Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHARMONY COTTAGES (AFFORDABLE HOUSING) - PDP - PDP150030 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTS1.3 Floodplain Submittal Requirements Because the project is not within any FEMA or City of Fort Collins mapped floodway, a Floodplain Submittal is not required and a "City of Fort Collins Floodplain Review Checklist for 50% Submittals" has not been included with this report. 2. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS 2.1 Major Basin Description The site is located on the upper end of the Mail Creek Drainage Basin. This site is known as sub -basin 89 in the master drainage plan and there are no offsite flows that pass through this site. The impervious area for the site was assumed to be 95% in the master plan. Excerpts from the "Mail Creek Basin Master Drainage Plan Hydrology Technical Appendix" are included in Appendix F of this report. This site is also included in the "Master Drainage Study for Woodridge" (1991) and the "Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for the Overlook at Woodridge, Fourth Filing" (1995). In the Final Drainage Report for the Overlook at Woodridge Fourth Filing, this site is known as Basin 1 and 2A. These basins were considered to be neighborhood commercial sites with a C-value of 0.85. Fully developed commercial flows from this site were considered in the stormwater system plan design for the Overlook at Woodridge. Excerpts from the "Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for the Overlook at Woodridge, Fourth Filing" report are included in Appendix F of this report. 2.2 Sub -basin Description The southern portion of the site drains to an existing swale which carries stormwater runoff along the south property line to a depression and into a concrete pipe located in Tract A of the Overlook at Woodridge. The remaining portion of the site drains via overland flow to the curb and gutter along Harmony Road and into two existing 15' type R inlets on the south side of Harmony Road. All of the stormwater runoff from the site is conveyed to the existing stormwater conveyance system in Harmony Road which passes to the existing concrete lined drainage channel north of Seneca Drive and then to the existing regional detention pond located adjacent to Webber Middle School. 2 1. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 Location The Harmony Cottages development is located in Fort Collins. It is located in the Southwest '/4 of Section 34, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6`h Principal Meridian in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. Please refer to the vicinity map in Appendix A. The project site is located in the southeast corner of Harmony Road (County Road 38E) and Taft Hill Road in southwest Fort Collins, Colorado. The site is bounded by Harmony Road on the north and east, Taft Hill Road on the west, and The Overlook at Woodridge Fourth Filing on the south. Adjacent to the northeast corner of the site is a water pump station owned by the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District. The legal description of the site is a replat of Lots 1 and 2, Innovation Island. 1.2 Description of Property The project is a site development of a Habitat for Humanity neighborhood. The property consists of 4.45 acres of land and lots will be designed for single family and duplex housing units with private drive through aisles and parking areas. The site currently consists of open space and is sparsely vegetated with native plants and grasses. Offsite flow contributing to the site includes adjacent public street right-of-way and the FCLWD parcel. The soils in the area are predominately Altan-Satanta loams (86.3%), 0-3 percent slopes (soil number 3), Hydrologic Soil Group B and Fort Collins loam (13.7%), 0-3 percent slopes (soil number 35), Hydrologic Soil Group C as reported in the Soil Survey of Larimer County Area, Colorado. According to FEMA Panel 08069C1000F there are no mapped FEMA Floodways on this property. Please refer to Appendix G for the NRCS soils report and FEMA information. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLEOF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ m 1. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION................................................................ 1 1.1 Location...........................................................................................................................1 1.2 Description of Property................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Floodplain Submittal Requirements............................................................................. 2 2. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS.......................................................................... 2 2.1 Major Basin Description................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Sub -basin Description.................................................................................................... 2 3. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA...................................................................................... 3 3.1 Regulations......................................................................................................................3 3.2 Directly Connected Impervious Area (DCIA) Discussion .......................................... 3 3.3 Development Criteria Reference and Constraints...................................................... 4 3.4 Hydrological Criteria..................................................................................................... 5 3.5 Hydraulic Criteria.......................................................................................................... 5 3.6 Floodplain Regulations Compliance............................................................................. 6 3.7 Modifications of Criteria............................................................................................... 6 4. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN....................................................................................... 6 4.1 General Concept............................................................................................................. 6 4.2 Specific Details................................................................................................................ 6 4.3 Stormwater Detention.................................................................................................... 7 4.4 Water Quality Treatment.............................................................................................. 7 5. CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................9 5.1 Compliance with Standards.......................................................................................... 9 5.2 Drainage Concept........................................................................................................... 9 6. REFERENCES...................................................................................................................... 9 4"WW0017/;1 VICINITY MAP AND DRAINAGE PLAN.............................................................................. A HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS.......................................................................................... B HYDRAULIC COMPUTATIONS (PROVIDED AT FINAL).................................................0 STORMWATER DETENTION POND ANALYSIS............................................................... D WATER QUALITY AND LID INFORMATION..................................................................... E EXCERPTS FROM REFERENCE REPORTS......................................................................... F SOIL REPORT AND FEMA INFORMATION....................................................................... G ff January 20, 2016 Ms. Heather McDowell City of Fort Collins Stormwater 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 RE: Preliminary Drainage Report for Harmony Cottages Dear Heather, I am pleased to submit for your review and approval, this Preliminary Drainage Report for the Harmony Cottages development. I certify that this report for the drainage design was prepared in accordance with the criteria in the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Manual. I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Erika Schneider, P.E. Colorado Professional Engineer No. 41777 III Skylar Brower Colorado Professional Engineer No. 44248 PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT Harmony Cottages Prepared for: Habitat for Humanity 4001 S. Taft Hill Road Fort Collins, CO 80525 (970)223-4522 Prepared by: Interwest Consulting Group 1218 West Ash, Suite A Windsor, Colorado 80550 (970)674-3300 January 20, 2016 Job Number 1255-028-00 SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay (CL) Sample Location: Boring 3, Sample 1, Depth 2' Liquid Limit: 26 Plasticity Index: 15 % Passing #200: 53.1% Beginning Moisture: 5.9% Dry Density: 124.8 pcf IlEnding Moisture: 13.6% Swell Pressure: 1300 psf % Swell @ 150: 3.2% 10.0 8.0 6.0 m 3 rn 4.0 2.0 c m E m 2 0.0 M C m Water Added a -2.0 -4.0 0 a 0 N o -6.0 U -8.0 -10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Load(TSF) Project: Habitat for Humanity - Harmony & Taft Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project #: 1152114 Date: November 2015 SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown / Red Sandy Lean Clay (CL) Sample Location: Boring 2, Sample 1, Depth 4' Liquid Limit: 29 JPlasticity Index: 14 % Passing #200: 28.4% Beginning Moisture: 7.5% Dry Density: 123.3 pcf IlEnding Moisture: 13.5% Swell Pressure: <500 psf % Swell @ 500: None 10.0 8.0 6.0 m 3 40 2.0 - V C Cm E d 0.0 C d 77 cr V d a. -2.0 Water Added -4.0 M0 v 0 N o -6.0 U -8.0 -10.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Load(TSF) Project: Habitat for Humanity - Harmony & Taft Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project #: 1152114 Date: November 2015 SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Description: Brown/Grey/Rust Claystone/Siltstone Sample Location: Boring 1, Sample 3, Depth 9' Liquid Limit: 31 Plasticity Index: 19 % Passing #200: 67.6% Beginning Moisture: 7.8% Dry Density: 132 pcf JEnding Moisture: 17.6% Swell Pressure: >8,000 psf % Swell @ 500: 14.0% 14.0 12.0 10.0 a� 3 80 6.0 c m E m f 4.0 c m u m IL 2.0 0.0 0 m a v°, Water Added 0 -2.0 U -4.0 -6.0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Load (TSF) Project: Habitat for Humanity - Harmony & Taft Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project #: 1152114 Date: November 2015 EEC SWELL / CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Material Descnption: Brown / Red Sandy Lean Clay (CL) Sample Location: Boring 1, Sample 1, Depth 2' Liquid Limit: 39 Plasticity Index: 17 % Passing #200: 54.3% Beginning Moisture: 15.2% Dry Density: 101.3 pcf JEncling Moisture: 25.5% Swell Pressure: 1200 psf % Swell @ 150: 1.2% 10.0 8.0 6.0 3 4.0 2.0 Y C E m M 0.0 Y C m V L a Water Added -2.0 -4.0 0 v 6 0 0 -6.0 U -8.0 -10.0 -- 0.01 0.1 1 10 Load (TSF) Project: Habitat for Humanity - Harmony & Taft Location: Fort Collins, Colorado Project #: 1152114 Date: November 2015 F"Iwem�-EE- 7"' HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - HARMONY & TAFT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1152114 LOG OF BORING PA (PIEZOMETER) SnEET 1 OF 1 DATE: NOVEMBER 2015 RIG TYPE: CMES6 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: DG START DATE 11/11/2015 WHILE DRILLING None AUGER TYPE: r CFA FINISH DATE 11/11/2016 AFTER DRILLING N/A _ SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SURFACE ELEV NIA 24 HOUR None SOIL DESCRIPTION D ru oU me DD "E -200 SWELL TYPE (FEET) IBLCWS.'FT1 IPSFI I%I IPCFI LL PI 1%1 PRESSURE %@ SOOPSF SPARSE VEGETATION j 1 SAND & GRAVEL(SP/GP) brawn/red 2 medium dense 3 4 CS 5 14 2.8 28 14 14.1 6 8 10 CLAYEY SAND & GRAVEL SC , brown / red SS 38110- 9000* 13.8 CLAYSTONE brawn / grey / Net 11 12 13 1C CS 15 5015, 9000, 12.1 123.4 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 15.0' 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - HARMONY & TAFT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1152114 LOG OF BORING P-3 (PIEZOMETER) SHEET 1 OF i DATE: NOVEMBER 2015 RIG TYPE: CME55 