • A second-story addition that results in a total square footage of more than 3,000 square feet. A potential menu of front façade design options is illustrated on page 6. Side Façade Character Additional building design standards for side façade character are intended to reduce the perceived mass and scale and potential looming and privacy impacts of larger new construction and additions. Note that north-facing walls that meet the standards described on the previous page would generally also meet the additional building design standards. They would only apply to: • A new house that is greater than 2,500 square feet, or • A second-story addition that results in a total square footage of more than 3,000 square feet. A potential menu of side façade design options is illustrated on page 7. 6 Overview of Potential Standards Eastside and Westside Character Study Menu of Design Options for Front Façade Character The menu of front façade design options illustrated below is intended to promote pedestrian orientation and compatibility with the character of structures on the block face. As described on page 5, incorporating at least one design option would be required for larger two-story structures. Wall Offset One Story Element Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any remain- ing two-story façade set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side yard. The portion of the façade closest to the street is one-story, with any two-story façade set back an additional six (16) feet from the street. Covered Entry Feature A covered entry feature such as a front porch or stoop is located on the front façade. The feature shall have a minimum depth of at least six (6) feet. Overview of Potential Standards 7 Eastside and Westside Character Study Menu of Design Options for Side Façade Character The menu of front façade design options illustrated below is intended to address potential looming an privacy impacts on neighbor. As described on page 5, incorporating at least one design option would be required for structures. Wall Offset Step Down in Height Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any remain- ing two-story façade set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side yard. Two-story façade width at the minimum side yard is no more than forty (40) feet, with any remaining façade width at the minimum side yard reduced to one-story. One Story Element Additional Setback A one-story building element with a minimum depth of six (6) feet is located at the minimum side yard. Any two-story façade is set back an additional six (6) feet beyond the minimum required side yard. 8 Overview of Potential Standards Eastside and Westside Character Study Comparison of Existing and Potential Standards The block computer models below illustrate the largest building mass possible within existing standards as well as new and revised standards currently under consideration. Note that most new construction in the neighborhoods does not incorporate the largest possible building mass. Permitted Building Mass with Existing Standards North FAR= 0.40 N-C-L D A North FAR= 0.50 N-C-M D A Permitted Building Mass with Potential Standards North FAR= 0.34 N-C-L B A 250 sf D C North FAR= 0.38 N-C-M 250 sf B C D A C Comparison of Existing and Potential Standards Existing Standards Potential Standards Potential Standards N-C-L N-C-M N-C-L N-C-M A Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.40 0.50 Lot<5,000sf=0.40 Lot≥5,000sf=0.20+1,000 sf Lot>10,000sf=0.30 Lot<4,000sf=0.40 Lot≥5,000sf=0.25+1,000 sf Lot>10,000sf=0.35 B Wall Height for Solar Access No Standard Height limited to 14' facing a neighbor to the north (rises 1' for each 1' of added setback) C Additional Design Standards No Standards Design options to reduce side wall looming and encourage pedestrian-friendly front façade Overview of Potential Standards 9 Eastside and Westside Character Study Comparison of Existing and Potential Standards (alternate views) The alternate views below provide a comparison of existing and potential façade standards on north- facing and non north-facing façades (illustrated on a lot in the N-C-M zone district). Note that most new construction does not incorporate the largest possible mass. Façade with Existing Standards North View from the northwest showing the mass and shading impacts of the façade on the property to the north at noon on December 21. North View from the southwest showing the mass im- pacts of the façade on the property to the south. Façade with Potential Standards North View from the northwest showing the scale and shading impacts of the façade on the property to the north at noon on December 21. Height near the north side setback has been reduced to meet façade standards for solar access. North View from the southwest showing the scale and shading impacts of the façade on the property to the south. Height near the south side setback has been reduced to accommodate measurement from existing grade, and two-story wall length has been reduced to 40'. 10 Overview of Potential Standards Eastside and Westside Character Study Case Study 1: Existing Conditions North s Case h tudy ouse This case study is a 2,127 square foot house with a 600 square foot detached garage on a 9,500 square foot lot. The basement level of the house (not included in the total floor area) is elevated almost four feet above ground level. The existing home replaced a 525 square foot cottage in 2008. North View from above showing the lot configuration and relationship to neighbors North Street view from the northeast Existing Conditions Summary Zoning Lot Size Original Sq. Ft. Existing Sq. Ft. Existing FAR N-C-M 9,500 Sq Ft. (50'x190') 525 2,727 0.29 Overview of Potential Standards 11 Eastside and Westside Character Study Case Study 1: Application of Potential Standards Model Illustrating Existing Conditions North Model Illustrating Application of Potential Standards North Standards Applied Floor Area Ratio (FAR) The revised FAR measurement method includes the elevated basement, for a total measured floor area of 3,800 sq. ft., which is above the max. 3,625 sq. ft. that would be applied to this lot. The basement elevation has been reduced so that it is not included in floor area. Façade Standards for Solar Access The house has been flipped and a one-story element has been added on the north side to preserve solar access. Additional Façade Standards No additional façade standards required (existing two-story wall lengths to not exceed 40'). Height at Side Setback No changes required to accommodate revised height measurement at the side yard (no topography). 12 Overview of Potential Standards Eastside and Westside Character Study Case Study 1: Application of Potential Standards (solar access views) The alternate views below illustrate the mass and shading impacts of the existing building, and development within the potential standards, on the neighboring property to the north at noon on December 21. Model Illustrating Existing Conditions North View from above showing the shading impacts of the existing building on the property to the north. North Street view from the northeast showing the mass and shading impacts of the existing building on the property to the north. The existing building is set back 5' from the property line and is 18' tall as measured from the improved (raised) grade. Model Illustrating Application of Potential Standards North View from above showing the shading impacts of a build- ing meeting the potential standards on the property to the north. North Street view from the northeast showing the mass and shading impacts of the fa- çade on the property to the north. Height has been reduced to accommodate solar access and measurement from natural, rather than improved (raised) grade. Overview of Potential Standards 13 Eastside and Westside Character Study Case Study 1: Application of Potential Standards (other façade views) The alternate views below illustrate the mass impacts of the existing building, and develop- ment within the potential standards, on the neighboring property to the south. Model Illustrating Existing Conditions North Birds-eye view from the southeast showing the mass impacts of the existing building on the property to the south. The south-facing building wall is set back 9' from the property line, and is 23' tall. North Street view from the southeast showing the mass impacts of the existing building on the property to the south. Model Illustrating Application of Potential Standards North Birds-eye view from the southeast showing the mass impacts of a building meeting the potential standards on the property to the south. The south-facing building wall is set back 7' from the property line, and is 20' tall. Note that designing the building to meet mass standards for solar access results in greater building mass on the south side of the property. North View from the northeast showing the mass impacts of a building meeting the potential standards on the property to the south. 14 Overview of Potential Standards Eastside and Westside Character Study Case Study 2: Existing Conditions North s Case h tudy ouse This case study is a 2,600 square foot house with no accessory structures on a 5,200 square foot lot. The home was built on the rear half of a larger parcel that was split. North View from above showing the lot configuration and relationship to neighbors North Street view from the southwest Existing Conditions Summary Zoning Lot Size Original Sq. Ft. Existing Sq. Ft. Existing FAR N-C-M 5,200 Sq Ft. (104'x50') 1,490 2,600 0.50 Overview of Potential Standards 15 Eastside and Westside Character Study Case Study 2: Application of Potential Standards Model Illustrating Existing Conditions North Model Illustrating Application of Potential Standards North Standards Applied Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Floor area has been reduced to 2,288 sq. ft. (max. floor area within the potential standards). Façade Standards for Solar Access No façade standards for solar access required (project not over size threshold). Additional Façade Standards No additional façade standards required (project not over size threshold). Height at Side Setback No changes required to accommodate revised height measurement at the side yard (no topography). 