HomeMy WebLinkAboutFOSSIL LAKE P.U.D., SECOND FILING - COUNTY APPROVAL - 33-01E - REPORTS - TRAFFIC STUDY (3)the operation of the two intersections with stop sign control. Calculation
forms are provided in Appendix C. These intersections will operate
acceptably with the traffic volumes shown in Figure 5.
It is concluded that the Fossil Lake PUD, Filing 1 and Filing 2
(Phases 1 and 2 of Filing 2) and the Swift Addition can be built and
occupied prior to completion of the direct access to CR36 from the Fossil
Lake PUD. It is expected that this direct access will occur with the
development of Fossil Lake PUD, 2°d Filing (Phases 3 and 4 of Filing 2).
With full development of the Fossil Lake PUD and completion of the street
network in the area, the CR36/CR9 and CR36/Cambridge intersections will
operate acceptably with stop sign control. It is recommended that
reevaluation occur periodically as development proposals change.
TABLE 1
Trip Generation
`T�'�^''1
an y j "' ✓$' s
r e
y�� my r
p�y� �J{]�{��
l.a"14, r= 'l }
i � i >t
{�/yyy
�'3 Ie i�S�MA-1
s. y. 5 _ yr�.ay
Fossil Lake 1st Filing
210
Single family
214 D.U.
9.57
1 2048
1 0.19
41
0.56
120
0.65
139
0.36
77
Fossil Lake 2^d Filing
Phase 1:
230
Townhome
48 D.U.
5.86
281
0.07
3
0.37
18
0.36
17
0.18
9
210
Single family
97 D.U.
9.57
928
0.19
18
0.56
54
0.65
63
0.36
35
Phase 2:
220
Apartment
80 D.U.
6.63
530
0.08
6
0.43
34
0.42
34
0.20
16
210
Single family
46 D.U.
9.57
440
0.19
9
0.56
26
0.65
30
0.36
17
2^d Filing subtotal
2179
36
132
144
77
Fossil Lake Total
4227
77
252
283
154
Swift Addition
210
Single family
123 D.U.
9.57
1177
0.19
23
0.56
69
0.65
80
0.3
444
Total
5404
100
321
363
198
MEMORANDUM
m
to
o
°O
M
TO: Jim Birdsall, Everitt Enterprises
Rusty McDaniel, Larimer County Engineering
O
0
p�
o�
FROM: Matt Delich
J
O
O
(.
DATE: November 29, 2000
•.
o
X
U
SUBJECT: Fossil Lake PUD - Analysis of CR36/CR9 intersection
a
(File: 9750ME06)
J
w
O
J
At the request of Jim Birdsall, I have performed various
CD
o
traffic engineering evaluations related to development of the Fossil
w
N
Lake PUD. I was requested to determine if it was possible to develop
Cl
p
M
CD
Fossil Lake PUD, Filing 1 and Filing 2 (Phases 1 and 2 of Filing 2)
w
o
and the Swift Addition with sole access via CR9, south of CR36. This
a
r
evaluation required all site generated traffic to be directed through
=
rn
the CR36/CR9 intersection. The site access to CR36 (located 1800
w
w
feet east of CR9) would be completed with Fossil Lake PUD, Filing 2
J
00
Z
(Phases 3 and 4 of Filing 2). I also had a conversation with Rusty
N
d
McDaniel, Larimer County Engineering Department regarding this
r
matter. Full build -out of Fossil Lake PUD and development of other
N
properties in the area with the completion of Cambridge Drive to
Harmony Road is also addressed in this memorandum. This information
was taken from the "Harmony Technology Park Amended CDP
Transportation Impact Study," February 2000. This is the best
information regarding development in the area, however this may
change as new information is developed.
Table 1 shows the trip generation from the portion of Fossil
Lake PUD Filing 1 and 2, and the Swift Addition that are included in
the initial evaluation. Trip Generation, 6th Edition, ITE was used
as the reference for the trip generation estimate. This site
generated traffic was assigned to the CR36/CR9 intersection and is
W
shown in Figure 1.
d
i
Peak hour traffic was obtained at the CR36/CR9 intersection in
¢
February 2000 and is shown on Figure 2. Raw data is provided in
„
w
Z
Appendix A. By observation, this intersection operates acceptably.
U
Z
The initial evaluation involved assigning traffic from known
J
Z
development proposals (Harvest Park, Sage Creek, Celestica, willow
W
O
Brook, etc.) to the CR36/CR9 intersection and then adding the
0
q
assigned traffic from the key portions of the Fossil Lake PUD (Figure
~¢
1). The total traffic is shown in Figure 3. Table 2 shows the
a
operation of this intersection with stop sign control on CR9.
z
Calculation forms are provided in Appendix B. This intersection will
C
operate acceptably with the traffic volumes shown in Figure 3. It
Ir
H
is recommended that all of the legs of this intersection be paved and
W.
06
that the approach geometry shown in Figure 4 be provided at this
U
intersection.
L
i
U.
U.
Figure 5 shows the CR36/CR9 and CR36/Cambridge intersections
Q
build -out of the Fossil Lake PUD, the Swift Addition, and the
with b
expected completion of the street network in the area. Table 3 shows