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: DIG START DATE 11/11/2015 WHILE DRILLING None FINISH DATE 11/11/2015 AUGM TYPr--4CFA AFTER DRILLING N/A SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR None SOIL DESCRIPTION D N ou Mc ED A4JMMI s00 SWELL TYPE (FEET) (BLOwS1FT) (PSF) I%I IrcFI LL p N) PRESSURE %500 PSF SPARSE VEGETATION 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) brown very stiff _ _ %®150 Pat 36 9000t 5.9 127.8 28 15 53.1 1300 Esf 3.2 % with traces of gravel CS 3 4 5 CLAYEY SAND (SC) SS 19 91 7.0 Drown I red medium dense to dense 6 _7_ 8 cemented zorle red, with gravel _ _ 45 9000 1 2.1 131.5 CS 10 11 12 13 14 15 CLAYSTONE/SILTSTONE SS 35W 9000+ 15.6 brown /gray / rust 16 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 15.5 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - HARMONY & TAFT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1152114 LOG OF BORING P-2 (PIEZOMETER) SHEET 1 OF 1 DATE: NOVEMBER 2015 RIG TYPE: CMESS WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: DG START DATE 11/11/2015 WHILE DRILLING None AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA FINISH DATE 11/11/2016 AFTER DRILLING NIA SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SURFACEELEV N/A 24 HOUR None SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 N 0u Mc Do _ AA i IMiTS _ .200 SWELL TYPE (FEET) (SLOWS/1'n IPSFI 1%) (PCFI LL PI I%I PRESSURE %@ sou PSr SANDY LEAN CLAY (CLI 1 brown/red very stiff to stiff 2 With traces of gravel 3 4 CS S 16 Sol 7.5 112.6 20 14 2111.1111 4500.pal None 6 _7_ 8 red _ _ 11 2000 18.0 with calcareous deposits SS 10 11 12 13 SAND & GRAVEL(SP/GP) red medium dense 14 CS 15 32 — 3.4 122.2 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 15.0' 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - HARMONY & TAFT FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1152114 LOG OF BORING PA (PIEZOMETER) SHEET 1 OF i DATE: NOVEMBER 2015 RIG TYPE: CME55 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: DG START DATE 1111112015 WHILE DRILLING None AFTER DRILLING N1A AUGER TYPE: 4" CFA FINISH DATE 11/11/2015 SPT HAMMER: AUTOMATIC SURFACE ELEV NIA 24 HOUR None SOIL DESCRIPTION D u Ou Mc 00 A -LIMITS -me SWELL PRESSURE X S00 PSF TYPE (FEET) IBLOWSIFTI (PSF) I%I (PCF) LL I PI (%I SPARSE VEGETATION 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) brown / red 2 stiff to very stiff _ _ % @ 150 psf 22 9000. 15.2 104.9 39 17 54.3 1200 psf L2 % with calcareous deposits CS 3 4 FSS 5 18 70N 7.8 6 6 cemented zone _9_ 10 CS 35 91 7.8 127.7 31 19 67.6 >8000 psf 14.0 CLAYSTONE/SILTSTONE brown / grey / rust 11 with calcareous deposits _ 12 13 14 Fss 15 16 60 9000+ 15.0 BOTTOM OF BORING DEPTH 15.5' 17 18 19 20 21 2 23 24 25 tartn tnglneenng consultants, LLG PHOTO # 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G. ;R - Rz, 4po" PHOTO # 2 EEC � Legend 0 TB # I through TB #9: Approximate Test Bonng Locations Completed by Others P-I through P4: Approximate Piezometer Boring Locations �i Site Photos (Photos bkm in approainaw location. In direction of arj North Mo b Yew P-3 _ _ - -� iTB- Boring Location Diagram Habitat for Humanity - Ft Collins, Colorado EEC Project Number: 1152114 November 2015 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULIANIN, LLC UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Soil Classification Group Group Name Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests Symbol Coarse - Grained Soils Gravels more than Clean Gravels Less CutA and 1<Cc53E GW Well -graded gravel E more than 50% 50% of coarse than 5%fines retained on No. 200 fraction retained on Cu<4 and/or 1>Cc>3E GP Poorly -graded gravel E sieve No. 4 sieve Gravels with Fines Fines classify as ML or MH GM G,N Silty gravel Sands 50% or more coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve more than 12% fines Fines Classify as CL or CH Clean Sands Less Cu26 and 1<Ccs3E than 5% fines Cu<6 and/or 1>Cc>3E Sands with Fines more than 12% fines Fine -Grained Soils Silts and Clays inorganic 50% or more passes Liquid Limit less the No. 200 sieve than 50 Silts and Clays Liquid Limit 50 or more Fines classify as ML or MH GC Clayey Gravel E'G'" SW Well -graded sand' SP Poorly -graded sand' SM Silty sand o""' Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand PI>7 and plots on or above "A" Line CL Lean clay "M PI<4 or plots below "A" Line ML Silt x,L,M organic Liquid Limit - oven dried Liquid Limit - not dried inorganic PI plots on or above "A" Line Organic clay k'L,M.N c0.75 OL Organic silt K'L,M,o CH Fat clay RLM PI plots below "A" Line MH Elastic Silt "'`'M organic Liquid Limit - oven dried Organic clay x,LM,P <0.75 OH Liquid Limit - not dried Organic silt K.LM,o Highly organic soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat "Based on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) rCu=Dw/D� Cc= (D30) `if soil contains 15 to 29%plus No. 200, add "with sand" sieve D, x D, or "with gravel", whichever is predominant. slf field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or `If soil contains a 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, both, add "with cobbles or boulders, or bah" to add "sandy" to group name. group name. `If soil contains a15% sand, add "with sand" to MY soil contains 230% plus No. 200 predominantly gravel, `Gravels with 5 to 12% fines required dual symbols: Giffinesclassify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC- add "gravelly" to group name. GW-GM well graded gravel with silt CM, or SC-SM. "PI24 and plots on or above "A" line. GW-GC well -graded gravel with clay If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to °PIc4 or plots below "A" line. GP -GM poorly -graded gravel with silt group name "PI plots on or above "A" line. GP -GC poorly -graded gravel with day If soil contains >iS%gravel, add "with gravel" to oPl plots below "A" line. 'Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: group name SW-SM well -graded sand with silt 'If Atterberg limits plots shaded area, soil is a CL- SW-SC well -graded sand with clay ML, Silty clay SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay For Classification of fine-grained soils and ' fine-grained fraction of coarse -grained 50, soils. Equation of "A" -line a 40 - Horizontal at PI=4 to LL=25.5 - -- m then PI-0.73 (LL-20)'i L Z Equation of "W-line 30 - Vertical at LL=16 to PI-7, G then P1=0.9 (LL-8) s 20 p� MH OR OH 1 R ' o ck 10 M L on 0 L L 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1D0 110 40 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC DRILLING AND EXPLORATION DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS SS: Split Spoon - 13/8" I.D., 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted PS: Piston Sample ST: Thin -Walled Tube - 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted WS: Wash Sample R: Ring Barrel Sampler - 2.42" I.D., 3" O.D. unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger FT: Fish Tail Bit HA: Hand Auger RB: Rock Bit DB: Diamond Bit = 4", N, B BS: Bulk Sample AS: Auger Sample PM: Pressure Meter HS: Hollow Stem Auger WB: Wash Bore Standard "N" Penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch O.D. split spoon, except where noted. WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS WL : Water Level WS : While Sampling WCI: Wet Cave in WD : While Drilling DCI: Dry Cave in BCR: Before Casing Removal AB : After Boring ACR: After Casting Removal Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the time indicated. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of ground water. In low permeability soils, the accurate determination of ground water levels is not possible with only short term observations. DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION Soil Classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification system and the ASTM Designations D-2488. Coarse Grained Soils have move than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as : clays, if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non -plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse grained soils are defined on the basis of their relative in - place density and fine grained soils on the basis of their consistency. Example: Lean clay with sand, trace gravel, stiff (CL); silty sand, trace gravel, medium dense ISM). CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS Unconfined Compressive Strength, Qu, psf Consistency < 500 Very Soft 500 - 1,000 Soft 1,001- 2,000 Medium 2,001- 4,000 Stiff 4,001- 8,000 Very Stiff 8,001- 16,000 Very Hard RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE -GRAINED SOILS N-Blows/ft Relative Density 0-3 Very Loose 4-9 Loose 10-29 Medium Dense 30-49 Dense 50-80 Very Dense 80+ Extremely Dense PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF BEDROCK DEGREE OF WEATHERING: Slight Slight decomposition of parent material on joints. May be color change. Moderate Some decomposition and color change throughout. High Rock highly decomposed, may be extremely broken. HARDNESS AND DEGREE OF CEMENTATION: Limestone and Dolomite: Hard Difficult to scratch with knife. Moderately Can be scratched easily with knife. Hard Cannot be scratched with fingernail. Soft Can be scratched with fingernail. Shale, Siltstone and Claystone: Hard Can be scratched easily with knife, cannot be scratched with fingernail. Moderately Can be scratched with fingernail. Hard Soft Can be easily dented but not molded with fingers. Sandstone and Conglomerate: Well Capable of scratching a knife blade. Cemented Cemented Can be scratched with knife. Poorly Can be broken apart easily with fingers. Cemented Earth Engineering Consultants, LLL Habitat for Humanity November 30, 2015 Page 8 Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this report are modified or verified in writing by the geotechnical engineer. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we can be of further service to you in any other way, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, LLC Ethan P. Wiechert, P.E. Senior Project Engineer Reviewed by: Lester L. Litton, P.E. Principal Engineer Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC Habitat for Humanity November 30, 2015 Page 7 Portland cement concrete in this area to help resist degradation from any trash truck traffic. Pavements should be designed in accordance with Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards. Other Considerations Positive drainage should be developed across and away from the pavements and away from the residences to prevent wetting of the subgrade and varying materials. If subgrade of varying materials become wetted subsequent to construction, it can result in premature failure of the overlying improvements. We recommend at least 1 inch per foot for the first 10 feet away from the structures in landscape areas although flatter slopes with positive drainage could be used in hardscape areas. GENERAL COMMENTS The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the indicated locations and from any other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect any variations, which may occur between borings or across the site. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction. If variations appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report. It is recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained to review the plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding the interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. It is further recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained for testing and observations during earthwork phases to help determine that the design requirements are fulfilled. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Habitat for Humanity c/o JB Consulting Services for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC Habitat for Humanity November 30, 2015 Page 6 Below grade walls would be subject to lateral earth pressures. We recommend using an at -rest lateral earth pressure for design of the below grade walls which are restrained from movement. For backfill soils consisting of the site cohesive materials, we recommend using an equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pounds pcf assuming positive drainage to prevent development of hydrostatic loads on below grade walls. Surcharge loads, point loads, or hydrostatic loads would be an addition to the recommended equivalent fluid pressure. The outlined equivalent fluid pressure does not include a factor of safety nor an allowance for hydrostatic loads. Seismic The site subgrades are variable with layered cohesive and granular soils overlying claystone bedrock. The depth to the bedrock is variable. Based on the 2012 International Building Code, we recommend a Site Classification of D be used for seismic design. Site Pavements We anticipate site pavements be private paved drives with low volumes of predominately light traffic. However, some truck traffic, including weekly trash pick-up would be anticipated to utilize the site pavements. Subgrades for the pavements should be prepared as outlined in the Site Preparation section of this report. Cohesive subgrade soils at elevated moisture contents can result in instability/pumping of the subgrades. If instability is noted in the pavement subgrades at the time of paving, consideration could be given to stabilizing the subgrades with the addition of Class C fly ash. Structural credit for a fly ash subgrade could be considered in design of the pavement sections, although with the minimum pavement design proposed, the use of a stabilized subgrade would not reduce the overlying pavement sections. We recommend pavement sections consist of at least 4 inches of hot bituminous pavement (HBP) overlying 6 inches of aggregate base coarse (ABC). As an alternative, a section of 5%2 inches Portland cement concrete could also be used. In the turnaround area at the west end of the site, thicker pavement sections would be appropriate and we suggest consideration be given to Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC Habitat for Humanity November 30, 2015 Page 5 Exterior foundations and foundations in unheated areas should be located at least 30 inches below adjacent exterior grades to provide frost protection. Footing foundations should maintain a separation of at least 4 feet from the underlying claystone bedrock. We recommend formed continuous footings have a minimum width of 16 inches and isolated column foundations have a minimum width of 30 inches. Care should be taken at the time of construction to see that footing foundations are supported on suitable strength natural soils. Soils which are loosened or disturbed by the construction activities or materials which become dry and desiccated or wet and softened should be removed and replaced with acceptable backfill soils prior to construction of the footing foundations. We estimate the long-term settlement of footing foundations designed and constructed as outlined above would be less than 1 inch. Floor Slabs Floor slab subgrades should be prepared as outlined above for site preparation. Care should be taken after preparation of the floor slab subgrades to prevent wetting or drying of the prepared materials. Cohesive subgrade soils which are allowed to become dry and desiccated can result in increased swell potential and heaving of floor slabs supported on those materials. Care should also be taken to avoid disturbing the in -place subgrade materials and to prevent wetting or drying of the subgrades. Below Grade Areas We recommend a perimeter drain system be installed around all below grade areas to intercept surface infiltration and prevent surface infiltration water from entering the below grade areas. In general a perimeter drain system would consist of perforated metal or plastic pipe placed around the exterior perimeter of the below grade area and sloped to drain to a sump area where it can be removed without reverse flow into the system. The drain line should be surrounded by an appropriate/granular filter material to prevent fines from entering the system. Earth Engineenng Consultants, LLC Habitat for Humanity November 30, 2015 Page 4 After stripping and removing all moderately expansive materials and prior to placement of any fill, floor slab or pavements, we recommend the in -place soils be scarified to a minimum depth of 9 inches, adjusted in moisture content and compacted to at least 95% of the material's standard Proctor maximum dry density as determined in accordance ASTM Specification D698. The moisture content of the scarified material should be adjusted to within the range of f2% of standard Proctor optimum moisture at the time of compaction. Fill soils required to develop the site subgrades should consist of approved, low volume change materials which are free from organic matter and debris. We believe the site materials could be used for general site fill although care will be necessary to maintain the moisture in the subgrade soils to reduce potential for post -construction movement/heaving of the overlying improvements. Site cohesive materials should be placed in loose lifts not to exceed 9 inches thick, adjusted in moisture content as recommended for the scarified soils and compacted to be at least 95% of standard Proctor maximum dry density. Care should be taken after placement of fill materials to avoid disturbing the in -place materials and to prevent wetting and drying of those materials. Soils which are disturbed by the construction activities or materials which become wet and unstable or dry and desiccated should be removed and replaced or reworked in place prior to placement of the overlying improvements_ Foundations Based on materials observed at the boring locations, in our opinion, the site structures could be supported on conventional footing foundations bearing in the natural stiff to very stiff sandy lean clay soils or medium dense granular soils. For design of footing foundations bearing on suitable stiff to very stiff low volume change natural lean clays or medium dense granular to essentially granular soils, we recommend using a net allowable total load soil bearing pressure not to exceed 1,500 psf. The net bearing pressure refers to the pressure at foundation bearing level in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure. A minimum dead load pressure would not be required in the low volume change cohesive soils or essentially non -volume change granular soils. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC Habitat for Humanity November 30, 2015 Page 3 Zones of perched and/or trapped water may be encountered at times throughout the year in more permeable zones in the subgrade soils. Perched groundwater is commonly encountered in soils overlying less permeable weathered bedrock. Fluctuations in the location and amount of perched water can also vary over time depending on variations in hydrologic conditions and other conditions not apparent at the time of this report. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Observations The near surface cohesive soils show low to moderate plasticity and low to moderate swell potential at current moisture and density conditions. Those conditions are somewhat variable across the site. To reduce the potential for post -construction heaving of site improvements, moderately expansive soils in building and pavement areas should be removed, moisture conditioned and replaced as controlled fill. The depth of the overexcavations could vary across the site depending on the expansion potential of the subgrade soils and on acceptable movement in floor slabs and pavement areas. The underlying claystone bedrock also shows moderate to high swell potential and moderate to high plasticity. As such, care should be taken to maintain separation from the bedrock for any below grade areas to reduce potential for post -construction heaving of foundations and/or floor slabs. In general, a separation of 4 feet from the bedrock surface should be maintained for footings and floor slabs. Site Preparation All existing vegetation and/or topsoil should be removed from site improvement areas. In addition, any moderately expansive cohesive soils should also be removed. The site cohesive soils could be reused as fill in the improvement areas although care will be necessary to see that acceptable moisture contents are maintained in the subgrade soils prior to completion of the overlying improvements to maintain low swell potential for foundation, floor slab and pavement support. Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC Habitat for Humanity November 30, 2015 Page 2 completed and currently completed exploration borings are indicated on the attached boring location diagram. The locations of those borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used to make the field measurements. To develop additional information on groundwater levels, field slotted PVC piezometers were installed at the four (4) boring locations completed as a part of the current exploration. Those temporary piezometers were monitored for an approximate 2-week period after installation. Results of the field monitoring are indicated on the upper right hand corner of the boring logs. Moisture content tests and visual/tactual evaluation of recovered samples was completed in the laboratory as a part of the geotechnical evaluation. Dry density tests were completed on selected samples and the unconfined strength of appropriate samples was estimated using a calibrated hand penetrometer. Swell/consolidation tests were completed on selected samples to evaluate the soils' tendency to change volume with variation in moisture content and load. Results of the outlined tests are indicated on the attached boring logs and summary sheets. Based on results of the field borings and laboratory testing, subsurface conditions can be generalized as follows. Sparse vegetation and/or topsoil was observed at ground surface at the boring locations. The vegetation/topsoil in borings P-1, P-2 and P-3 were underlain by brown to reddish brown sandy lean clay. The sandy lean clay in boring P-3 transitioned to clayey sand at a depth of approximately 4 feet and in boring P-2 to sands and gravels at a depth of approximately 12 feet. Sand and gravel was encountered beneath the vegetation/topsoil in boring P-4 extending to a depth of approximately 10 feet. Claystone, siltstone bedrock was encountered beneath the overburden soils in borings P-1, P-3 and P-4 at depths ranging from approximately 9'/z to 14'/2 feet. The overburden lean clay soils showed low to moderate plasticity and low to moderate swell potential with the underlying claystone, siltstone bedrock exhibiting high plasticity and high swell. Test borings were terminated at depths of approximately 15 feet below present site grades in claystone bedrock (borings P-1, P-3 and P4) or sands and gravel (boring P-2). Groundwater observations were completed at the time of drilling and in the field slotted PVC piezometers for approximately 2 weeks after installation. No free water was observed in the test borings at the time of completion or in the field piezometers during the monitoring period. November 30, 2015 40 Habitat for HumanityEAERING ONSU ENGTA (PITS, LLC c/o JB Consulting Services 1619 Streamside Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Attn: Mr. John Barberio (johnb cr jbconsultingservices.com) Re: Geotechnical Exploration Report Habitat for Humanity West Harmony Road and South Taft Hill Road Fort Collins, Colorado EEC Project No. 1152114 Mr. Barberio: Earth Engineering Consultants, LLC (EEC) personnel have completed the supplemental geotechnical exploration for the proposed Habitat for Humanity project at the southeast comer of West Harmony Road and South Taft Hill Road in Fort Collins. A geotechnical exploration on this property was completed by others in 2005. The supplemental exploration was completed to help evaluate current conditions at the site to provide updated recommendations considering current site conditions and current codes and standards. The subsurface exploration completed as a part of the 2005 exploration on this property was evaluated and considered when developing the recommendations contained in this report. We understand this project involves development of approximately 21 duplex buildings on the referenced parcel for Habitat for Humanity. The new buildings are expected to be single story or two-story wood -framed structures, a portion of which may include basements. We anticipate maximum wall and column loads be on the order of 2'/z kips per lineal foot and 50 kips, respectively. Small grade changes are expected to develop the site grades. On -site paved drive and parking areas will be constructed as a part of this project. The site layout for the proposed development is indicated on the attached boring location diagram. As a part of the 2005 geotechnical exploration, nine (9) soil borings were completed on this property extending to depths ranging from approximately 10 to 25 feet below current site grades. To develop supplemental, current geotechnical data, four (4) additional borings were advanced to depths of approximately 15 feet below present site grades. The locations of the previously 4396 GREENFIELD DRIVE WINDSOR, COLORADO 80550 (970) 545-3908 FAX (970) 663-0282 Pedestrian LOS Worksheet Project Location Classification: All Other Areas Description of Destination Level of Service (minimum based on project location cl ssiFication) Applicable Destination Area SbW vOwd Area Within 1320' Classification �' ' Canei"'� crossings I"� � SeaMy enifiMinimum 1 Commercial uses to the northwest of the site Commercial C C C C C Actual A B B C B Proposed A B B C B 2 Neighborhood to the north of the site Residential Minimum C C C C C Actual A D B C C Proposed A D B C C 3 Neighborhood to the south and southeast of the site Residential Minimum C C C C C Actual A B B B B Proposed A B B B B 4 Neighborhood to the southwest of the site Residential Minimum C C C C C Actual B D B C C Proposed B D B C C 5 Minimum Actual Proposed 6 Minimum Actual Proposed 7 Minimum Actual Proposed 8 Minimum Actual Proposed 9 Minimum Actual Proposed 10 Minimum Actual Proposed N z 1 LCR38E Site yd^�o oy 4 3 Gm 'i SCALE: 1 "=500' PEDESTRIAN INFLUENCE AREA —// I DELICH Harmony Cottages TIS, November 2015 -7 1 [—ASSOCIATES APPENDIX F Lanes and Geometrics Short Total PM 5: Site Access & Harmony --I,. 