16 Overview of Potential Standards Eastside and Westside Character Study Case Study 3: Existing Conditions North s Case h tudy ouse This case study is a 2,639 square foot house with a 500 square foot detached garage on a 6,300 square foot lot. The existing home replaced a 770 square foot cottage. North View from above showing the lot configuration and relationship to neighbors North Street view from the northwest Existing Conditions Summary Zoning Lot Size Original Sq. Ft. Existing Sq. Ft. Existing FAR N-C-M 6,300 Sq Ft. (35'x180') 770 3,139 0.50 Overview of Potential Standards 17 Eastside and Westside Character Study Case Study 3: Application of Potential Standards Model Illustrating Existing Conditions North Model Illustrating Application of Potential Standards North Standards Applied Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Floor area has been reduced to 2,825 sq. ft. (max. floor area within the potential standards, including 250 sq. ft. exception for detached accessory structure). Façade Standards for Solar Access No façade standards for solar access required (project is located on a lot less than 40' wide). Additional Façade Standards Length of two-story wall limited to 40'. Height at Side Setback No changes required to accommodate revised height measurement at the side yard (no topography). 18 Overview of Potential Standards Eastside and Westside Character Study Case Study 4: Existing Conditions North s Case h tudy ouse This case study is a 4,013 square foot house with no accessory structures on an 8,500 square foot lot. The existing home replaced a 658 square foot cottage in 2011. The lot has been elevated above natural grade by 2' to 3'. North View from above showing the lot configuration and relationship to neighbors North Street view from the northeast Existing Conditions Summary Zoning Lot Size Original Sq. Ft. Existing Sq. Ft. Existing FAR N-C-M 8,500 Sq Ft. (50'x170') 658 4,013 0.48 Overview of Potential Standards 19 Eastside and Westside Character Study Case Study 4: Application of Potential Standards Model Illustrating Existing Conditions North Model Illustrating Application of Potential Standards North Standards Applied Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Floor area has been reduced to 3,375 sq. ft. (max. floor area within the potential standards, including 250 sq. ft. exception for detached accessory structure). Façade Standards for Solar Access The house has been flipped, providing a greater setback on the north side to preserve solar access. Additional Façade Standards Length of two-story walls limited to 40'. Height at Side Setback Height has been reduced 3' at the side setback per the revised measurement method from natural grade (existing standards measure height from the improved (elevated) grade). 20 Overview of Potential Standards Eastside and Westside Character Study Case Study 4: Application of Potential Standards (solar access views) The alternate views below illustrate the scale and shading impacts of the existing building, and develop- ment within the potential standards, on the neighboring property to the north at noon on December 21. Model Illustrating Existing Conditions North View from above showing the shading impacts of the ex- isting building on the property to the north. Note that the existing building on the property to the north is set back almost 25' from the southern property line. North View from the northeast showing the scale and shading impacts of the existing building on the property to the north. The existing building is about 18' tall at the minimum 5' side setback from the property line as measured from the improved (raised) grade. Model Illustrating Application of Potential Standards North View from above showing the shading impacts of a build- ing meeting the potential standards on the property to the north. North View from the northeast showing the scale and shading impacts of the façade on the property to the north. Height has been reduced to accommodate solar access and measurement from natural, rather than improved (raised) grade. Overview of Potential Standards 21 Eastside and Westside Character Study Case Study 4: Application of Potential Standards (other façade views) The alternate views below illustrate the scale impacts of the existing building, and development within the potential standards, on the neighboring property to the south. Model Illustrating Existing Conditions North Birds-eye view from the southeast showing the scale impacts of the existing building on the property to the south. The south-facing building wall is set back 12' from the property line, and is 19' tall as measured from the improved (elevated) grade (would be 2' taller if measured from natural grade at the property line). North Street view from the southeast showing the scale impacts of the existing building on the property to the south. Model Illustrating Application of Potential Standards North Birds-eye view from the southeast showing the scale im- pacts of a building meeting the potential standards on the property to the south. The south-facing building wall is set back 5' from the property line, and is 18' tall as measured from the natural grade at the property line. North View from the northeast showing the scale impacts of a building meeting the potential standards on the property to the south. Note that two-story wall length has been reduced to meet the potential standards. D Height at Side Setback Measured from grade below building wall Measured from natural grade at the side lot line FAR Floor Area Allowance for Acc. Structure Total Allowed Floor Area 3,000 0.40 0 1,200 0.40 0 1,200 0.50 0 1,500 0.50 0 1,500 4,000 0.40 0 1,600 0.40 0 1,600 0.50 0 2,000 0.50 0 2,000 5,000 0.40 0 2,000 0.40 0 2,000 0.50 0 2,500 0.45 0 2,250 6,000 0.40 0 2,400 0.41 250 2,450 0.50 0 3,000 0.46 250 2,750 7,000 0.40 0 2,800 0.38 250 2,650 0.50 0 3,500 0.43 250 3,000 8,000 0.40 0 3,200 0.36 250 2,850 0.50 0 4,000 0.41 250 3,250 9,000 0.40 0 3,600 0.34 250 3,050 0.50 0 4,500 0.39 250 3,500 10,000 0.40 0 4,000 0.33 250 3,250 0.50 0 5,000 0.38 250 3,750 11,000 0.40 0 4,400 0.32 250 3,550 0.50 0 5,500 0.37 250 4,100 12,000 0.40 0 4,800 0.32 250 3,850 0.50 0 6,000 0.37 250 4,450 13,000 0.40 0 5,200 0.32 250 4,150 0.50 0 6,500 0.37 250 4,800 14,000 0.40 0 5,600 0.32 250 4,450 0.50 0 7,000 0.37 250 5,150 15,000 0.40 0 6,000 0.32 250 4,750 0.50 0 7,500 0.37 250 5,500 change and reinvestment 6. Acknowledge economic impacts Issues include: A. New construction that appears to be overly large in relation to its context B. Building walls that appear to loom over neighbors C. Reduced solar access/ shading issues D. Incompatible design features E. Loss of older/more af- fordable houses F. Loss of green space and mature trees n . Lak e r i d g e C t . C o o k Southridge D r . S . B r y a n A v e. Westview Ave. Roosevelt Ave. Heatheridge Rd. Village Park W. Prospect Rd. Lakewood Dr. W. Mulberry St. St. Dr. Jackson Ave. St. Ct. Woodford Ave. St. W. Prospect Rd. W. Olive St. W. Laurel St. W. Lake St. N. Howes St. ter ice Dr. Rembrandt m ington St. Parker St. Remington St. E. Olive St. Lincoln A v e . Linden St. Alpert Ellis St. R o b e r t son S t. W il l i a m s S t . Buckingham St. r. Robertson St. Pennock Pl. St. E. Pitkin St. Doctors Ln. Patton St. Ct. n A W. Oak St. N. Hillcrest Dr. Plains i l d e r r y Bri a r w o o d R d . Rd. Basil Ln. Rd. M e r c er Ct. S. Taft Hill Rd. Sterling Ln. U n derhill Dr. Ct. D r . N. S . B r y a n A v e . Frey Ave. W. Plum St. University Ave. Birch Lyons St. Lyons St. McKinley Cherry St. Dr. Del St. Mar Wagner Jamith Pl. Tedmon Dr. Riddle Dr. Hanna St. Hobbit St. Summer St. Del Norte Wayne St. St. Cir. Armstr o n g Av e . St. Elm St. Meridan Ave. N. Loomis Ave. S. Meldrum St. W. Myrtle St. S. Howes St. Edison Tenney Ct. E. Laurel St. Seckner Aly. E. Mountain Ave. Al p ert Ave. Peterson St. L i n d e n C e n t e r D r. Smith Pl. Stover St. U k i a h L n . St. 3rd St. W. Brookhaven Cir. Garfield St. C o l o r a d o St. Ct. L a k e P l a ce E. Luke St. Poudre 10 t h St. W e l c h S t . St. Meeker Dr. Link Lane C Rd. W. Woodford Village Ln. S p r ingfi eld Dr. A p p l e - N. Briarwood Rd. Montview C le a r view Orchard Pl. Ra v e n V i ew R d . Dale Ct. N. Bryan Ave. Ct. Daemian Pl. F a i r v i ew Ln. Daisy Pl. Franklin St. Pomona St. Scott W. Coy Elm St. Pl. M o n t e V i s t a A v e. P i o n e e r A v e . Hawkins St. St. Beech Griffin Sheely Dr. W PLUM ST S. Washington Ave. Park Blevins Ct. Univ er si t y A ve. S. Grant Ave. N. Grant Ave. B ay Dr. Center S. Whitcomb St. St. Maple Bay Rd. Ave. East Dr. S. Mason St. St. W o o d l a w n D r . E. Prospect Rd. Jefferson St. N . Colle ge Ave. Peterson Ct. Poudre St. Whedbee St. Whedbee St. Stover St. 1st St. E. Vine Dr. Apex Dr. Edwards Riverside Ave. E. Lincoln Ave. 11th St. McHugh St. Webster Link Ln. Pkw W. Magnolia Hillcrest Dr. Ct. Ct. Ct. Trevor St. Lar k s p u r D r . Broadview Pl. Rook S t. S. Ct. Crestmore Grandview Ave. Foxbrook Way Ct. D r. Cook Dr. Richards W. Lake S. Bryan L y nnwood Dr. more W. Oak St. Lyons St. Bluebell Aster Scott Ave. Madera Ave. Sunset N. Mack St. Ct. Gordon St. Elm St. Balsam Ln. Ju n i per Ln . S. Whitco m b St. Center Ave. Oval Prospect St. Dr. N. Mason St. N. M Montezuma Fuller Alley E. Oak St. Peterson St. E. La ke St. E. Elizabeth St. Chestnut St. Alpert Ct. Ct. Circle B u c k e y e S t. E l l i s S t . 2nd St. E. Prospect Rd. M o r g an S t . Ct. Emigh St. 12th St. E. M ag n o li a St. E. Lake St. E. Prospect Rd A lf o r d S t . Longs Peak Duff Dr. C t . S. Hillcrest Dr. H i n r y S t. Suffolk St. Pl. Ct. Pe n nsylvania St. E v e r g r e en Meadowbrook Dr. W. Plum S t . C o rvid W a y Sky l i n e D r . Ave. Skyline Dr. H o m e r Dr. B re n t w o o d D r. Leesdale Ct. Crestm o re Pl. Ct. S . B r y a n A v e . Pl. Layland Lancer Dr. Ha y m a rket St. Constitution A v e . Ave. City Pa r k Fishback Ave. Leland Ave. Ct. St. Birch St. McKinley Ave. W. Mountain Ave. St. W. Myrtle St. W. Olive St. Ct. Akin Ave. Bungalow West St. West Laporte Ave. W. Magnolia St. W. Mountain Ave. Sycamore St. Dr. N. Sherwood St. N. Whitcomb St. West Dr. Is otop e Dr. Dr. Old Mathews St. E. Pitkin St. E. Mulberry St. Trimble Walnut St. Pine St. J e r o m e S t. a th ews St. Pl. C a jetan S t. Pa s c a l St. Blonde Dr. Baum St. O sia n d e r St. Ct. E. Dr. Ct. E . L a k e S t . Locust Alta Vista Y o u nt S t . E. Laurel St. Romero St. Trujillo St. Lopez Ct. St. P atton S t . Alford St. N o rt h b r o o k Dr . Coriander Ln. M o n t vi e w R d . Orchard Liberty Dr. Cooper Pl. Glenmoor Dr. Castlerock Dr. P l . F o x h a l l Ct. S h a m ro c k S t . Ct. Wicklow Pl. Lakeside Fishback Ave. Bishop St. B e e c h C t . W. Vine Dr. W. Stuart S t . Bennett Rd. Westward Dr. Crest- S h e l d o n D r . Maple Aztec Columbine Miller Dr. Dr. Pearl St. Pearl St. B u r t o n James Ct. Mantz Ct. Alaba W a l l e n b e r g Dr. Wood St. Wood St. Sh e ely D r. S. Loomis Ave. W. Mulberry St. Dr. Ct. Alpine S. College Ave. E. Myrtle St. Old Town Sq. P ine St. Old Firehouse Aly. Person Buckeye St. Willow St. Heschel St. Deines Riverside Ave. W. Cowan St. Lo gan Ave. St. S. Lemay Ave. Hospital Ln. S . L e ma y A ve. San Cristo E. O li v e Ct. Hays St. Riverside Ave. E. Mulb Pou ulberry St. W. Olive W . P l u m S t . Ct. Ct. O akw o o d D r . Ebon Pic a S t . Ct. Skyline Dr. Laporte Ave. Westbr i d g e Dr. Ct. Collins N. Frey Ave. N. Bryan Ave. Clover R o o s e v e l t A ve. Dr. City Park