7 410' ~ 4% /* Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations +T+ ►j ++ V Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 200 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.995 0.939 Fit Protected 0.950 0.973 Satd. Flow (prot) 3522 0 1770 3539 1702 0 Fit Permitted 0.950 0.973 Said. Flow (perm) 3522 0 1770 3539 1702 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 541 402 166 Travel Time (s) 12.3 9.1 3.8 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Harmony Cottages 11/1712015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates st pm.syn HCM 2010 TWSC Short Total PM 5: Site Access & Harmony Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Vol, veh/h 526 18 16 706 11 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - 200 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 584 20 18 784 12 10 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 604 0 1022 302 Stage 1 - - - - 594 - Stage 2 - - - - 428 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 970 232 694 Stage 1 - - - - 514 - Stage 2 - - - - 625 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 970 - 228 694 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 228 - Stage 1 - - - - 514 Stage 2 - - - - 613 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 16.8 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 327 970 HCM Lane VIC Ratio 0.068 0.018 - HCM Control Delay (s) 16.8 8.8 - HCM Lane LOS C A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 - Harmony Cottages 11/17/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates st pm.syn Lanes and Geometrics Short Total AM 5: Site Access & Harmony Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations +T* tt Y Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Width (ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 Grade (%) 0% 0% 0% Storage Length (ft) 0 200 0 0 Storage Lanes 0 1 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.998 0.936 Flt Protected 0.950 0.974 Satd. Flow (prot) 3532 0 1770 3539 1698 0 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.974 Satd. Flow (perm) 3532 0 1770 3539 1698 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 541 402 166 Travel Time (s) 12.3 9.1 3.8 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Harmony Cottages 11/17/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates st am.syn HCM 2010 TWSC Short Total AM 5: Site Access & Harmony Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Vol, veh/h 532 6 5 262 17 15 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None - None - None Storage Length - 200 - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 Grade, °% 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 626 7 6 308 20 18 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 633 0 795 316 Stage 1 - - - 629 Stage 2 - - - - 166 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.14 - 6.84 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.22 - 3.52 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 946 - 325 680 Stage 1 - - - - 494 - Stage 2 - - - - 846 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 946 - 323 680 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 323 - Stage 1 - - 494 Stage 2 - - 841 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 14.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Maior Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 428 - - 946 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.088 - - 0.006 - HCM Control Delay (s) 14.2 - - 8.8 - HCM Lane LOS B - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 0 - Harmony Cottages 11/17/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates st am. syn Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Total PM 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony NB RT-Lane * Phase Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Movement NBL SBT WBL EBTL SBL NBT EBL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None None None C-Max None None Maximum Split (s) 12 44 11 28 13 43 11 28 Maximum Split (%) 12.6% 46.3% 11.6% 29.5% 13.7% 45.3% 11.6% 29.5% Minimum Split (s) 11 23 10 25 11 26 11 28 Yellow Time (s) 3 4 3 4.5 3 4.5 3 4.5 All -Red Time (s) 1 1 1 1.5 2 1.5 1 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 5 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 10 12 13 15 Dual Entry Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 9 21 65 76 52 9 65 76 End Time (s) 21 65 76 9 65 52 76 9 Yield/Force Off (s) 17 60 72 3 60 46 72 3 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 17 50 72 86 60 33 72 83 Local Start Time (s) 52 64 13 24 0 52 13 24 Local Yield (s) 60 8 20 46 8 89 20 46 Local Yield 170(s) 60 93 20 34 8 76 20 31 Intersection Summa Cycle Length 95 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 52 (55%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBT, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony 01 02 R • 03 `1-04 106 05 07 4 08 Harmony Cottages 11118/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates st pm nb rt.syn HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Total PM 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony NB RT-Lane Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ►j i+ + r ►j + r ►) ? p Volume (veh/h) 151 170 59 55 244 418 97 625 53 321 589 175 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1824 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1788 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 162 183 49 59 262 183 104 672 0 345 633 77 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 269 307 82 276 337 286 157 745 608 537 910 773 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.22 0.21 0.05 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.40 0.00 0.16 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 1417 379 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1520 3442 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 162 0 232 59 262 183 104 672 0 345 633 77 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1774 0 1796 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1520 1721 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.8 0.0 11.1 2.5 12.7 10.2 5.4 32.2 0.0 8.9 25.0 2.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.8 0.0 11.1 2.5 12.7 10.2 5.4 32.2 0.0 8.9 25.0 2.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 269 0 389 276 337 286 157 745 608 537 910 773 V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.00 0.60 0.21 0.78 0.64 0.66 0.90 0.00 0.64 0.70 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 269 0 435 340 451 383 168 745 608 537 910 773 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.0 0.0 33.6 29.5 37.1 36.0 41.9 26.8 0.0 37.6 18.8 13.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.7 0.0 1.8 0.4 6.0 2.4 8.6 16.2 0.0 2.6 4.4 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),slveh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 We BackOfQ(50%),vehlln 3.6 0.0 5.7 1.2 7.1 4.7 3.0 19.8 0.0 4.5 13.9 1.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.7 0.0 35.4 29.9 43.1 38.4 50.5 43.0 0.0 40.2 23.2 13.3 LnGrp LOS C D C D D D D D C B Approach Vol, veh/h 394 504 776 1055 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.9 39.9 44.0 28.1 Approach LOS C D D C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.4 50.4 7.6 25.6 18.8 43.0 11.0 22.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 39.0 7.0 22.0 8.0 37.0 7.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 7.4 27.0 4.5 13.1 10.9 34.2 8.8 14.7 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 3.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 CM Delay 35.6 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Harmony Cottages 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates st pm nb rt.syn Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Total AM I Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony NB RT-Lane 4 1 4,- -. ► t _A 4-- Phase Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Movement NBL SBT WBL EBTL SBL NBT EBL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None None None Max None None Maximum Split (s) 12 45 10 23 14 43 13 20 Maximum Split (%) 13.3% 50.0% 11.1% 25.6% 15.6% 47.8% 14.4% 22.2% Minimum Split (s) 11 23 10 23 11 26 11 20 Yellow Time (s) 3 4 3 4.5 3 4.5 3 4.5 All -Red Time (s) 1 1 1 1.5 2 1.5 1 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 5 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 10 12 13 15 Dual Entry Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 44.5 56.5 11.5 21.5 87.5 44.5 11.5 24.5 End Time (s) 56.5 11.5 21.5 44.5 11.5 87.5 24.5 44.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 52.5 6.5 17.5 38.5 6.5 81.5 20.5 38.5 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 52.5 86.5 17.5 26.5 6.5 68.5 20.5 23.5 Local Start Time (s) 33 45 0 10 76 33 0 13 Local Yield (s) 41 85 6 27 85 70 9 27 Local Yield 170(s) 41 75 6 15 85 57 9 12 Intersection Summa Cycle Length 90 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 11.5 (13%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony 101 ♦ 02 •03 -*04 06 10� 05 07 09 Harmony Cottages 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates st am nb rt.syn HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Total AM 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony NB RT-Lane --0 --P� --v �+-- t-*\ t �► 1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ►j T+ ►i + r ►j + rr + r Volume (vehlh) 214 198 66 53 52 174 41 463 57 283 536 48 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1824 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1788 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, vehlh 252 233 63 62 61 0 48 545 0 333 631 0 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 418 274 74 209 250 213 118 786 625 493 971 825 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.19 0.18 0.05 0.13 0.00 0.07 0.42 0.00 0.14 0.52 0.00 Sat Flow,vehlh 1774 1413 382 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1520 3442 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), vehm 252 0 296 62 61 0 48 545 0 333 631 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/hlln 1774 0 1795 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1520 1721 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 0.0 14.3 2.7 2.6 0.0 2.3 21.5 0.0 8.3 22.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 0.0 14.3 2.7 2.6 0.0 2.3 21.5 0.0 8.3 22.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 418 0 348 209 250 213 118 786 625 493 971 825 V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.00 0.85 0.30 0.24 0.00 0.41 0.69 0.00 0.68 0.65 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 418 0 359 255 310 264 177 786 625 493 971 825 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.6 0.0 35.1 31.3 34.9 0.0 40.3 21.2 0.0 36.6 15.6 0.0 Ina Delay (d2), s/veh 2.4 0.0 17.1 0.8 0.5 0.0 2.2 5.0 0.0 3.6 3.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.1 0.0 8.7 1.3 1.4 0.0 1.2 12.1 0.0 4.2 12.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.1 0.0 52.3 32.1 35.4 0.0 42.5 26.2 0.0 40.2 19.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C D C D D C D B Approach Vol, veh/h 548 123 593 964 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.5 33.7 27.5 26.3 Approach LOS D C C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 50.9 7.7 22.4 16.9 43.0 13.0 17.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 40.0 6.0 17.0 9.0 37.0 9.0 14.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s 4.3 24.1 4.7 16.3 10.3 23.5 12.0 4.6 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 31.0 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Harmony Cottages 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates st am nb rt.syn Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Total PM 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony 1 '(' -. ti t '- Phase Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Movement NBL SBT WBL EBTL SBL NBT EBL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None None None C-Max None None Maximum Split (s) 11 45 11 28 14 42 11 28 Maximum Split (%) 11.6% 47.4% 11.6% 29.5% 14.7% 44.2% 11.6% 29.5% Minimum Split (s) 11 23 10 25 11 26 11 28 Yellow Time (s) 3 4 3 4.5 3 4.5 3 4.5 All -Red Time (s) 1 1 1 1.5 2 1.5 1 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 5 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 10 12 13 15 Dual Entry Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 10 21 66 77 52 10 66 77 End Time (s) 21 66 77 10 66 52 77 10 Yield/Force Off (s) 17 61 73 4 61 46 73 4 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 17 51 73 87 61 33 73 84 Local Start Time (s) 53 64 14 25 0 53 14 25 Local Yield (s) 60 9 21 47 9 89 21 47 Local Yield 170(s) 60 94 21 35 9 76 21 32 Intersection Summa Cycle Length 95 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 52 (55%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBT, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony 1 01 02 f'03 --11PO4 F L �05 07 08 Harmony Cottages 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates st pm.syn HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Total PM 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony -� �--v Ir*- 4--4� Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vi T+ + r ►j 14 T if Volume (vehlh) 151 170 59 55 244 418 97 625 53 321 589 175 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1863 1863 1824 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1824 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 162 183 49 59 262 171 104 672 54 345 633 78 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 269 307 82 276 336 286 149 663 53 574 918 781 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.22 0.21 0.05 0.18 0.18 0.08 0.39 0.38 0.17 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 1417 379 1774 1863 1583 1774 1702 137 3442 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 162 0 232 59 262 171 104 0 726 345 633 78 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1774 0 1796 1774 1863 1583 1774 0 1839 1721 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.8 0.0 11.1 2.5 12.7 9.4 5.4 0.0 37.0 8.8 24.8 2.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.8 0.0 11.1 2.5 12.7 9.4 5.4 0.0 37.0 8.8 24.8 2.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 269 0 389 276 336 286 149 0 716 574 918 781 V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.00 0.60 0.21 0.78 0.60 0.70 0.00 1.01 0.60 0.69 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a),veh/h 269 0 435 340 451 383 149 0 716 574 918 781 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.0 0.0 33.6 29.5 37.1 35.8 42.3 0.0 29.0 36.7 18.5 12.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.7 0.0 1.8 0.4 6.1 2.0 13.2 0.0 37.1 1.8 4.2 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 BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.6 0.0 5.7 1.2 7.1 4.3 3.2 0.0 26.1 4.3 13.7 1.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.7 0.0 35.4 29.9 43.2 37.8 55.5 0.0 66.2 38.4 22.7 13.1 LnGrp LOS C D C D D E F D C B Approach Vol, veh/h 394 492 830 1056 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.9 39.7 64.8 27.1 Approach LOS C D E C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 50.8 7.6 25.6 19.8 42.0 11.0 22.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 40.0 7.0 22.0 9.0 36.0 7.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s 7.4 26.8 4.5 13.1 10.8 39.0 8.8 14.7 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 3.4 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctd Delay 41.6 HCM 2010 LOS D User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Harmony Cottages 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates st pm.syn Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Total AM 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony Phase Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Movement NBL SBT WBL EBTL SBL NBT EBL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None None None Max None None Maximum Split (s) 12 45 10 23 14 43 13 20 Maximum Split (%) 13.3% 50.0% 11.1 % 25.6% 15.6% 47.8% 14.4% 22.2% Minimum Split (s) 11 23 10 23 11 26 11 20 Yellow Time (s) 3 4 3 4.5 3 4.5 3 4.5 All -Red Time (s) 1 1 1 1.5 2 1.5 1 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 5 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 10 12 13 15 Dual Entry Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 44.5 56.5 11.5 21.5 87.5 44.5 11.5 24.5 End Time (s) 56.5 11.5 21.5 44.5 11.5 87.5 24.5 44.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 52.5 6.5 17.5 38.5 6.5 81.5 20.5 38.5 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 52.5 86.5 17.5 26.5 6.5 68.5 20.5 23.5 Local Start Time (s) 33 45 0 10 76 33 0 13 Local Yield (s) 41 85 6 27 85 70 9 27 Local Yield 170(s) 41 75 6 15 85 57 9 12 Intersection Summa Cycle Length 90 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 11.5 (13%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony 4\ 01 02 • 03 -0-04 F 106 OS 07 08 Harmony Cottages 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates st am.syn HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Total AM 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Vi T+ ►j + if ►j 1� v�►j + r Volume (veh/h) 214 198 66 53 52 174 41 463 57 283 536 48 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1824 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1824 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 252 233 63 62 61 0 48 545 61 333 631 0 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 418 274 74 209 250 213 118 695 78 493 971 825 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.19 0.18 0.05 0.13 0.00 0.07 0.42 0.41 0.14 0.52 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 1413 382 1774 1863 1583 1774 1646 184 3442 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 252 0 296 62 61 0 48 0 606 333 631 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 0 1795 1774 1863 1583 1774 0 1830 1721 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 0.0 14.3 2.7 2.6 0.0 2.3 0.0 25.8 8.3 22.1 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 0.0 14.3 2.7 2.6 0.0 2.3 0.0 25.8 8.3 22.1 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 418 0 348 209 250 213 118 0 773 493 971 825 V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.00 0.85 0.30 0.24 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.78 0.68 0.65 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 418 0 359 255 310 264 177 0 773 493 971 825 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.6 0.0 35.1 31.3 34.9 0.0 40.3 0.0 22.5 36.6 15.6 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 2.4 0.0 17.1 0.8 0.5 0.0 2.2 0.0 7.8 3.6 3.4 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 We BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.1 0.0 8.7 1.3 1.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 14.6 4.2 12.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.1 0.0 52.3 32.1 35.4 0.0 42.5 0.0 30.3 40.2 19.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C D C D D C D B Approach Vol, veh/h 548 123 654 964 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.5 33.7 31.2 26.3 Approach LOS D C C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 50.9 7.7 22.4 16.9 43.0 13.0 17.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 40.0 6.0 17.0 9.0 37.0 9.0 14.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll ), s 4.3 24.1 4.7 16.3 10.3 27.8 12.0 4.6 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctd Delay 32.0 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Harmony Cottages 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates st am.syn APPENDIX E Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Bkgrd PM 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony NB RT-Lane Phase Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Movement NBL SBT WBL EBTL SBL NBT EBL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None None None C-Max None None Maximum Split (s) 12 44 11 28 13 43 11 28 Maximum Split (%) 12.6% 46.3% 11.6% 29.5% 13.7% 45.3% 11.6% 29.5% Minimum Split (s) 11 23 10 25 11 26 11 28 Yellow Time (s) 3 4 3 4.5 3 4.5 3 4.5 All -Red Time (s) 1 1 1 1.5 2 1.5 1 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 5 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 10 12 13 15 Dual Entry Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 9 21 65 76 52 9 65 76 End Time (s) 21 65 76 9 65 52 76 9 Yield/Force Off (s) 17 60 72 3 60 46 72 3 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 17 50 72 86 60 33 72 83 Local Start Time (s) 52 64 13 24 0 52 13 24 Local Yield (s) 60 8 20 46 8 89 20 46 Local Yield 170(s) 60 93 20 34 8 76 20 31 Intersection Summa Cycle Length 95 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 52 (55%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBT, Start of Red iplits and Phases: 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony 91 ♦ 03 1 --W04 F t06 \"05 f 07 08 Harmony Cottages 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates sb pm nb rt.syn HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Bkgrd PM 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony NB RT-Lane Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations '* ►i + iN ►i T if M t r Volume (veh/h) 151 170 59 53 244 409 97 625 50 306 589 175 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1824 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1788 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 162 183 49 57 262 171 104 672 0 329 633 77 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 269 309 83 275 336 286 157 745 608 538 910 774 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.22 0.21 0.05 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.40 0.00 0.16 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 1417 379 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1520 3442 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 162 0 232 57 262 171 104 672 0 329 633 77 Grp Sat Flow(s).veh/h/In 1774 0 1796 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1520 1721 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.8 0.0 11.0 2.4 12.7 9.4 5.4 32.2 0.0 8.5 25.0 2.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.8 0.0 11.0 2.4 12.7 9.4 5.4 32.2 0.0 8.5 25.0 2.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 269 0 391 275 336 286 157 745 608 538 910 774 V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.00 0.59 0.21 0.78 0.60 0.66 0.90 0.00 0.61 0.70 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 269 0 435 341 451 383 168 745 608 538 910 774 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.0 0.0 33.5 29.6 37.1 35.8 41.9 26.8 0.0 37.4 18.8 13.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.7 0.0 1.8 0.4 6.1 2.0 8.6 16.2 0.0 2.0 4.4 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 BackOfQ(50%),vehfln 3.6 0.0 5.7 1.2 7.1 4.3 3.0 19.8 0.0 4.2 13.9 1.1 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 31.7 0.0 35.3 30.0 43.2 37.8 50.5 43.0 0.0 39.4 23.2 13.3 LnGrp LOS C D C D D D D D C B Approach Vol, veh/h 394 490 776 1039 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.8 39.8 44.0 27.6 Approach LOS C D D C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.4 50.4 7.5 25.7 18.8 43.0 11.0 22.