Ave. Baystone Dr. Sheldon Dr. Sylvan Ct. Ave. St. J u n i p e r C t. Co l u m b i n e Ct. H ann a S t. Coromandel S. Shields St. N . S h ie l d s Prospect Ln. Ellis Dr. Pl. W. Pitkin St. N. Meldrum St. Tamasag "A" Buckeye St. E d w a rd s St. Garfield St. E. Plum St. orningside Eastdale p Cir. E. rB.rookhaven Ct. Endicott St. ingmeadows Lory S t . Lesser Dr. Martinez E. Stuart St. L u k e S t. Rivendal Dr. River Dr. E. Magnolia St. St. McHugh H o ff m a n Mill R d . Edora L S. i n k L n . Webster Ave. Pikes Peak Ave. Dr. MSto.ntgomery N o r thbrook C t . Ct. Bellwether Ln. S Dr. L n. S u n R o s e L o n g w o rt h Rd . Dr. W . L a k e S t . G lenmoor D r. N. Taft Hill Rd. Mi c h a e l L n . W . L a k e St. W. Elizabeth St. W i c k l o w Ln. Ave. Elm Cit y P a r k Ave. Dr. Ave. Alameda St. H e r i t a g e C i r . St. E. Dr. Coy St. Hanna St. St. Pl. S. Mack St. Park St. Birky Pl. South Dr. W. Oak St. Braiden S. Sherwood St. Canyon Ave. Cherry St. Dr. Dr. Main Locust St. S. College Ave. E. Magnolia St. Ct. Smith St. Newsom Kenroy L ilac Ln. B e l l f l o we r Dr. G r e e n S t . St. Main St. Welch Buckey Baker St. N . L i n k L n. S heldon L ake Swanson Gustav Natural Area KinPgofiinshter Natural Area MeadFoowxs Red Natural Area River's NaturalEdge Area SNpartiunrgaelr Area NUadtuarlall Area WNialltiuarmals Area Lee LeeMartinez Martinez CCoommmmuunniittyy Park AAllttaa VViissttaa Park Freedom SSqquuaarree Park Old OldFort Fort Collins Heritage Park Romero Park WWaasshhiinnggttoonn Park BBuucckkiinngghhaamm Park JJeeffffeerrssoonn SSttrreeeett Park GGrraannddvviieeww CCeemmeetteerryy City CityPark Park Nine Golf Course City Park Library Park East EastSide Side Park Avery Park High School Park Oak OakSt St PPllaazzaa Park CCiivviicc Center Park CCiivviicc Center Park North Edora CCoommmmuunniittyy Park ELaleumrel EBleenmnett SOcahkowoolod PEutlenmam Lab ForSchool Creative Learning Dunn Elem SCtoaltoerado University Centennial HS SPcohlaoroisl BHialirnrigsual Immersion Lesher MS Barton ChildhoEoadrly Center TProaundsrietion Center St Josephs School North AztlanSide Center Main Library City Hall Courthouse Offices Building Fort Collins And Descovery Museum Science Center ³I ÕZYXW N C L N C L N C M N C M N C L N C M 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles GIS Eastside Character & Study Westside Neighborhoods Neighborhood Conservation Low Density (NCL) © Printed: January 28, 2013 Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density (NCM) k forward to arage and bu the proposed measuremen the characte ing in right d for lots over n figuring ra consideration t is the heigh is irregular much flexib fy how the g is this differ uickly, no ti t about shifti etter for adja many lots w ve reduced F erned about ss requireme all FARs are astside and ry 16, 2 Summa king group m ings include ementation o s Character S and verbal co ive? Do you attending th or owners wi ents and feed ndards? ner to distribu in-law unit f like this chan of the crazy calculating h uild a two ca d for std’s nts from gro r of adjacent direction – lo r 5,000 sq.ft atios, is prese n? ht of a basem lot sizes/lot bility is allow garage is cou rent from the ime for revie ing more squ cent propert would fit into FAR, which impact on sm ents. e lower, but Westside N 2013 W ary of P meetings wer d a staff ove of the recom Study. omments rec u own or ren he meeting, t ithin the two dback on th ute more of for lots unde nge. It seem y willy nilly how new sta ar garage. und level vs t homes. ooks good to t. to table. ervation of s ment that is in configuratio wable? unted – woul e previous F ew. uare footage ties than hav o the under 4 is probably maller lots, e construction eighborhood Working Public C re held on Ja erview prese mmended stra ceived by sta nt? two did not o o neighborho he potential the sq.ft. to er 10,000 sq. ms to be still stuff that’s b andards woul s. raised. Ap o me but pho solar access o ncluded in F ons handled? ld get a 250 FAR? Conce to the back ving a larger 40’ width ex ok on larger especially w n still tends t ds Characte g Group Comme anuary 16, 20 entation of po ategy options aff: own or live i oods. revisions to the back of .ft. very graciou been going o ld affect my ppreciate the oto examples of adjacent p FAR measur ? SF exceptio erned about p of the lot (i. house or add xception? r lots of 9,00 when you add to fall within er Study p Meeti ents 013 with 22 otential new s from the E in the two ne o existing m the lot such us to new bu on. y plans to dem e revision to s would be n properties (r rement? on for a detac process and .e. into carria dition near t 00 sf or 10,0 d in the impa n this formul ing in attendanc w Land Use C Eastside & eighborhood maximum flo as a carriage uilders while molish my o FAR in keep nice. Add ac rear yards) ta ched garage. this being d age house) – the front of t 000 sf but acts of the so la. ce. Code ds and oor e e one ping ctual aken . done – may the lot olar Building Side Wall Height  Maximum building height at the minimum side yard setback (five feet) to be measured from the lot’s natural grade rather than improved finished grade shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height.  Building wall height above 18 feet in height, shall be set back one foot, for each two feet of building wall exceeding 18 feet.  Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen feet on the street side of a corner lot. Adjust Measurement Method for Building Side Wall Height New Solar Access Standard  Maximum building height at the minimum side yard setback (five feet) to be measured from the lot’s existing grade rather than improved finished grade shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet in height.  Building wall height above 18 feet in height, shall be set back one foot, for each two feet of building wall exceeding 18 feet.  Minimum side yard width shall be fifteen feet on the street side of a corner lot  For building construction that results in a new house that is greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, or for an addition that results in a total square footage of more than three thousand (3,000) square feet, height shall be reduced to preserve solar access on adjacent lots as follows:  Whenever any portion of a north‐facing building wall that adjoins a lot to the north exceeds twelve (14) feet in height, as measured from the natural grade at the interior side lot line adjacent to the wall, such portion of the building wall shall be set back from the interior side lot line an additional one (1) foot beyond the minimum required, for each one (1) foot, or fraction thereof, of building wall that exceeds twelve (14) feet in height. Measurement method for maximum building side wall height is the same for both Ordinances New solar access standard Develop New Design Standards Design standards not supported due to the complexity of legislating the many variables of design in neighborhoods with a variety of housing styles. Incorporate Additional Building Front and Side Façade Standards  Menu of design options for front and side façade character in the N‐C‐L and N‐C‐M zoning districts.  Applied to building construction that results in a new two‐story house larger than 2,500 SF, or second story addition that results in more than 3,000 SF. New building façade design standards FAR 3,000 0.40 0 1200 0.40 1,200 0 0 1,200 0.40 3,000 0.50 0 1,500 0.50 1,500 0 0 1,500 0.50 4,000 0.40 0 1600 0.40 1,600 0 0 1,600 0.40 4,000 0.50 0 2,000 0.25 1,000 1,000 250 2,250 0.56 5,000 0.40 0 2000 0.20 1,000 1,000 250 2,250 0.45 5,000 0.50 0 2,500 0.25 1,250 1,000 250 2,500 0.50 6,000 0.40 0 2400 0.20 1,200 1,000 250 2,450 0.41 6,000 0.50 0 3,000 0.25 1,500 1,000 250 2,750 0.46 7,000 0.40 0 2800 0.20 1,400 1,000 250 2,650 0.38 7,000 0.50 0 3,500 0.25 1,750 1,000 250 3,000 0.43 8,000 0.40 0 3200 0.20 1,600 1,000 250 2,850 0.36 8,000 0.50 0 4,000 0.25 2,000 1,000 250 3,250 0.41 9,000 0.40 0 3600 0.20 1,800 1,000 250 3,050 0.34 9,000 0.50 0 4,500 0.25 2,250 1,000 250 3,500 0.39 10,000 0.40 0 4000 0.30 3,000 0 250 3,250 0.33 10,000 0.50 0 5,000 0.35 3,500 0 250 3,750 0.38 11,000 0.40 0 4400 0.30 3,300 0 250 3,550 0.32 11,000 0.50 0 5,500 0.35 3,850 0 250 4,100 0.37 12,000 0.40 0 4800 0.30 3,600 0 250 3,850 0.32 12,000 0.50 0 6,000 0.35 4,200 0 250 4,450 0.37 13,000 0.40 0 5200 0.30 3,900 0 250 4,150 0.32 13,000 0.50 0 6,500 0.35 4,550 0 250 4,800 0.37 14,000 0.40 0 5600 0.30 4,200 0 250 4,450 0.32 14,000 0.50 0 7,000 0.35 4,900 0 250 5,150 0.37 15,000 0.40 0 6000 0.30 4,500 0 250 4,750 0.32 15,000 0.50 0 7,500 0.35 5,250 0 250 5,500 0.37 All Lots: All Lots: Lot < 5,000 sf: Lot < 4,000 sf: Table 1. Comparison of Existing and Potential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standards Neighborhood Conservation, Low Density Zone District (N‐C‐L) Existing Standard Existing Standard Neighborhood Conservation, Medium Density Zone District (N‐C‐M) 2013 Standard 2013 Standard Lot ≥ 4,000 and < 10,000 sf Lot ≥ 10,000 sf Lot Size * 0.50 = Max. Floor Area Lot Size * 0.25 + 1,000 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure on lots ≥ 5,000 sf) = Max. Floor Area Lot Size * 0.35 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure) = Max. Floor Area Lot ≥ 5,000 and < 10,000 sf Lot ≥ 10,000 sf Lot Size * 0.20 + 1,000 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure on lots ≥ 5,000 sf) = Max. Floor Area Lot Size * 0.30 (+250 sf in detached rear accessory structure) = Max. Floor Area Lot Size * 0.40 = Max. Floor Area 2013 FAR Option for N‐C‐L Existing FAR Standard for N‐C‐L Lot Size * 0.40 = Max Floor Area Existing FAR Standard for N‐C‐M Lot Size * 0.50 = Max Floor Area 2013 FAR Option for N‐C‐M Rght 1 Other 5 Out In Total 3 10 13 Peak Hour Begins at 01:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 1 Other 5 Out In Total 3 10 13 9/8/2012 01:30 PM 9/8/2012 02:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 1 Other 2 Out In Total 5 4 9 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 1 Other 2 Out In Total 5 4 9 9/11/2012 04:30 PM 9/11/2012 05:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 52 Other 6 Out In Total 54 103 157 Peak Hour Begins at 01:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 52 Other 6 Out In Total 54 103 157 9/8/2012 01:30 PM 9/8/2012 02:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 38 Other 1 Out In Total 45 72 117 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 38 Other 1 Out In Total 45 72 117 9/11/2012 04:30 PM 9/11/2012 05:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 23 Other 4 Out In Total 29 34 63 Peak Hour Begins at 01:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 23 Other 4 Out In Total 29 34 63 9/8/2012 01:30 PM 9/8/2012 02:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 19 Other 0 Out In Total 26 24 50 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 19 Other 0 Out