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 39.0 7.0 22.0 8.0 37.0 7.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s 7.4 27.0 4.4 13.0 10.5 34.2 8.8 14.7 Green Ext Time (pc), s 0.0 3.2 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 35.4 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Harmony Cottages 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates sb pm nb rt.syn Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Bkgrd AM 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony NB RT-Lane 4e Is. t Phase Number 1 2 3 4 5 Movement NBL SBT WBL EBTL SBL NBT EBL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None None None Max None None Maximum Split (s) 12 45 10 23 14 43 13 20 Maximum Split (%) 13.3% 50.0% 11.1 % 25.6% 15.6% 47.8% 14.4% 22.2% Minimum Split (s) 11 23 10 23 11 26 11 20 Yellow Time (s) 3 4 3 4.5 3 4.5 3 4.5 All -Red Time (s) 1 1 1 1.5 2 1.5 1 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 5 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 10 12 13 15 Dual Entry Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 44.5 56.5 11.5 21.5 87.5 44.5 11.5 24.5 End Time (s) 56.5 11.5 21.5 44.5 11.5 87.5 24.5 44.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 52.5 6.5 17.5 38.5 6.5 81.5 20.5 38.5 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 52.5 86.5 17.5 26.5 6.5 68.5 20.5 23.5 Local Start Time (s) 33 45 0 10 76 33 0 13 Local Yield (s) 41 85 6 27 85 70 9 27 Local Yield 170(s) 41 75 6 15 85 57 9 12 Intersection Summa Cycle Length 90 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 11.5 (13%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT, Start of Red Splits and Phases: +3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony 01 • 02 f'03 t06 1$.05 1 --# 07 �08 Harmony Cottages 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates sb am nb rt.syn HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Bkgrd AM 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony NB RT-Lane Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T+ + r ►j + r ►j►j + r Volume (veh1h) 214 198 66 50 52 160 41 463 56 278 536 48 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1824 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1788 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 252 233 63 59 61 0 48 545 0 327 631 0 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 415 274 74 206 247 210 118 786 625 500 974 828 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.19 0.18 0.05 0.13 0.00 0.07 0.42 0.00 0.15 0.52 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 1413 382 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1520 3442 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 252 0 296 59 61 0 48 545 0 327 631 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1774 0 1795 1774 1863 1583 1774 1863 1520 1721 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 0.0 14.3 2.5 2.6 0.0 2.3 21.5 0.0 8.1 22.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 0.0 14.3 2.5 2.6 0.0 2.3 21.5 0.0 8.1 22.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),veh/h 415 0 348 206 247 210 118 786 625 500 974 828 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.00 0.85 0.29 0.25 0.00 0.41 0.69 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh 415 0 359 255 310 264 177 786 625 500 974 828 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([) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.8 0.0 35.1 31.6 35.0 0.0 40.3 21.2 0.0 36.3 15.5 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 0.0 17.1 0.8 0.5 0.0 2.2 5.0 0.0 3.1 3.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),vehAn 1.1 0.0 8.7 1.3 1.4 0.0 1.2 12.1 0.0 4.0 12.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.3 0.0 52.3 32.3 35.5 0.0 42.5 26.2 0.0 39.4 18.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS C D C D D C D B Approach Vol, veh/h 548 120 593 958 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.6 33.9 27.5 25.8 Approach LOS D C C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 51.1 7.5 22.4 17.1 43.0 13.0 16.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 40.0 6.0 17.0 9.0 37.0 9.0 14.0 Max 0 Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 4.3 24.0 4.5 16.3 10.1 23.5 12.0 4.6 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 30.9 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Harmony Cottages 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates sb am nb rt.syn Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Bkgrd PM 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony Phase Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Movement NBL SBT WBL EBTL SBL NBT EBL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None None None C-Max None None Maximum Split (s) 11 45 11 28 14 42 11 28 Maximum Split (%) 11.6% 47.4% 11.6% 29.5% 14.7% 44.2% 11.6% 29.5% Minimum Split (s) 11 23 10 25 11 26 11 28 Yellow Time (s) 3 4 3 4.5 3 4.5 3 4.5 All -Red Time (s) 1 1 1 1.5 2 1.5 1 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 5 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 10 12 13 15 Dual Entry Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 10 21 66 77 52 10 66 77 End Time (s) 21 66 77 10 66 52 77 10 Yield/Force Off (s) 17 61 73 4 61 46 73 4 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 17 51 73 87 61 33 73 84 Local Start Time (s) 53 64 14 25 0 53 14 25 Local Yield (s) 60 9 21 47 9 89 21 47 Local Yield 170(s) 60 94 21 35 9 76 21 32 Intersection Summa Cycle Length 95 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 52 (55%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBT, Start of Red Splits and Phases: 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Hannony 01 02 • 03 —fb4 F 06 �05 � 07 08 Harmony Cottages 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates sb pm.syn HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Bkgrd PM 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony --v s' '- 4- `\ T r' ti 1 d Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations ►j T* t r ►j T# ►j►j t r Volume (vehlh) 151 170 59 53 244 409 97 625 50 306 589 175 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow,vehlh/In 1863 1863 1824 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1824 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 162 183 49 57 262 158 104 672 51 329 633 78 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 270 308 82 275 336 285 149 666 51 575 919 781 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.22 0.21 0.05 0.18 0.18 0.08 0.39 0.38 0.17 0.49 0.49 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 1417 379 1774 1863 1583 1774 1710 130 3442 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 162 0 232 57 262 158 104 0 723 329 633 78 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1774 0 1796 1774 1863 1583 1774 0 1840 1721 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.8 0.0 11.0 2.4 12.7 8.6 5.4 0.0 37.0 8.4 24.8 2.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.8 0.0 11.0 2.4 12.7 8.6 5.4 0.0 37.0 8.4 24.8 2.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), vehlh 270 0 391 275 336 285 149 0 717 575 919 781 V/C Ratio(X) 0.60 0.00 0.59 0.21 0.78 0.55 0.70 0.00 1.01 0.57 0.69 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 270 0 435 341 451 383 149 0 717 575 919 781 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 28.1 0.0 33.5 29.6 37.1 35.5 42.3 0.0 29.0 36.4 18.5 12.8 Incr Delay (d2), slveh 3.7 0.0 1.8 0.4 6.1 1.7 13.2 0.0 35.9 1.4 4.2 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 BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 3.6 0.0 5.7 1.2 7.1 3.9 3.2 0.0 25.8 4.1 13.7 1.1 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 31.7 0.0 35.3 30.0 43.3 37.1 55.5 0.0 64.9 37.8 22.7 13.1 LnGrp LOS C D C D D E F D C B Approach Vol, veh/h 394 477 827 1040 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.8 39.7 63.7 26.7 Approach LOS C D E C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 50.9 7.5 25.7 19.9 42.0 11.0 22.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 40.0 7.0 22.0 9.0 36.0 7.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 7.4 26.8 4.4 13.0 10.4 39.0 8.8 14.7 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 3.4 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctd Delay 41.2 HCM 2010 LOS D Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Harmony Cottages 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates sb pm.syn Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Short Bkgrd AM 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony t '- Phase Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Movement NBL SBT WBL EBTL SBL NBT EBL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None None None Max None None Maximum Split (s) 12 45 10 23 14 43 13 20 Maximum Split (%) 13.3% 50.0% 11.1 % 25.6% 15.6% 47.8% 14.4% 22.2% Minimum Split (s) 11 23 10 23 11 26 11 20 Yellow Time (s) 3 4 3 4.5 3 4.5 3 4.5 All -Red Time (s) 1 1 1 1.5 2 1.5 1 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 5 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 10 12 13 15 Dual Entry Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 44.5 56.5 11.5 21.5 87.5 44.5 11.5 24.5 End Time (s) 56.5 11.5 21.5 44.5 11.5 87.5 24.5 44.5 Yield/Force Off (s) 52.5 6.5 17.5 38.5 6.5 81.5 20.5 38.5 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 52.5 86.5 17.5 26.5 6.5 68.5 20.5 23.5 Local Start Time (s) 33 45 0 10 76 33 0 13 Local Yield (s) 41 85 6 27 85 70 9 27 Local Yield 170(s) 41 75 6 15 85 57 9 12 Intersection Summa Cycle Length 90 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 80 Offset: 11.5 (13%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT, Start of Red Splits and Phases: I3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony / 01 ♦ 02 • 03 -W04 t06 '*OS 1 �# 07 08 Harmony Cottages 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates sb am.syn HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Short Bkgrd AM 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WEIR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� ►j + IN Vi 1* t if Volume (veh/h) 214 198 66 50 52 160 41 463 56 278 536 48 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/hlln 1863 1863 1824 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1824 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 252 233 63 59 61 0 48 545 61 327 631 0 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 415 274 74 206 247 210 118 695 78 500 974 828 Arrive On Green 0,11 0.19 0.18 0.05 0.13 0.00 0.07 0.42 0.41 0.15 0.52 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 1413 382 1774 1863 1583 1774 1646 184 3442 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 252 0 296 59 61 0 48 0 606 327 631 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),vehlh/In 1774 0 1795 1774 1863 1583 1774 0 1830 1721 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.0 0.0 14.3 2.5 2.6 0.0 2.3 0.0 25.8 8.1 22.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.0 0.0 14.3 2.5 2.6 0.0 2.3 0.0 25.8 8.1 22.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c),vehlh 415 0 348 206 247 210 118 0 773 500 974 828 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.00 0.85 0.29 0.25 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.78 0.65 0.65 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 415 0 359 255 310 264 177 0 773 500 974 828 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Fiiter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), slveh 28.8 0.0 35.1 31.6 35.0 0.0 40.3 0.0 22.5 36.3 15.5 0.0 Ina Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 0.0 17.1 0.8 0.5 0.0 2.2 0.0 7.8 3.1 3.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 1.1 0.0 8.7 1.3 1.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 14.6 4.0 12.1 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),slveh 31.3 0.0 52.3 32.3 35.5 0.0 42.5 0.0 30.3 39.4 18.8 0.0 LnGrp LOS C D C D D C D B Approach Vol, veh/h 548 120 654 958 Approach Delay, s/veh 42.6 33.9 31.2 25.8 Approach LOS D C C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 51.1 7.5 22.4 17.1 43.0 13.0 16.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 40.0 6.0 17.0 9.0 37.0 9.0 14.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll), s 4.3 24.0 4.5 16.3 10.1 27.8 12.0 4.6 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctri Delay 31.9 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Harmony Cottages 11/18/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates sb am.syn APPENDIX D Table 4-3 Fort Collins (GMA and City Limits) Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) Land Use (from structure plan) Other corridors within: Low density Intersection type Commercial Mixed use mixed use All other corridors districts residential areas Signalized intersections D E' D D (overall) Any Leg E E D E Any Movement E E D E Stopsigncontrol N/A P- F" E (arterial/arterial, arterial/collector or local - any approach leg) Stop sign control N/A C C C (collector/local—any approach leg) mitigating measures required " considered normal in an urban environment UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level -of -Service Average Total Delay sec/veh A <10 B >10and <15 C > 15 and < 25 D > 25 and < 35 E >35and <50 F > 50 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level -of -Service Average Total Delay sec/veh A <10 B > 10 and < 20 C >20and <35 D > 35 and < 55 E > 55 and < 80 F > 80 Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Recent PM 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmolny `% • • —► �• t •— Phase Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Movement NBL SBT WBL EBTL SBL NBT EBL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None None None C-Max None None Maximum Split (s) 11 45 11 28 14 42 11 28 Maximum Split (%) 11.6% 47.4% 11.6% 29.5% 14.7% 44.2% 11.6% 29.5% Minimum Split (s) 11 23 10 25 11 26 11 28 Yellow Time (s) 3 4 3 4.5 3 4.5 3 4.5 All -Red Time (s) 1 1 1 1.5 2 1.5 1 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 5 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 10 12 13 15 Dual Entry Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 10 21 66 77 52 10 66 77 End Time (s) 21 66 77 10 66 52 77 10 Yield/Force Off (s) 17 61 73 4 61 46 73 4 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 17 51 73 87 61 33 73 84 Local Start Time (s) 53 64 14 25 0 53 14 25 Local Yield (s) 60 9 21 47 9 89 21 47 Local Yield 170(s) 60 94 21 35 9 76 21 32 Intersection Summa Cycle Length 95 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 90 Offset: 52 (55%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT and 6:NBT, Start of Red Splits and Phases:: 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony �^ 1 @1 • 02 • 03 --bb4 F 106 05 07 08 Harmony Cottages 11/2/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates recent pm.syn HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Recent PM 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T+ t if Vi T* t r Volume (veh/h) 134 151 52 47 217 363 86 555 44 272 523 155 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1824 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1824 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 144 162 42 51 233 76 92 597 44 292 562 76 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 272 291 75 273 304 258 145 668 49 634 955 812 Arrive On Green 0.08 0.20 0.19 0.04 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.39 0.38 0.18 0.51 0.51 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 1427 370 1774 1863 1583 1774 1714 126 3442 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 144 0 204 51 233 76 92 0 641 292 562 76 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1774 0 1797 1774 1863 1583 1774 0 1840 1721 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.1 0.0 9.7 2.2 11.4 4.0 4.8 0.0 31.0 7.2 20.0 2.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 0.0 9.7 2.2 11.4 4.0 4.8 0.0 31.0 7.2 20.0 2.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.07 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 272 0 366 273 304 258 145 0 717 634 955 812 V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.00 0.56 0.19 0.77 0.29 0.63 0.00 0.89 0.46 0.59 0.09 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 272 0 435 345 451 383 149 0 717 634 955 812 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([) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.8 0.0 34.1 31.0 38.0 34.9 42.2 0.0 27.2 34.5 16.1 11.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 0.0 1.3 0.3 4.5 0.6 8.1 0.0 15.9 0.5 2.7 0.2 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 BackOfQ(50%),vehAn 3.1 0.0 5.0 1.1 6.2 1.8 2.7 0.0 18.8 3.5 10.9 1.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.7 0.0 35.4 31.3 42.5 35.6 50.4 0.0 43.1 35.1 18.8 12.1 LnGrp LOS C D C D D D D D B B Approach Vol, veh/h 348 360 733 930 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.4 39.5 44.0 23.4 Approach LOS C D D C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.8 52.7 7.1 24.4 21.5 42.0 11.0 20.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.0 40.0 7.0 22.0 9.0 36.0 7.0 22.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+11), s 6.8 22.0 4.2 11.7 9.2 33.0 8.1 13.4 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 3.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 33.7 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Harmony Cottages 11/2/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates recent pm.syn Timing Report, Sorted By Phase Recent AM 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony 1 -♦ ti t '- Phase Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Movement NBL SBT WBL EBTL SBL NBT EBL WBTL Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead -Lag Optimize Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None C-Max None None None Max None None Maximum Split (s) 12 45 10 23 14 43 13 20 Maximum Split (%) 13.3% 50.0% 11.1% 25.6% 15.6% 47.8% 14.4°% 22.2% Minimum Split (s) 11 23 10 23 11 26 11 20 Yellow Time (s) 3 4 3 4.5 3 4.5 3 4.5 All -Red Time (s) 1 1 1 1.5 2 1.5 1 1.5 Minimum Initial (s) 5 7 4 7 4 7 4 7 Vehicle Extension (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Minimum Gap (s) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Time Before Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Time To Reduce (s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walk Time (s) 7 7 7 7 Flash Dont Walk (s) 10 12 13 15 Dual Entry Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Inhibit Max Yes Yes Yes_ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Start Time (s) 88 10 55 65 41 88 55 68 End Time (s) 10 55 65 88 55 41 68 88 Yield/Force Off (s) 6 50 61 82 50 35 64 82 Yield/Force Off 170(s) 6 40 61 70 50 22 64 67 Local Start Time (s) 33 45 0 10 76 33 0 13 Local Yield (s) 41 85 6 27 85 70 9 27 Local Yield 170(s) 41 75 6 15 85 57 9 12 Intersection Summa Cycle Length 90 Control Type Actuated -Coordinated Natural Cycle 75 Offset: 55 (61%), Referenced to phase 2:SBT, Start of Red Splits and Phases: I3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony 101 ♦ 02 103 —►m4 I 4—pb �05 07 OS Harmony Cottages 11/2/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates recent am.syn HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Recent AM 3: Taft Hill & LCR38E/Harmony Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations T+ Vi t r T+ 1) 4 r Volume (veh/h) 190 176 59 44 46 142 36 411 50 247 476 43 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 1 6 16 5 2 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1863 1863 1824 1863 1863 1863 1863 1863 1824 1863 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 224 207 54 52 54 0 42 484 54 291 560 0 Adj No. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cap, veh/h 391 251 65 202 207 176 118 695 78 574 1015 862 Arrive On Green 0.11 0.18 0.17 0.05 0.11 0.00 0.07 0.42 0.41 0.17 0.54 0.00 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 1425 372 1774 1863 1583 1774 1647 184 3442 1863 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 224 0 261 52 54 0 42 0 538 291 560 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In 1774 0 1797 1774 1863 1583 1774 0 1830 1721 1863 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.8 0.0 12.6 2.3 2.4 0.0 2.0 0.0 21.7 6.9 17.6 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.8 0.0 12.6 2.3 2.4 0.0 2.0 0.0 21.7 6.9 17.6 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 391 0 317 202 207 176 118 0 773 574 1015 862 WC Ratio(X) 0.57 0.00 0.82 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.70 0.51 0.55 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a),vehlh 391 0 359 258 310 264 177 0 773 574 1015 862 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 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 29.5 0.0 35.8 33.2 36.6 0.0 40.2 0.0 21.3 34.1 13.3 0.0 Inca Delay (d2), slveh 2.0 0.0 13.1 0.7 0.7 0.0 1.8 0.0 5.1 0.7 2.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In 4.9 0.0 7.4 1.1 1.3 0.0 1.1 0.0 12.0 3.3 9.6 0.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.6 0.0 48.9 33.9 37.3 0.0 42.0 0.0 26.5 34.8 15.5 0.0 LnGrp LOS C D C D D C C B Approach Vol, veh/h 485 106 580 851 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.9 35.6 27.6 22.1 Approach LOS D D C C Timer 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 53.0 7.1 20.9 19.0 43.0 13.0 15.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 5.0 4.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 8.0 40.0 6.0 17.0 9.0 37.0 9.0 14.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+l1), s 4.0 19.6 4.3 14.6 8.9 23.7 11.8 4.4 Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.7 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 28.9 HCM 2010 LOS C Notes User approved pedestrian interval to be less than phase max green. Harmony Cottages 11/2/2015 Synchro 9 Light Report Delich Associates recent am.syn APPENDIX C DELICH ASSOCIATES 2272 GLEN HAVEN DRIVE LOVELAND,CO 80538 Phone: 970 669.2061 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Date: 6112/2014 Observer: City of Fort Collins Day: Thursday Jurisdiction: Fort Collins R= right turn Intersection: Taft HilllHarmonyLCR38E S = straight I = left him Time Begins Northbound: Taft Hill Southbound: Taft Hill Total northisouth Eastbound: LCR38E Westbound: Harmony Total eastlwest Total All L S R Total L S R Total L S R Total L S R Total 7:30 3 108 16 W -1139 10 213 340 52 41 26 119 6 16 37 59 - 178 518 7:45 15 127 19 161 9 210 371 49 61 13 123 14 8 47 69 192 563 8:00 9 97 5 105 8 164 269 43 35 10 88 13 11 29 53 141 410 8:15 9 85 10 104 16 179 283 46 39 10 95 11 11 29 0 146 429 4:30 20 138 9 167 66 114 31 211 378 30 1 36 14 80 8 51 77 136 216 594 4:45 23 139 11 173 64 146 36 246 419 39 37 13 89 7 64 78 149 238 657 5:00 28 124 15 167 64 126 48 238 405 31 36 9 76 18 49 100 167 243 648 5:15 15 154 9 178 78 137 40 255 433 34 42 16 92 14 53 108 175 267 700 APPENDIX B A- t J NK HABITAT FOR HUMANITY CONCEPT E M1 West Mnwrttiln Aun., Sunr 100 Fort CnllinS,CNObinu WM1;1 ?70.22i.50 wwwwftl lemcl9 nlncmnl No Text Chapter - Attachments Attachment A Transportation Impact Study Base Assumptions Project Information I Project Name tt P 1,W4) V T (;GS ( 6 t-rr pa rr Project Location 5 e Ui4 7 F r (rLL TI[S Assumptions Type of Study Full: Int5pReTiate:IA5t4 O I Study Area Boundaries North: A JZ A) Y South: 9AP-MON East: SLT6 Gss I West: 7-,fpr aILE. Study Years Short Range: Za z Long Range: I Future Traffic Growth Rate 2 d �� f I Study Intersections 1. A l access drives 5. 2.gAI?vw t AV 6. 3. 7. 4. 