In Total 26 24 50 9/11/2012 04:30 PM 9/11/2012 05:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 15 Other 7 Out In Total 45 45 90 Peak Hour Begins at 01:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 15 Other 7 Out In Total 45 45 90 9/8/2012 01:30 PM 9/8/2012 02:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 16 Other 1 Out In Total 77 76 153 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 16 Other 1 Out In Total 77 76 153 9/11/2012 04:30 PM 9/11/2012 05:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 5 Other 0 Out In Total 46 73 119 Peak Hour Begins at 01:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 5 Other 0 Out In Total 46 73 119 9/8/2012 01:30 PM 9/8/2012 02:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 9 Other 7 Out In Total 73 101 174 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 9 Other 7 Out In Total 73 101 174 9/11/2012 04:30 PM 9/11/2012 05:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 1 Other 2 Out In Total 63 81 144 Peak Hour Begins at 01:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 1 Other 2 Out In Total 63 81 144 9/8/2012 01:30 PM 9/8/2012 02:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 3 Other 2 Out In Total 90 88 178 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 3 Other 2 Out In Total 90 88 178 9/11/2012 04:30 PM 9/11/2012 05:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 25 Other 1 Out In Total 105 114 219 Peak Hour Begins at 01:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 25 Other 1 Out In Total 105 114 219 9/8/2012 01:30 PM 9/8/2012 02:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 35 Other 4 Out In Total 131 101 232 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 35 Other 4 Out In Total 131 101 232 9/11/2012 04:30 PM 9/11/2012 05:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 6 Other 3 Out In Total 186 153 339 Peak Hour Begins at 01:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 6 Other 3 Out In Total 186 153 339 9/8/2012 01:30 PM 9/8/2012 02:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 2 Other 0 Out In Total 154 136 290 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 2 Other 0 Out In Total 154 136 290 9/11/2012 04:30 PM 9/11/2012 05:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 28 Other 0 Out In Total 16 43 59 Peak Hour Begins at 01:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 28 Other 0 Out In Total 16 43 59 9/8/2012 01:30 PM 9/8/2012 02:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 36 Other 0 Out In Total 29 52 81 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 36 Other 0 Out In Total 29 52 81 9/11/2012 04:30 PM 9/11/2012 05:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 13 Other 3 Out In Total 930 933 1863 Peak Hour Begins at 01:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 13 Other 3 Out In Total 930 933 1863 9/8/2012 01:30 PM 9/8/2012 02:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 106 Other 1 Out In Total 794 875 1669 Peak Hour Begins at 01:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 106 Other 1 Out In Total 794 875 1669 9/8/2012 01:30 PM 9/8/2012 02:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 141 Other 1 Out In Total 823 940 1763 Peak Hour Begins at 01:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 141 Other 1 Out In Total 823 940 1763 9/8/2012 01:30 PM 9/8/2012 02:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 70 Other 2 Out In Total 97 163 260 Peak Hour Begins at 01:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 70 Other 2 Out In Total 97 163 260 9/8/2012 01:30 PM 9/8/2012 02:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 0 Other 0 Out In Total 0 0 0 Peak Hour Begins at 01:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 0 Other 0 Out In Total 0 0 0 9/8/2012 01:30 PM 9/8/2012 02:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 0 Other 0 Out In Total 0 0 0 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 0 Other 0 Out In Total 0 0 0 9/11/2012 04:30 PM 9/11/2012 05:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 152 Other 3 Out In Total 286 402 688 Peak Hour Begins at 01:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 152 Other 3 Out In Total 286 402 688 9/8/2012 01:30 PM 9/8/2012 02:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 32 Other 2 Out In Total 80 75 155 Peak Hour Begins at 01:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 32 Other 2 Out In Total 80 75 155 9/8/2012 01:30 PM 9/8/2012 02:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 42 Other 0 Out In Total 216 286 502 Peak Hour Begins at 01:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 42 Other 0 Out In Total 216 286 502 9/8/2012 01:30 PM 9/8/2012 02:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 59 Other 2 Out In Total 347 358 705 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 59 Other 2 Out In Total 347 358 705 9/11/2012 04:30 PM 9/11/2012 05:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 35 Other 0 Out In Total 256 268 524 Peak Hour Begins at 01:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 35 Other 0 Out In Total 256 268 524 9/8/2012 01:30 PM 9/8/2012 02:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 35 Other 0 Out In Total 359 336 695 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 35 Other 0 Out In Total 359 336 695 9/11/2012 04:30 PM 9/11/2012 05:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 87 Other 4 Out In Total 219 270 489 Peak Hour Begins at 01:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 87 Other 4 Out In Total 219 270 489 9/8/2012 01:30 PM 9/8/2012 02:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 49 Other 2 Out In Total 280 285 565 Peak Hour Begins at 01:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 49 Other 2 Out In Total 280 285 565 9/8/2012 01:30 PM 9/8/2012 02:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 45 Other 5 Out In Total 414 350 764 Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM Class 1 Peak Hour Data North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 Rght 45 Other 5 Out In Total 414 350 764 9/11/2012 04:30 PM 9/11/2012 05:15 PM Class 1 North All Traffic Data Services Wheat Ridge,CO 80033 303-668-0220 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 3 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 17 16 4 15 14 13 12 11 10 STOP ALL WAY STOP ALL WAY = PM/SAT Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service = PM/SAT Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service = Stop Sign = All-Way Stop = Traffic Signal LEGEND X/X x/x STOP ALL WAY 17 1 3 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 17 16 4 15 14 13 12 11 10 STOP ALL WAY STOP ALL WAY = PM/SAT Peak Hour Signalized Intersection Level of Service = PM/SAT Peak Hour Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service = Stop Sign = All-Way Stop = Traffic Signal LEGEND X/X x/x STOP ALL WAY 40(20) 25(30) 2990(2535) 245(335) 30(35) 2565(2580) 75(100) 55(70) 3265(2905) 2655(2715) 40(55) 95(120) 3255(2815) 2580(2610) 95(125) 75(70) 55(40) 150(130) 25(10) 30(25) 135(55) 205(235) 1065(965) 85(120) 125(130) 115(90) 120(135) 120(100) 80(80) 280(255) 60(35) 5(5) 40(20) 35(30) 5(5) 20(30) 15(25) 5(5) 5(5) 125(90) 15(10) 75(80) 15(20) 180(175) 40(30) 220(250) 30(25) 40(40) 40(55) 145(140) 85(115) 185(175) 40(50) 70(90) 15(20) 160(180) 15(25) 210(165) 15(15) 25(35) 10(35) 20(25) 5(10) 15(40) 170(150) 10(20) 45(60) 205(205) 5(10) 60(35) 10(25) 20(35) 125(145) 1710(1275) 110(55) 100(110) 1585(1310) 20(15) 100(120) 1220(930) 265(225) 300(285) 2570(2280) 175(160) 215(225) 2140(2110) 135(165) 45(65) 25(30) 60(70) 30(40) 3080(2525) 145(225) 30(40) 2230(2385) 195(165) 155(130) 980(680) 205(245) 190(255) 965(955) 105(140) 235(235) 35(25) 165(240) 35(20) 340(250) 20(25) 25(15) 320(305) 45(60) 15(20) 145(175) 35(50) 10(15) 5(5) 25(35) 30(40) 5(5) 175(215) 30(40) 140(190) 130(180) 45(50) 45(60) 345(245) 35(45) 310(265) 70(90) 5(10) 300(170) 95(85) 15(25) 275(215) 70(75) 175(215) 130(160) 15(15) 60(35) 145(200) 90(130) 15(25) 155(185) 85(75) 150(200) 110(140) 35(25) 40(20) 25(30) 2265(1935) 245(335) 30(35) 1980(2005) 75(100) 55(70) 2530(2295) 2075(2135) 40(55) 95(120) 2515(2210) 1985(2025) 95(125) 75(70) 55(40) 150(130) 25(10) 30(25) 135(55) 205(235) 805(735) 85(120) 125(130) 115(90) 120(135) 120(100) 80(80) 280(255) 60(35) 5(5) 40(20) 35(30) 5(5) 20(30) 15(25) 5(5) 5(5) 125(90) 15(10) 75(80) 15(20) 180(175) 40(30) 220(250) 30(25) 40(40) 40(55) 145(140) 85(115) 185(175) 40(50) 70(90) 15(20) 160(180) 15(25) 210(165) 15(15) 25(35) 10(35) 20(25) 5(10) 15(40) 170(150) 10(20) 45(60) 205(205) 5(10) 60(35) 10(25) 20(35) 125(145) 1290(975) 110(55) 100(110) 1200(1000) 20(15) 100(125) 915(700) 265(225) 300(285) 1975(1775) 175(160) 215(225) 1655(1655) 135(165) 45(65) 25(30) 60(70) 30(40) 2350(1950) 145(225) 30(40) 1790(1845) 195(165) 155(130) 750(530) 205(245) 190(255) 755(760) 105(140) 235(235) 35(25) 165(240) 35(20) 340(250) 20(25) 25(15) 320(305) 45(60) 15(20) 145(175) 35(50) 10(15) 5(5) 25(35) 30(40) 5(5) 175(215) 30(40) 140(190) 130(180) 45(50) 45(60) 345(245) 35(45) 310(265) 70(90) 5(10) 300(170) 95(85) 15(25) 275(215) 70(75) 175(215) 130(160) 15(15) 60(35) 145(200) 90(130) 15(25) 155(185) 85(75) 150(200) 110(140) 35(25) 210(258) 10(14) 136(186) 242(331) 267(335) 71(97) 135(166) 10(12) 152(188) 10(14) 210(258) 136(186) 199(273) 96(131) 234(321) 30(41) 55(68) 378(518) 349(431) 38(52) 95(117) 346(445) 243(314) 91(124) 32(40) 10(12) 75(92) 10(14) 126(173) 43(59) 10(12) 75(91) 20(24) 75(91) 10(14) 20(28) 10(14) 10(14) 50(62) 35(43) 13(17) 102(126) 18(24) 128(176) 12(15) 15(18) 38(52) 50(65) 83(114) 50(64) 37(46) 70(86) 13(17) 63(86) 15(21) 72(89) 12(15) 25(31) 10(14) 10(14) 13(17) 97(122) 10(12) 40(55) 101(136) 22(28) 10(12) 17(22) 83(114) 68(93) 53(72) 75(92) 68(93) 22(28) 10(12) 120(148) 232(286) 10(12) 10(14) 67(83) 30(37) 50(69) 139(190) 13(17) 142(175) 35(48) 10(12) 25(31) 30(37) 172(212) 30(41) 138(190) 128(176) 22(28) 25(31) 12(15) 10(12) 60(75) 25(35) 72(89) 10(14) 50(68) 53(72) 93(128) 23(31) 25(35) 35(48) 10(12) 25(31) 40(55) 172(212) 130(160) 12(15) 144(197) 71(97) 15(21) 125(154) 39(40) 146(200) 96(131) Intersection Level of Service = Stop Sign = All-Way Stop = Traffic Signal LEGEND X/X x/x STOP ALL WAY 2130(2110) 95(30) 5(5) 75(45) 20(5) 90(70) 5(20) 10(10) 5(10) 5(20) 70(25) 5(5) 5(5) 100(65) 5(10) 50(35) 95(65) 45(40) 110(85) 60(50) 270(240) 140(185) 825(765) 105(140) 180(135) 2335(1990) 175(175) 215(225) 1905(1785) 105(120) 40(30) 45(25) 75(35) 25(10) 20(10) 135(55) 30(30) 45(25) 60(35) 15(30) 20(20) 20(25) 5(10) 230(180) 30(20) 5(10) 5(5) 5(5) 75(25) 15(10) 40(35) 60(35) 5(5) 40(20) 20(15) 5(5) 10(15) 15(10) 25(20) 35(5) 5(10) 5(10) 30(30) 1195(900) 255(210) 75(60) 1020(905) 75(105) 145(115) 910(595) 175(205) 40(30) 1640(1180) 110(55) 45(35) 1510(1215) 20(15) 10(5) 35(25) 285(170) 10(10) 260(195) 15(15) 5(10) 275(135) 60(35) 35(20) 265(160) 10(10) 25(15) 225(175) 20(25) 1590(1570) 95(30) 5(5) 75(45) 20(5) 90(70) 5(20) 10(10) 5(10) 5(20) 70(25) 5(5) 5(5) 100(65) 5(10) 50(35) 95(65) 45(40) 110(85) 60(50) 270(240) 140(185) 615(570) 105(140) 180(135) 1740(1485) 175(175) 215(225) 1420(1330) 105(120) 40(30) 45(25) 75(35) 25(10) 20(10) 135(55) 20(20) 20(25) 5(10) 230(180) 30(20) 5(10) 5(5) 5(5) 75(25) 15(10) 40(35) 60(35) 5(5) 40(20) 20(15) 5(5) 10(15) 15(10) 25(20) 35(5) 5(10) 5(10) 30(30) 890(670) 255(210) 75(60) 760(675) 75(105) 145(115) 680(445) 175(205) 40(30) 1220(880) 110(55) 45(35) 1125(905) 20(15) 30(30) 45(25) 60(35) 15(30) 10(5) 35(25) 285(170) 10(10) 260(195) 15(15) 5(10) 275(135) 60(35) 35(20) 265(160) 10(10) 25(15) 225(175) 20(25) Intersection Level of Service = Stop Sign = All-Way Stop = Traffic Signal LEGEND X/X x/x STOP ALL WAY 1650(1645) 85(185) 20(40) 2235(1850) 1745(1825) 20(25) 115(120) 30(20) 55(95) 40(65) 20(30) 60(70) 35(40) 2140(1725) 70(85) 30(40) 1605(1665) 115(80) 5(5) 135(135) 25(15) 145(125) 20(20) 15(10) 10(10) 45(25) 115(115) 15(10) 20(15) 125(110) 15(15) 60(45) 110(85) 55(50) 110(85) 95(85) 270(240) 165(230) 610(570) 105(140) 205(160) 1770(1520) 175(175) 215(225) 1435(1430) 125(130) 55(75) 65(40) 125(75) 25(10) 35(20) 135(55) 20(20) 15(40) 60(80) 20(30) 15(10) 90(155) 15(10) 45(45) 45(25) 30(30) 35(40) 10(10) 60(35) 80(110) 30(30) 40(50) 55(65) 5(10) 295(235) 60(45) 5(10) 10(10) 5(5) 105(55) 20(10) 60(75) 60(35) 15(20) 40(20) 40(35) 10(10) 20(25) 15(15) 35(30) 40(10) 20(15) 15(15) 50(50) 855(670) 255(210) 115(115) 735(655) 75(105) 150(125) 655(440) 180(220) 65(55) 1175(845) 110(55) 70(65) 1070(855) 20(15) 10(15) 35(55) 15(20) 80(165) 70(85) 70(155) 20(50) 45(40) 35(25) 320(210) 15(20) 300(235) 35(35) 5(10) 285(155) 90(70) 35(20) 315(220) 15(20) 25(15) 275(225) 45(50) Meadowbrook Ave. College Ave. College Ave. Shields St. BNSF RR Horsetooth Rd. Drake Rd. Swallow Rd. PROJECT SITE CL=104.85' S44°34'03"W 38.59' ǻ=43°38'47" R=100.50' L=76.56' CH=N68°05'04"W CL=74.72' N89°54'28"W 88.78' ǻ=44°28'31" R=49.50' L=38.42' CH=N67°40'12"W CL=37.47' N45°25'57"W 110.05' C396 N9°54'26"W 121.44' ǻ=54°35'43" R=24.50' L=23.35' CH=N17°25'32"E CL=22.47' N44°43'23"E 163.56' ǻ=41°37'00" R=29.50' L=21.43' CH=N65°31'54"E CL=20.96' ǻ=91°38'03" R=15.00' L=23.99' CH=S46°03'22"E CL=21.51' C319 N89°52'37"E 173.52' S0°07'23"E 12.82' N61°55'20"E 65.54' C320 S89°57'07"E 300.84' N0°07'17"W 111.88' S89°52'43"W 271.43' N0°07'17"W 27.00' N89°52'43"E 699.00' S0°07'17"E 27.00' S89°52'43"W 309.07' S0°07'17"E 112.23' L41 C321 C322 L42 C323 N89°54'06"E 168.32' ǻ=2°13'00" R=1319.30' L=51.04' CH=S09°06'44"W CL=51.04' C324 C325 L43 C326 ǻ=91°27'56" R=24.00' L=38.31' CH=S22°46'34"W CL=34.37' C327 S30°10'24"W 29.85' C328 S16°08'18"W 197.91' C329 C330 S78°34'14"E 178.34' ǻ=23°28'23" R=29.00' L=11.88' CH=N89°41'34"E CL=11.80' S16°41'35"W 58.37' C331 N78°34'14"W 135.96' C332 C333 C334 S5°11'35"W 51.58' C335 C336 ǻ=100°23'53" R=24.00' L=42.05' CH=S39°57'00"E CL=36.88' N89°51'03"E 208.69' S5°51'32"E 62.31' S89°51'03"W 253.49' ǻ=61°43'04" R=24.00' L=25.85' CH=S58°59'31"W CL=24.62' ǻ=37°24'18" R=351.00' L=229.14' CH=S46°50'09"W CL=225.10' C337 ǻ=91°00'13" R=19.00' L=30.18' CH=S00°36'06"W CL=27.10' L44 ǻ=5°34'35" R=437.56' L=42.59' CH=S46°37'02"E CL=42.57' ǻ=41°40'03" R=319.00' L=231.99' CH=S69°40'40"E CL=226.91' N89°46'52"E 220.48' ǻ=31°47'38" R=20.78' L=11.53' CH=N73°57'11"E CL=11.38' S0°08'53"E 17.92' S89°51'07"W 229.00' ǻ=44°59'59" R=364.41' L=286.21' CH=N67°38'53"W CL=278.91' N45°08'54"W 128.38' C338 C339 N45°25'53"W 424.02' L45 ǻ=49°20'43" R=90.00' L=77.51' CH=S69°14'25"W CL=75.14' L46 ǻ=44°41'43" R=25.00' L=19.50' CH=S22°13'12"W CL=19.01' S0°07'39"E 142.02' S89°51'07"W 41.14' N0°07'39"W 106.38' C341 C342 C343 L47 S0°05'32"W 149.43' C344 S51°57'44"W 345.20' N89°54'28"W N0°05'32"E 250.73' C345 N89°54'28"W 184.22' L48 S89°54'28"E 177.01' C346 L49 ǻ=11°06'07" R=102.69' L=19.90' CH=N04°28'17"W CL=19.87' N0°05'32"E 511.03' ǻ=90°00'00" R=49.50' L=77.75' CH=N45°05'32"E CL=70.00' L50 C347 N0°05'32"E 32.76' C348 S0°05'32"W 36.62' C349 S89°54'28"E 116.76' C350 S45°25'33"E 131.78' C351 L51 L52 C352 N45°25'57"W 80.08' C353 C354 N45°25'57"W 71.61' S45°25'57"E 75.88' C355 L53 C356 L54 N44°32'59"E 224.66' N38°15'14"E 80.79' N45°03'21"E 281.42' L55 C357 C358 S89°52'37"W 140.07' C359 L56 C360 L62 L61 L60 S45°08'11"E 319.92' ǻ=87°33'17" R=56.68' L=86.62' CH=S01°21'32"E CL=78.44' S45°05'53"W 116.14' L59 L58 S45°25'57"E 117.41' L57 C364 C363 N16°08'18"E 197.91' C362 N30°10'24"E 29.85' ǻ=120°07'13" R=98.00' L=205.46' CH=N29°53'31"W CL=169.84' N89°57'07"W 424.45' C361 S45°25'51"E 391.95' ǻ=140°02'57" R=23.12' L=56.51' CH=N64°32'41"E CL=43.46' C371 N5°11'35"E 51.58' C370 C369 C368 C367 C366 L63 N45°25'57"W 115.46' C372 S44°34'03"W 278.57' ǻ=90°00'00" R=55.00' L=86.39' CH=S00°25'57"E CL=77.78' C387 N44°34'03"E 279.61' C382 L68 C383 L69 C384 L70 C385 C386 L71 ǻ=68°04'33" R=24.74' L=29.39' CH=N79°02'55"W CL=27.69' S44°34'09"W 83.18' N45°25'53"W 174.17' C375 C373 L67 C381 L66 C380 S44°34'09"W 83.18' C379 L65 C378 L64 C377 C376 L74 L75 C388 S51°57'44"W 249.92' N89°41'42"W 111.55' N0°05'32"E 179.32' ǻ=90°00'00" R=25.00' L=39.27' CH=N45°05'32"E CL=35.36' L72 C389 L73 L77 L78 C390 L79 C391 L80 ǻ=11°15'00" R=77.69' L=15.25' CH=N04°23'51"W CL=15.23' N0°05'32"E 510.76' ǻ=90°00'00" R=25.00' L=39.27' CH=N45°05'32"E CL=35.36' S89°54'28"E 199.76' ǻ=44°28'31" R=24.50' L=19.02' CH=S67°40'12"E CL=18.54' S45°25'33"E 104.42' S44°43'23"W 227.90' ǻ=54°35'43" R=54.50' L=51.93' CH=S17°25'32"W CL=49.99' S9°54'26"E 121.46' ǻ=35°29'29" R=54.53' L=33.78' CH=S27°40'40"E CL=33.24' L76 L83 C393 L82 C392 L81 L84 C394 L33 L34 C314 L35 C315 C316 C317 C318 L36 ǻ=6°08'15" R=243.83' L=26.12' CH=S14°35'37"W CL=26.11' L22 N89°57'34"W 129.72' L23 L24 S44°28'37"W 25.00' L25 ǻ=45°34'16" R=84.50' L=67.21' CH=N22°41'30"W CL=65.45' L26 N89°57'34"W 370.09' S0°05'38"W 127.78' C302 C303 S43°32'17"E 258.55' S44°28'37"W 25.02' L27 C304 C305 S0°05'38"W 19.59' L28 C306 L29 C307 L30 C308 C309 C310 C311 N0°05'38"E 271.66' C312 N89°54'22"W 179.39' L31 S89°54'22"E 179.40' ǻ=90°00'00" R=25.00' L=39.27' CH=N45°05'38"E CL=35.36' N0°05'38"E 173.04' C300 S45°05'38"W 68.77' C301 L20 S89°57'34"E 524.32' L21 L37 L40 L39 L38 C374 N89°52'45"E 35.49' C313 C340 C365 C395 L32 CHANGE IN COURSE ONLY. LEGEND: 149.06' 42.98' 24.80' 23.43' 9.59' 486.30' 49.57' 36.97' 15.05' 187.07' 473.78' 240.26' 75.75' 38.37' ǻ=25°46'23" R=248.00' L=111.56' CH=S81°01'34"W CL=110.62' 279.77' 316.45' 110.00' 118.48' 105.53' 11.78' 72.22' 155.28' 206.33' 71.86' 117.18' 101.07' 155.27' 42.38' ǻ=65°35'09" R=25.00' L=28.62' CH=S78°13'31"E CL=27.08' N44°28'37"E 49.43' C397 C398 ǻ=65°57'37" R=56.50' L=65.04' CH=N78°24'45"W CL=61.51' ǻ=78°31'18" R=25.00' L=34.26' CH=S83°49'43"W CL=31.64' 86.60' ǻ=90°00'00" R=25.00' L=39.27' CH=S00°25'57"E CL=35.36' ǻ=45°34'16" R=59.50' L=47.32' CH=S22°41'30"E CL=46.09' LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING CURVE TABLE CURVE CHD BEARING CHORD LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CURVE TABLE CURVE CHD BEARING CHORD LENGTH RADIUS DELTA Drawn: Designed: Project No.: Date: Sheet No.: Checked.: Book No.: OF SEC. 25, T7N, R69W CITY OF FORT COLLINS COUNTY OF LARIMER STATE OF COLORADO NAV NAV 8 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION PAGE 8 OF 8 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION 12/21/2012 8 0120302.00 EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT BEING A REPLAT OF TRACTS 1-3, 7, 8 AND 10 OF THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL EXPANSION;TRACTS D, E, U AND A PORTION OF TRACT T OF SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE FIFTH FILING;THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL FOLEY'S EXPANSION; AND A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF THE REPLAT OF TRACTS F, G, AND J & VACATED SERVICE ROAD SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE FIFTH FILING; LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO A PART THEREOF BEING A REPLAT OF TRACTS 1-3, 7, 8 AND 10 OF THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL EXPANSION;TRACTS D, E, U AND A PORTION OF TRACT T OF SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE FIFTH FILING;THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL FOLEY'S EXPANSION; AND A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF THE REPLAT OF TRACTS F, G, AND J & VACATED SERVICE ROAD SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE FIFTH FILING; LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO Drawn: Designed: Project No.: Date: Sheet No.: Checked.: Book No.: OF CITY OF FORT COLLINS COUNTY OF LARIMER STATE OF COLORADO TWL NAV 4 PAGE 4 OF 8 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION 12/21/2012 8 0120302.00 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION EASEMENT DEDICATION SHEET MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 6 MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 5 SHEET INDEX 4 5 6 7 A PART THEREOF BEING A REPLAT OF TRACTS 1-3, 7, 8 AND 10 OF THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL EXPANSION;TRACTS D, E, U AND A PORTION OF TRACT T OF SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE FIFTH FILING;THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL FOLEY'S EXPANSION; AND A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF THE REPLAT OF TRACTS F, G, AND J & VACATED SERVICE ROAD SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE FIFTH FILING; LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO CL=25.37' 6 : 83.18' ǻ R=99.00' L=31.93' &+ 1 ( CL=31.79' 6 : 65.42' ǻ R=24.00' L=28.16' &+ 6 ( CL=26.57' 1 : 180.17' 6 : 21.52' Drawn: Designed: Project No.: Date: Sheet No.: Checked.: Book No.: OF SEC. 25, T7N, R69W CITY OF FORT COLLINS COUNTY OF LARIMER STATE OF COLORADO TWL NAV 3 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION PAGE 3 OF 8 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION 12/21/2012 8 0120302.00 DETAIL A EXISTING PLATTED PARCELS EASEMENT VACATION SHEET AND A PART THEREOF BEING A REPLAT OF TRACTS 1-3, 7, 8 AND 10 OF THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL EXPANSION;TRACTS D, E, U AND A PORTION OF TRACT T OF SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE FIFTH FILING;THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL FOLEY'S EXPANSION; AND A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF THE REPLAT OF TRACTS F, G, AND J & VACATED SERVICE ROAD SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE FIFTH FILING; LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO 6 : 6 : 93.16' ǻ R=301.32' L=199.89' &+ 6 : CL=196.24' 6 : 137.00' 1 : 1 ( 1 : 295.55' ǻ R=243.83' L=189.80' &+ 1 ( CL=185.04' (OVERALL CURVE) 1 ( 68.48' 1 : 18.50' 277.05' ǻ R=359.23' L=285.93' &+ 1 ( CL=278.44' 1 ( 423.87' 6 ( 159.00' 6 : 245.98' 1 : 159.00' 1 ( 245.98' 6 ( 143.96' 1 : 143.96' 6 : 305.44' 1 ( 305.44' 1 : 115.00' 1 ( 110.00' 6 ( 115.00' 6 : 110.00' 166.86' 1 : 76.34' 6 : 54.55' 6 ( 71.61' 6 : 60.40' 6 ( 148.91' 6 : 112.00' 1 : 242.95' 6 : 168.32' 6 : 16.58' 1 ( 19.81' ǻ R=359.23' L=117.18' CL=116.66' &+ 6 : ǻ R=359.23' L=168.75' 1 ( 167.20' 52.21' 141.00' ǻ R=1319.21' L=187.07' &+ 6 : CL=186.92' ǻ R=193.41' L=127.73' &+ 6 : CL=125.42' 1 : 46.00' 6 : 197.91' 1 : 151.44' 1 : 177.69' 1 : 59.79' 1 : 117.41' 6 : 93.53' 6 : 32.02' 1 ( 126.18' 1 ( 6 ( 259.52' 1 : 148.91' 6 : 112.00' 20.49' 1 : 49.34' 6 : ǻ R=86.50' L=135.87' &+ 6 ( CL=122.33' 6 ( 96.49' 6 : 329.50' ǻ R=120.94' L=108.45' &+ 6 : CL=104.85' 6 : 38.59' 1 : 52.08' ǻ R=218.66' L=100.72' &+ 6 : CL=99.83' ǻ R=49.50' L=77.04' &+ 6 : CL=69.50' ǻ R=100.50' L=76.56' &+ 1 : CL=74.72' 1 : 277.83' 1 ( ǻ R=29.50' L=46.34' &+ 1 ( CL=41.72' 6 ( 20.98' 1 ( 147.54' 1 ( 225.00' 1 : 115.46' 6 ( 391.95' 6 : 278.57' 1 : 75.69' ǻ R=100.00' L=103.21' &+ 1 ( CL=98.69' ǻ R=55.00' L=86.39' &+ 6 ( CL=77.78' 6 ( 38.21' ǻ R=133.00' L=123.33' &+ 1 ( CL=118.96' ǻ R=1319.21' L=149.06' &+ 6 : CL=148.98' 6 : 473.78' 1 ( 29.85' ǻ R=499.00' L=122.23' &+ 1 ( CL=121.93' 1 : 6 ( 135.96' 1 ( 42.98' 58.37' 6 : ǻ R=351.00' L=104.16' &+ 1 ( CL=103.78' ǻ R=499.00' L=104.05' &+ 1 : CL=103.86' 1 ( 51.58' ǻ R=279.00' L=183.21' &+ 1 ( CL=179.94' ǻ R=135.00' L=123.03' &+ 1 ( CL=118.82' 1 ( 384.08' ǻ R=319.00' L=231.99' &+ 6 ( CL=226.91' ǻ R=299.04' L=102.30' &+ 6 : CL=101.80' 6 ( 72.86' ǻ R=351.00' L=229.14' &+ 6 : CL=225.10' 1 ( ǻ R=24.00' L=25.85' &+ 6 : CL=24.62' 24.80' 62.31' 23.43' C36 ǻ R=199.57' L=99.45' &+ 6 : CL=98.42' C8 C12 C4 C19 C27 6 ( 144.00' L3 C1 L5 L4 L6 C2 C3 L7 1 ( 1 : 155.28' 6 ( 155.27' 1 ( 109.02' 1 ( 249.02' C6 C5 C9 C7 C10 ǻ R=274.00' L=59.76' &+ 1 ( CL=59.64' C14 C20 C13 C16 C15 C17 C18 C22 C23 C21 C24 C25 C29 C26 C30 C28 ǻ R=24.00' L=42.05' &+ 1 : CL=36.88' C35 C34 ǻ R=437.56' L=42.59' &+ 6 ( CL=42.57' 1 : C37 77.62' 6 : 94.15' 1 : 113.09' 6 : 1 ( 6 : 6 ( 129.00' 1 ( 1 : 129.25' 6 ( 13.54' 6 : 31.16' 1 ( 51.58' 6 : 23.62' 6 : 89.19' 1 : 62.11' ǻ R=259.23' L=206.33' &+ 1 ( CL=200.93' 6 : 29.85' L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 12.82' 6 : 35.38' 39.93' 32.41' 37.74' 67.66' 24.96' 44.05' 45.69' 58.90' 41.25' 40.63' 28.85' 40.76' 68.00' 50.00' 31.50' 31.50' 40.00' 35.00' 35.00' 62.00' 35.00' 52.00' 100.00' 81.50' 38.00' ǻ R=1319.21' L=51.04' &+ 6 : CL=51.04' 63.79' ǻ R=1114.57' L=327.62' &+ 6 : CL=326.44' ǻ R=534.00' L=130.81' &+ 6 : CL=130.48' 17.92' ǻ R=98.00' L=205.46' &+ 6 ( CL=169.84' 6 ( ǻ R=201.22' L=136.39' &+ 1 ( CL=133.79' ǻ R=202.13' L=126.25' &+ 1 ( CL=124.21' 1 ( 140.07' ǻ R=173.11' L=73.29' &+ 1 ( CL=72.74' 6 : 65.54' ǻ R=200.00' L=103.17' &+ 6 : CL=102.03' 1 : ǻ R=133.00' L=86.09' &+ 1 : CL=84.59' 106.84' 123.25' 13.75' 5.01' 94.05' 37.07' 16.66' 38.59' 20.49' 101.10' 24.90' 183.97' 66.97' 158.04' ǻ R=243.83' L=114.05' &+ 6 : CL=113.02' 1 ( 15.00' ǻ R=15.00' L=23.56' &+ 1 : CL=21.21' 1 ( 148.92' 1 : ǻ R=24.50' L=23.35' &+ 1 ( CL=22.47' 1 : 121.44' ǻ R=24.50' L=15.18' &+ 1 : CL=14.93' 1 : 110.05' ǻ R=49.50' L=38.42' &+ 1 : CL=37.47' 1 : 88.78' ǻ R=646.10' L=99.37' &+ 6 : CL=99.27' ǻ R=23.12' L=56.51' &+ 1 ( CL=43.46' ǻ R=56.50' L=65.04' &+ 1 : CL=61.51' ǻ R=314.00' L=206.19' &+ 6 : CL=202.51' 45.50' 1 ( 65.00' 521.07' (R) LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING CURVE TABLE CURVE CHD BEARING CHORD LENGTH RADIUS DELTA Drawn: Designed: Project No.: Date: Sheet No.: Checked.: Book No.: OF SEC. 25, T7N, R69W CITY OF FORT COLLINS COUNTY OF LARIMER STATE OF COLORADO TWL NAV 2 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION PAGE 2 OF 8 FOOTHILLS MALL REDEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION 12/21/2012 8 0120302.00 SUBDIVISION LOTS AND TRACTS A PART THEREOF BEING A REPLAT OF TRACTS 1-3, 7, 8 AND 10 OF THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL EXPANSION;TRACTS D, E, U AND A PORTION OF TRACT T OF SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE FIFTH FILING;THE FOOTHILLS FASHION MALL FOLEY'S EXPANSION; AND A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF THE REPLAT OF TRACTS F, G, AND J & VACATED SERVICE ROAD SOUTHMOOR VILLAGE FIFTH FILING; LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OF COLORADO 016'5 private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: 26’-0" 24’-0" 26’-0" 25’-0" 23’-0" 20’-0" Finish Floor Finish Floor E E-12 E-7 W-1 C-1 S-3 P-5 E-1 T-2 W-1 P-1 W-1 C-1 S-3 W-3 S-3 E-12 E-7 P-2 P-5 W-1 E-12 W-3 W-3 E-7 S-3 T-2 E-12 C-1 S-3 P-2 T-2 W-1 E-12 C-1 P-5 F O OTHILLS 29’-0" 26’-0" 24’-0" 25’-0" 23’-0" 29-0" 29-0" 20’-0" Finish Floor Finish Floor Finish Floor P-2 W-1 S-3 E-1 E-12 W-3 S-3 Match Line Match Line KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: P-1 Matthews Paint to match B.M. 1477 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy h eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 E-2 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Texas Leather AC-3 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-11 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Brandon Beige 977 S-4 Halquist Stone Ledge Collection - Chilton Weatheredge Brown B-4 Metro Brick 507 Empire - Wire Cut Finish T-4 Ceramic Technics Ltd. Pavimenti Fabula Centere 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-12 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Fairview Taupe HC-85 C-1 TBD Precast Concrete - Medium Tan - Sand Finish KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: P-2 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Eaglerock 1469 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-7 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone P-1 Matthews Paint to match B.M. 1477 W-2 Trespa Harmony Oak - Matte Finish S-6 Halquist Stone Castlestone Collection - Waukesha White KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: 105 Fieldstone - Smooth Finish B-3 Metro Brick 107 Parkway - Wire Cut Finish Driftwood Nutmeg Wheat S-10 Arriscraft Driftwood - Smooth Face 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 roc eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 P-1 Matthews Paint to match B.M. 1477 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 cop alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 san eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige E-1 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Rockport Gray HC-106 E-12 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M.Fairview Taupe HC-85 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-11 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Brandon Beige 977 KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT F O OTHILLS P-1 P-1 S-3 S-4 S-5 W-2 W-1 E-11 S-3 P-2 T-3 P-1 S-4 T-3 P-1 P-1 T-3 W-1 W-1 E-11 S-5 E-8 W-2 E-6 S-3 S-3 E-8 E-6 S-5 W-2 E-11 P-2 20’-0" 24’-0" 22’-0" 28’-0" FInish Floor FInish Floor 13’-10" 20’-0" 24’-0" 28’-0" 22’-0" Finish Floor Finish Floor 13-10" 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed alum E-2 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Texas Leather AC-3 W-3 Trespa Italian Walnut - Matte Finish Glenwood Brown 1141 P-5 Matthews Paint to match B.M.Glenwood Brown 1141 T-5 Ceramic Technics Ltd. Studio Marmi Limestone - Delorian Grey Honed 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc- alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone E-14 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Graystone 1475 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 99 P-2 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Eaglerock 1469 S-5 Halquist Stone Castlestone Collection - Hamilton Buff W-2 Trespa Harmony Oak - Matte Finish Warm Apple Crisp 1091 P-10 Matthews Paint to match B.M.Warm Apple Crisp 1091 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley g alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy ho eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 P-1 Matthews Paint to match B.M. 1477 B-3 Metro Brick 107 Parkway - Wire Cut Finish C-1 TBD Precast Concrete - Medium Tan - Sand Finish KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 P-1 Matthews Paint to match B.M. 1477 S-8 Boral Stone Profit Ledgestone - Shale T-4 Ceramic Technics Ltd. Pavimenti Fabula - Centere 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 E-7 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Alexandria Beige HC-77 C-1 TBD Precast Concrete - Medium Tan - Sand Finish KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: E-13 E-11 P-5 S-6 P-1 E-15 P-9 W-1 S-6 P-1 P-2 P-2 21’-0" Finish Floor Finish Floor 29’-0" 23’-0" 13’-3" 29-0" 21’-0" 23’-0" 18’-0" 13’-3" Finish Floor Finish Floor P-9 P-5 P-1 P-2 21’-0" Finish Floor Finish Floor 29’-0" 23’-0" 13’-3" 29-0" 21’-0" Finish Floor Match Line Match Line KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: AS-1 Timberline HD Ultra - Barkwood KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: 24’-5" 17’-0" 12’-4" 32’-6" 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: S-4 Halquist Stone Ledge Collection - Chilton Weatheredge Brown 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 te alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockp eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 P-10 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Alexandria Beige HC-77 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 b E-5 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Bleeker Beige HC-80 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 P-8 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Davenport Tan HC-76 KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: E-9 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Copley Gray HC-104 S-7 Boral Stone Profit Ledgestone - Platinum 1477 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-10 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Brushed Aluminum 1485 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed alum P-6 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Rockport Gray HC-105 W-1 Trespa Elegant Oak - Matte Finish T-5 Ceramic Technics Ltd. Studio Marmi Limestone - Delorian Grey Honed 1477 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 P-7 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Brushed Aluminum 1485 KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 P-2 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Eaglerock 1469 S-4 Halquist Stone Ledge Collection - Chilton Weatheredge Brown P-11 ATAS International, Inc. Slate Glenwood Brown 1141 P-5 Matthews Paint to match B.M.Glenwood Brown 1141 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: 26’-0" 39’-6" 34’-0" 19’-0" 21’-0" KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: T-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-6 T-2 P-3 S-3 W-2 W-4 E-5 B-1 S-9 P-3 C-1 P-1 P-6 P-2 E-4 T-2 S-2 P-6 P-2 P-2 S-3 E-6 P-1 P-1 W-1 W-1 B-1 E-6 P-3 B-1 S-2 E-6 B-1 E-16 E-4 B-1 B-1 S-3 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 E-1 B-1 E-1 S-3 P-1 W-4 E-6 E-7 B-3 E-5 E-4 P-1 P-1 W-2 B-1 E-15 W-2 P-1 S-3 T-4 P-2 P-1 S-1 S-3 P-2 P-7 28’-0" 24’-0" 24’-0" 28’-0" 25’-0" 29’-0" 26’-0" 28’-0" 39’-6" 28’-0" 24’-0" 34’-0" 26’-0" 31’-0" 36’-0" 38’-4" 27’-3" 38’-4" 26’-6" 20’-0" 27’-3" 21’-0" 19’-6" 27’-6" 39’-6" 26’-6" 20’-6" 19’-0" 32’-0" 40’-0" 33’-0" 28’-0" 25’-0" 26’-0" Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground and gates along sides) Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground) Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground) KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: P-7 E-15 E-12 W-1 T-1 E-6 W-2 P-1 E-5 E-12 S-1 xx C-1 P-1 T-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-6 T-2 P-3 S-3 W-2 W-4 E-5 B-1 S-9 P-3 C-1 P-1 P-6 P-2 E-4 T-2 S-2 P-6 P-2 P-2 S-3 E-6 P-1 P-1 W-1 W-1 B-1 E-6 P-3 B-1 S-2 E-6 B-1 E-16 E-4 B-1 B-1 S-3 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 E-1 B-1 E-1 S-3 P-1 W-4 E-6 E-7 B-3 E-5 E-4 P-1 P-1 W-2 B-1 E-15 W-2 P-1 S-3 T-4 P-2 P-1 S-1 S-3 P-2 P-7 28’-0" 24’-0" 24’-0" 28’-0" 25’-0" 29’-0" 26’-0" 28’-0" 39’-6" 28’-0" 24’-0" 34’-0" 26’-0" 31’-0" 36’-0" 38’-4" 27’-3" 38’-4" 26’-6" 20’-0" 27’-3" 21’-0" 19’-6" 27’-6" 39’-6" 26’-6" 20’-6" 19’-0" 32’-0" 40’-0" 33’-0" 28’-0" 25’-0" 26’-0" Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground and gates along sides) Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground) Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground) KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: P-6 P-2 P-2 S-3 E-6 P-1 P-1 W-1 W-1 B-1 E-6 P-3 B-1 S-2 E-6 B-1 E-16 E-4 B-1 B-1 S-3 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 E-1 B-1 E-1 S-3 P-1 W-4 E-6 E-7 B-3 E-5 E-4 P-1 P-1 W-2 B-1 E-15 W-2 P-1 S-3 T-4 P-2 P-1 S-1 S-3 P-2 P-7 28’-0" 24’-0" 24’-0" 28’-0" 25’-0" 29’-0" 26’-0" 28’-0" 39’-6" 28’-0" 24’-0" 34’-0" 26’-0" 31’-0" 36’-0" 38’-4" 27’-3" 38’-4" 26’-6" 20’-0" 27’-3" 21’-0" 19’-6" 27’-6" 39’-6" 26’-6" 20’-6" 19’-0" 32’-0" 40’-0" 33’-0" 28’-0" 25’-0" 26’-0" Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground and gates along sides) Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground) Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground) KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: Screen wall Loading Dock Area 26’-0" 39’-6" 34’-0" 19’-0" 21’-0" KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: Bulding Elevations Main Mall - North 28’-0" 25’-0" 26’-0" Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground and gates along sides) Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground) Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground) KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: 40’-0" 33’-0" 28’-0" 25’-0" 26’-0" Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground and gates along sides) Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground) Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground) KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT P-1 P-1 P-1 P-6 W-4 E-5 B-1 S-9 C-1 P-1 P-6 P-2 E-4 T-2 S-2 P-6 S-3 E-5 E-4 W-2 B-1 W-2 P-1 S-1 28’-0" 39’-6" 28’-0" 24’-0" 34’-0" 26’-6" 21’-0" 19’-6" Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground) Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground) 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: B-1 E-16 E-4 B-1 B-1 S-3 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 E-1 B-1 E-1 S-3 P-1 W-4 E-6 E-7 B-3 E-5 E-4 P-1 P-1 W-2 B-1 E-15 W-2 P-1 S-3 T-4 P-2 P-1 S-1 S-3 P-2 P-7 39’-6" 38’-4" 26’-6" 20’-0" 27’-3" 21’-0" 19’-6" 27’-6" 39’-6" 26’-6" 20’-6" 19’-0" 32’-0" 40’-0" 33’-0" 28’-0" 25’-0" 26’-0" Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground and gates along sides) Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground) Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground) 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Cromwell Gray HC-103 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-5 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Bleeker Beige HC-80 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-6 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Sandy Hook Gray HC-108 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed alumin P-6 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Rockport Gray HC-105 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 P-7 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Brushed Aluminum 1485 W-4 DNP America / Dry Design to match Abet Laminati 1722 Sei-Due E-15 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Monroe Bisque HC-26 E-16 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Sweet Spring 1500 E-12 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M.Fairview Taupe HC-85 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 S-3 E-15 S-2 E-6 B-1 E-16 E-4 B-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 40’-0" 33’-0" 28’-0" 25’-0" 26’-0" Match Line Match Line E-16 B-1 B-1 P-1 P-1 E-1 B-1 19’-0" 32’-0" 40’-0" 33’-0" Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground and gates along sides) S-2 E-6 B-1 E-16 E-4 B-1 B-1 S-3 P-1 P-1 P-1 P-1 E-1 B-1 E-1 S-3 P-1 W-4 E-6 E-7 B-3 E-5 E-4 P-1 P-1 W-2 B-1 E-15 W-2 P-1 S-3 T-4 P-2 P-1 S-1 S-3 P-2 P-7 39’-6" 38’-4" 26’-6" 20’-0" 27’-3" 21’-0" 19’-6" 27’-6" 39’-6" 26’-6" 20’-6" 19’-0" 32’-0" 40’-0" 33’-0" 28’-0" 25’-0" 26’-0" Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground and gates along sides) Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground) Service Area (shielded by buildings in foreground) Match Line 1 Scale: East Mall 1/8”=Elevation 1’-0” 2 Scale: East Mall 1/8”=Elevation 1’-0” KEY PLAN SCALE - Not to Scale ENTERTAINMENT 1. Rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be totally screened from public view from sidewalks, adjacent properties and streets (public and street-like private drives). In cases where parapets do not accomplish sufficient screening, then free standing walls, matching the predominant color of the building, shall be constructed. 2. Electrical transformers shall not be located along South College Ave frontage unless totally screened from view from the public right-of-way by a solid enclosure that matches the predominant building material. For all other locations, electrical transformers shall be screened from view from public or private streets by a solid enclosure, landscaped materials, building facades or any combination thereof. General Notes: P-6 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Rockport Gray HC-105 Matte Finish Main Mall, Block 5A, Block 9 P-7 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Brushed Aluminum 1485 Matte Finish Main Mall, Block 9 P-8 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Davenport Tan HC-76 Matte Finish Block 10 P-9 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Willow Creek 1468 Matte Finish Block 1 P-10 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Warm Apple Crisp 1091 Matte Finish Block 3, Block 10 P-11 ATAS International, Inc. Slate Grey Matte Finish Block 7 P-12 ATAS International, Inc. Medium Bronze Matte Finish Rest 3 ASPHALT SHINGLES AS-1 Timberline HD Ultra - Barkwood Rest 4 W-1 Trespa Elegant Oak - Matte Finish T-1 Ceramic Technics Ltd. Ergon Alabastro Ultimate - Winter Haze Honed W-2 Trespa Harmony Oak - Matte Finish S-2 Halquist Stone Castlestone Collection - Princeton T-2 Ceramic Technics Ltd. Ergon Alabastro Ultimate - Ground Coffee Honed S-3 Halquist Stone Stackledge Collection - Fond Du Lac T-3 Ceramic Technics Ltd. Studio Cord Sandstone - Terra C-1 TBD Precast Concrete - Medium Tan - Sand Finish B-1 Metro Brick 505 Monument - Smooth Finish Driftwood Nutmeg Wheat S-9 Arriscraft Driftwood - Rocked Face S-1 TBD Buff Sandstone S-4 Halquist Stone Ledge Collection - Chilton Weatheredge Brown S-5 Halquist Stone Castlestone Collection - Hamilton Buff T-4 Ceramic Technics Ltd. Pavimenti Fabula - Centere Driftwood Nutmeg Wheat S-11 Arriscraft Wheat - Smooth Face S-7 Boral Stone Profit Ledgestone - Platinum T-5 Ceramic Technics Ltd. Studio Marmi Limestone - Delorian Grey Honed B-2 Metro Brick 105 Fieldstone - Smooth Finish S-6 Halquist Stone Castlestone Collection - Waukesha White S-8 Boral Stone Profit Ledgestone - Shale B-3 Metro Brick 107 Parkway - Wire Cut Finish Driftwood Nutmeg Wheat S-10 Arriscraft Driftwood - Smooth Face B-4 Metro Brick 507 Empire - Wire Cut Finish W-3 Trespa Italian Walnut - Matte Finish 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 P-2 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Eaglerock 1469 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 P-1 Matthews Paint to match B.M. 1477 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 P-3 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Alexandria Beige HC-77 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 P-4 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Gettysburg Gray HC-107 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-2 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Texas Leather AC-3 5 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-1 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Rockport Gray HC-106 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-3 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Cape May Cobblestone 1474 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-4 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Cromwell Gray HC-103 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-5 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Bleeker Beige HC-80 hc-76 copley gray hc-104 y hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 tone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-6 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Sandy Hook Gray HC-108 Glenwood Brown 1141 P-5 Matthews Paint to match B.M.Glenwood Brown 1141 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-7 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Alexandria Beige HC-77 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-8 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. 1477 well gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-9 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Copley Gray HC-104 5 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-10 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Brushed Aluminum 1485 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 P-6 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Rockport Gray HC-105 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 P-7 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Brushed Aluminum 1485 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-11 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Brandon Beige 977 E-12 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M.Fairview Taupe HC-85 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 alexandria beige hc-77 bleeker beige hc-80 rockport gray hc-105 gettysburg gray hc-107 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-13 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Eaglerock 1469 1477 fairview taupe hc-85 cromwell gray hc-103 texas leather ac-3 davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 sandy hook gray hc-108 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 E-14 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Graystone 1475 W-4 DNP America / Dry Design to match Abet Laminati 1722 Sei-Due E-15 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Monroe Bisque HC-26 E-16 Sto Corp or Dryvit to match B.M. Sweet Spring 1500 Warm Apple Crisp 1091 P-10 Matthews Paint to match B.M.Warm Apple Crisp 1091 P-11 ATAS International, Inc. Slate Grey P-12 ATAS International, Inc. Medium Bronze AS-1 Timberline HD Ultra - Barkwood davenport tan hc-76 copley gray hc-104 468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 P-8 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Davenport Tan HC-76 eagle rock 1469 graystone 1475 willow creek 1468 cape may cobblestone 1474 brandon beige 997 brushed aluminum 1485 P-9 Matthews Paint to match B.M. Willow Creek 1468 as the project lead and work with the Landscape Architect to achieve desired design goals and maximize quality and efficiency. Subcontractor Qualifications It is understood that a variety of subcontractors will be required to relocate the required trees in a timely manner. The following requirements should be implemented to ensure quality of operations: 6XEFRQWUDFWRUVHQJDJHGLQWUHHUHORFDWLRQPXVWKDYHH[SHULHQFHLQWUHHUHORFDWLRQVSHFLILFDOO\ in those 10 inches in diameter breast height (dbh) and greater and a detailed plan, prepared by the same Subcontractor, for moving the trees called for on any contract. $Q\WUHHWUDQVSODQWLQJ6XEFRQWUDFWRUHQJDJHGPXVWSURYLGHEDFNJURXQGLQIRUPDWLRQWRLQFOXGH a resume, descriptions ofsimilar projects, photographs and client contact names and phone numbers for at least three successful transplants of trees 10 inches dbh and greater. $OOWUDQVSODQWLQJVXEFRQWUDFWRU¶VSODQVVKDOOGHVFULEHDQGRULOOXVWUDWHLQGHWDLOR7KHPHWKRG of preparing trees for transplant, including root pruning where called for. o The method of excavating at the time of transplanting. o The method of containing root balls for various sizes of trees. o The proposed root ball width and depth for each size category of tree. o The equipment proposed to move the trees and its routing on the site for all aspects of the operation. o The schedule for all work related to this specification and any other details or suggestions, which vary from the methods, described in this specification. Season Transplanting operations shall occur when the ground is not frozen or otherwise in a satisfactory condition for working, after leaf fall and before bud break on deciduous trees. This shall be between October15th to April 15th unless otherwise deemed appropriate by the Certified Arborist. Allowable General Methods Trees less than 12 inches dbh may be hand dug or machine dug and may be moved by means RIDQK\GUDXOLF³WUHHVSDGH´,QWKHFDVHRIDWUHHVSDGHWKHGLDPHWHURIWKHVSDGHPXVWEH VXIILFLHQWWRDOORZIRUDQDGHTXDWHURRWEDOODVGHVFULEHGLQ³7UDQVSODQWLQJ2SHUDWLRQ´EHORZ Trees 12 inches dbh and greater may not be moved by a mechanical tree spade and may require root pruning and special digging considerations described in other sections of this specification. Ground Preparation Transplant Location: The new locations to receive transplants shall be staked out for approval prior to digging the trees. In all cases, these pits shall be dug and prepared prior to completion of final digging of transplant trees. Pits shall be thoroughly watered on the day of transplanting prior to receiving plants. The excavated subsoil and topsoil shall be set-aside in separate stockpiles for reuse in backfilling. Where, in the opinion of the Certified Arborist, the subgrade material is unsuitable, it shall be removed and replaced with adequate subgrade material and topsoil. 7UDQVSODQW3LW'LDPHWHUDQG'HSWK:KHUHD³WUHHVSDGH´LVXVHGWKHH[FDYDWHGKROHVKRXOGEH made with the same spade used to excavate and remove the tree and shall be the same diameter and depth as the root ball of the transplanted tree. Where a tree spade is not used, the diameter shall be a minimum of 3 feet greater than the diameter of the root ball. Depth shall be sufficient to ensure that the root ball will sit in its new location on undisturbed soil such that the surface of the root ball will bear the exact relationship to adjacent new finish grades as it did in its original location. Marking Orientation of Trees: Prior to transplanting, the Contractor shall tie a flag of cloth or plastic ribbon to a branch to mark the north side of the plant as a guide for positioning the plant in the new location. Tying of Branches If necessary, to facilitate positioning of equipment and help avoid injury to the tree, tying up the branches of low-branched plants using heavy twine or burlap strips is allowable, if approved in advance by the Certified Arborist in consultation with the Regional Landscape Architect. Each point of contact of twine on tree trunks or branches shall be protected with burlap. Crown Pruning Dead, injured or diseased wood shall be removed in accordance with good horticultural practice. Additional pruning may be required as determined by the Certified Arborist. Pruning/removal of any broken or dead branches as a result of the move should be performed immediately. Pruning is to be limited to only the removal of dead or damaged before and after transplanting. Under no circumstance should live limbs be removed from trees to be transplanted without approval from the Certified Arborist. Transplanting Operation Root Ball: In all cases, the diameter of the ball of native soil to be preserved intact shall be at least 10 times the diameter of the tree trunk at breast height (dbh) unless otherwise approved by the Certified Arborist. The depth of the root ball shall be sufficient to preserve the majority of large roots characteristic of the given tree growing in that particular soil type as determined by the approved Transplanting Sub Consultant in consultation with the Certified Arborist. Unless otherwise specified, the depth shall be approximately 60% of the ball width. . Precaution: Exposed roots shall never be allowed to dry out. If for any reason the plant will sit with roots or root ball exposed, roots shall be protected by packing them in moist straw, sphagnum, peat moss, bark or other suitable material and then wrapping with moist burlap. Where a Tree Spade is Used: A tree spade of sufficient size must be used to meet the root ball diameter specifications stated above. The approved destination hole shall first be excavated (it is assumed that this shall be with the same spade to be used to move the tree) and thoroughly watered. The tree shall then be excavated, moved and planted, taking care to avoid damage to tree branches and trunk. The tree trunk shall be protected as necessary with burlap or protective padding. The tree shall be set with the same compass orientation and at the same depth as its original location. Where a Tree Spade is Not Used: The destination hole shall be prepared to the approved size and depth prior to digging the tree to be transplanted. Topsoil and subsoil shall be set-aside in separate piles. The soil surface in the hole shall be thoroughly watered. A circle shall be inscribed around each tree to the approved anticipated size of the root ball. The root ball shall be trimmed to proper size and shape. Loosening of the soil around the roots shall be avoided by cutting remaining woody roots cleanly with a sharp spade, saw, shears or other approved means. Root balls shall be securely contained by: wrapping in burlap secured WLJKWO\ZLWK³GUXPODFHG´WZLQHDZRRGHQ³VRLOFUDWH´RURWKHUDSSURYHGPHDQVZKLFKVKDOO ensure a solid, secure root ball. The lower 1foot of tree trunk shall be wrapped in burlap if it is anticipated that any twine will be in contact with the trunk. Trees shall be moved by crane, winch RURWKHUDSSURYHGPHDQVSHUWKH6XEFRQWUDFWRU¶VDSSURYHGSODQWRQHZORFDWLRQ3ODQWVVKDOOEH handled so that the ball will not be loosened or broken and shall be set with same compass orientation and at the same relative elevation as in their original location The pit around the ball shall be backfilled, beginning with stockpiled subsoil. After the soil has been thoroughly firmed around the lower half of the ball, any burlap shall be cut away from upper half of the ball and the remaining burlap adjusted to prevent the formation of air pockets. Soil shall be firmed at 1 foot intervals and thoroughly settled with water the same day of planting, to within 6 inches of the finish grade. Topsoil shall then be added from on-site stockpiles to within 3 inches of the finish grade. Finishing Surface After Backfilling: The Contractor shall cultivate and rake over finished planting areas and shall leave them in an orderly condition. Staking: Staking or other approved support system must secure all trees that are relocated. All staking shall be done immediately after planting and all stakes and wire maintained. Plants shall stand plumb after staking. Stakes shall be placed outside of the root ball and shall be driven a minimum of 2 feet into the ground. A minimum of three anchor points per tree should be utilized and cables should be attached to tree straps or other tree specific material designed for this application. Each tree over 4 inches in diameter shall have four (4) stakes. Bracing points should EHEHWZHHQ»DQGXSWKHFDQRS\WRSURYLGHDGHTXDWHVXSSRUW7KLVV\VWHPVKRXOGDOORZIRU some movement of the trees and should not be over tightened. The system should be in place for a minimum of 1 year following transplant. Follow-Up Treatments All coniferous species to receive fall foliar applications of an anti-transpirant to reduce winter desiccation injury for three years following transplant. All pines to receive annual trunk spray applications of permethrin or carbaryl based insecticides yearly for five years to reduce risks of bark beetle attacks. Monthly monitoring of the trees and site by a qualified arborist to monitor irrigation, mulch layers, pest issues and other environmental or biotic factors that may be present for five years following transplant. Annual fall applications of a soil applied biostimulant, and an injectable mycorrhizae product to be applied in root zone areas. Bi-weekly monitoring of the site during the times of the year while the irrigation system is not operational until adequate snow cover is present. In the event that tank or injected irrigation is required, it could be supplemented with a yucca-based wetting agent to increase penetration. This practice would be required for three years post transplant.