1 S. Time Period for Study : 7:00-4:00 M: 4:00-6: Sat Noon: 4,�-6 1�52 J Tc' Trip Generation Rates Trip Adjustment Factors Passby: A)IA Captive AJIA Market: Overall Trip Distribution SEE ATTACHED SKETCH Mode Split AssumptionsAl A ICommitted Roadway Improvements A) o -r AWARG7 OP V Other Traffic Studies i ,Vo< A-wo0e OP Areas Requiring Special Study Date: ®G rO S &F, �Zz D I Traffic Engineer C) 6L (C 9 ALSO C Local Entity Engineer. / t JJ,kVU N—, 10 -3 o • t S i 587 BA F Page ¢34 Larimer County Urban Area Street Standards — Repealed and Reenacted April 1, 2007 Adopted by Ladmer County. City of Loveland. City of Fort Collins APPENDIX A TABLE 4 Short Range (2020) Total Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Taft Hill/Harmony-LCR38E (signal) (Existing Geometry and City Timing) EB LT C C EB T/RT D D EB APPROACH D C WB LT C C WBT D D WB RT A D WB APPROACH C D NB LT D E(55.5sees) NB T/RT C F (66.2 secs) NB APPROACH C E (64.8 secs) SB LT D D SB T B C SB RT A B SB APPROACH C C OVERALL C D Taft Hill/Harmony-LCR38E (signal) (with NB RT-Lane and Adjusted Timing) EB LT C C EB T/RT D D EB APPROACH D C WB LT C C WBT D D WB RT A D WB APPROACH C D NB LT D D NB T C D NB RT A A NB APPROACH C D SB LT D D SB T B C SB RT A B SB APPROACH C C OVERALL C D Harmony/Site Access (stop sign) NB LT/RT B C WB LT A A --// t--DELICH Harmony Cottages TIS, November 2015 -71 rASSOCIATES TABLE 3 Short Range (2020) Background Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Taft Hill/Harmony-LCR38E (signal) (Existing Geometry and City Timing) EB LT C C EB T/RT D D EB APPROACH D C WB LT C C WBT D D WB RT A D WB APPROACH C D NB LT D E (55.5 secs) NB T/RT C F (sa.s secs) NB APPROACH C E (63.7 secs) SB LT D D SB T B C SB RT A B SB APPROACH C C OVERALL C D Taft Hill/Harmony-LCR38E (signal) (With NB RT-Lane and Adjusted Timing) EB LT C C EB T/RT D D EB APPROACH D C WB LT C C WBT D D WB RT A D WB APPROACH C D NB LT D D NB T C D NB RT A A NB APPROACH C D SB LT D D SB T B C SB RT A B SB APPROACH C C OVERALL C D /ILDELICH Harmony Cottages TIS, November2015 -7,1 [—ASSOCIATES LCR38E f - Existing Lane - Recommended New Lane SHORT RANGE (2020) RECOMMENDED GEOMETRY N Figure 9 —// LDELICH Harmony Cottages TIS, November 2015 -71 [—ASSOCIATES Ln co N 1� LO co co co w JC l� N i 1 LCR38E 214/151 198/170 66/59 174/418 52/244 53/55 t r r` In co 0) N t` m n v m � 5321526 _ %\ 511/�0 66 6118 �) q h tia c U Q 65 f AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2020) TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC — /I DELICH - , [—ASSOCIATES N Figure 8 Harmony Cottages TIS, November 2015 u7 co O � in co ,co M CO )V Lo N i 1 LCR38E 214/151 198/170 —� 66/59 160/409 52/244 -/--- 50/53 � f r r— u') o m N ui m v � u') v f AM/PM SHORT RANGE (2020) BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Harmony N Figure 7 — /LDELICH Harmony Cottages TIS, November2015 —7,1 rASSOCIATES n 14/9 LO f NOM 3/2 LCR38E NOM —a-- f AM/PM SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC N Figure 6 --// L-DELICH Harmony Cottages TIS, November 2015 -7/ rASSOCIATES LCF f AM/PM SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC -// L-DELICH -71 FASSOCIATES Q CO N Figure 5 Harmony Cottages TIS, November 2015 TABLE 1 Current Peak Hour Operation Intersection Movement Level of Service AM PM Taft Hill/Harmony-LCR38E (signal) EB LT C C EB T/RT D D EB APPROACH D C WB LT C C WBT D D WB RT A D WB APPROACH D D NB LT D D NB T/RT C D NB APPROACH C D SB LT C D SB T B B SB RT A B SB APPROACH C C OVERALL C C TABLE 2 Trip Generation for Harmony Cottages Code Use Size AWDTE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate in Rate Out Rate in Rate Out 210 Single Family 48 D.U. EQ 534 EQ 11 EQ 32 EQ 34 EQ 20 -/I L-DELICH Harmony Cottages TIS. November 2015 -71 [—ASSOCIATES 4 N co N Lr) N r` lD ur) N M V - JV lV N / 1 LCR38E 190/134 176/151 59/52 142/363 f 46/217 44/47 ,/ Harmony cD 0 v co Ln v M In V f AM/PM RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 4 LDELICH Harmony Cottages TIS, November 2015 -71 [-ASSOCIATES LCR38E -�*- Denotes Lane Harmony N EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY Figure 3 —//LDELICH Harmony Cottages TIS, November2015 —7,1 rASSOCIATES 4$Z SCALE: 1 "=100' nt I SITE PLAN -// '-DELICH -I [-ASSOCIATES iY Yid ['7 .e wt.L 3 , Figure 2 Harmony Cottages TIS, November 2015 Horsetooth -TF H Harmony LCR38E Cottages om �qj Harmony SCALE: 1 "=1000' SITE LOCATION —// L—DELICH —71 rASSOCIATES Figure Harmony Cottages TIS, November 2015 It is concluded that the Taft Hill/Harmony-LCR38E and Harmony/Site Access intersections will operate acceptably with recommended geometry and control. The Taft Hill/Harmony-LCR38E intersection will meet the Fort Collins criteria of level of service D or better during the peak hours with regard to operation with an adjustment in the signal timing. No further transportation analyses are required at this time. —1i LDELICH Harmony Cottages TIS, November 2015 -7i r=ASSOCIATES LCR38E intersection. The project will not have eastbound right -turning traffic at this intersection. The eastbound right -turn lane is not necessary to achieve acceptable operation at this intersection. The median area on Harmony Road, east of the Site Access, should be re -striped with a westbound left -turn lane. That left -turn lane should provide 50 feet of storage and 435 feet of deceleration (including 200 feet of bay taper). According to LCUASS, Figure 8-4, an eastbound right -turn lane is not required on Harmony Road approaching the Site Access. Table 3 shows the short range (2020) background morning and afternoon peak hour operation at the Taft Hill/Harmony-LCR38E intersection. The Taft Hill/Harmony- LCR38E intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service, except for the northbound leg during the afternoon peak hour. With the warranted northbound right - turn lane and an adjustment in the signal timing, all movements at the Taft Hill/Harmony-LCR38E intersection will operate acceptably. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix D. The analyses were not run with an eastbound right -turn lane, since this lane was not necessary to achieve acceptable operation. Table 4 shows the short range (2020) total morning and afternoon peak hour operation at the Taft Hill/Harmony-LCR38E and Harmony/Site Access intersections. As with the background operation, the Taft Hill/Harmony-LCR38E intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service, except for the northbound leg during the afternoon peak hour. With the warranted northbound right -turn lane and an adjustment in the signal timing, all movements at the Taft Hill/Harmony-LCR38E intersection will operate acceptably. The Harmony/Site Access intersection will operate at acceptable levels of service. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix E. The analyses were not run with an eastbound right -turn lane, since this lane was not necessary to achieve acceptable operation. The Harmony Cottages site is in an area within which the City requires pedestrian and bicycle level of service evaluations. Appendix F shows a map of the area that is within 1320 feet of the Harmony Cottages site. The Harmony Cottages site is located within an area termed as "all other areas," which sets the pedestrian level of service threshold at LOS C for all measured categories. There are four destination areas within 1320 feet of the proposed Harmony Cottages: 1) the commercial area to the northwest, 2) the residential neighborhood to the north of Harmony Road, 3) the residential neighborhood to the south and southeast, and 4) the residential neighborhood to the southwest. Appendix F contains a Pedestrian LOS Worksheet. Destination areas 1, 2, and 4 are not in the City of Fort Collins. Sidewalks either do not exist or are sporadic in these areas. The continuity measure would be achieved when sidewalks are built in these areas. Based upon Fort Collins bicycle LOS criteria, there are no destination areas within 1320 feet of the Harmony Cottages site. Currently, this area is served by Transfort Route 12 along Harmony Road and Taft Hill Road. The transit service is acceptable. DELICH Harmony Cottages TIS, November 2015 -7/ [—ASSOCIATES The existing geometry at the Taft Hill/Harmony-LCR38E intersection is shown in Figure 3. Recent peak hour traffic counts at the Taft Hill/Harmony-LCR38E intersection are shown in Figure 4. Traffic counts at the Taft Hill/Harmony-LCR38E intersection were obtained in June 2014 by the City of Fort Collins. Raw traffic count data is provided in Appendix B. Using the volumes shown in Figure 4, the current peak hour operation at the Taft Hill/Harmony-LCR38E intersection is shown in Table 1. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix C. The Taft Hill/Harmony-LCR38E intersection was analyzed using the signalized intersection techniques from the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (2010 HCM). A description of level of service for signalized and unsignalized intersections from the 2010 Highwav Capacity Manual is provided in Appendix C. Table 4-3 (revised per staff comments regarding type of intersection) showing the Fort Collins Motor Vehicle LOS Standards (Intersections) are also provided in Appendix C. This site is in an area termed "low density mixed -use" on the Fort Collins Structure Plan. In areas termed "low density mixed -use," acceptable overall operation at signalized intersections during the peak hours is defined as level of service D or better. At signalized intersections, acceptable operation of any leg and any movement is level of service D. At arterial/arterial and arterial/collector or local stop sign controlled intersections, acceptable operation is considered to be at level of service F for any approach leg. At collector/local stop sign controlled intersections, acceptable operation is considered to be at level of service C for any approach leg. As can be seen in Table 1, the Taft Hill/Harmony intersection is currently operating acceptably with existing control and geometry. It is important to note that a northbound right -turn lane and an eastbound right -turn lane are required using the existing traffic volumes at the Taft Hill/Harmony-LCR38E intersection. Trip Generation, 9th Edition, ITE was used to estimate the daily and peak hour trip generation for Harmony Cottages. From this reference, the equations for Single Family Detached (Code 210) were used to estimate the daily and peak hour trip generation as shown in Table 2. The trip generation resulted in 534 daily trip ends, 43 morning peak hour trip ends, and 54 afternoon peak hour trip ends. The trip distribution for Harmony Cottages is shown in Figure 5. Figure 6 shows the site generated peak hour traffic. Background traffic projections for the short range (2020) future horizon were obtained by factoring the current traffic volumes by two percent per year. Figure 7 shows the short range (2020) background peak hour traffic at the Taft Hill/Harmony- LCR38E intersection. The traffic volumes generated by the proposed Harmony Cottages were added to the background traffic volumes to produce the total traffic volume forecasts for the short range (2020) future. Figure 8 shows the short range (2020) total peak hour traffic at the key intersections. Figure 9 shows a schematic of the short range (2020) geometry. As mentioned earlier, a northbound right -turn lane and an eastbound right -turn lane are required using the existing traffic volumes at the Taft Hill/Harmony-LCR38E intersection. However, only the northbound right -turn lane is shown on Figure 9, since it is the only warranted auxiliary lane required to achieve acceptable operation at the Taft Hill/Harmony- --// L—DELICH Harmony Cottages TIS, November 2015 -7 1 [—ASSOCIATES DELICH ASSOCIATES Traffic & Transportation Engineenna 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, Colorado 80538 Phone: (970) 669-2061 Fax: (970) 669-5034 "71 ,, r MEMORANDUM TO: Rod Arndt, Harmony Limited Sara Coutts, The Neenan Company Linda Ripley/Russ Lee, Ripley Design Inc. G Martina Wilkinson, City of Fort Collins -r FROM: Matt Delich t DATE: November 25, 2015 SUBJECT: Harmony Cottages Transportation Impact Study (File: 1587ME01) This memorandum constitutes a transportation impact study for Harmony Cottages. The Harmony Cottages site is located in the southeast quadrant of the Taft Hill/Harmony-Larimer County Road 38E (LCR38E) intersection, and is shown in Figure 1. The current site plan for Harmony Cottages is shown in Figure 2. Harmony Cottages is proposed as 48 single family dwelling units (44 duplexes and 4 detached houses). Primary access to the Harmony Cottages site will be via a full -movement access to/from Harmony Road, approximately 640 feet east of Taft Hill Road. The scope of this memorandum was discussed with Martina Wilkinson, City of Fort Collins Traffic Operations. Since the trip generation is expected to be low, a memorandum analyzing impacts to the Taft Hill/Harmony-LCR38E intersection was requested. A base assumptions form and related information is provided in Appendix A. Harmony Road is to the north of (adjacent to) the proposed Harmony Cottages site. It is an east -west street classified as a four -lane arterial east of Taft Hill Road, and LCR38E is classified as a two-lane arterial west of Taft Hill Road according to the Fort Collins Master Street plan. Currently, Harmony Road has a four -lane cross section with center median lane adjacent to the Harmony Cottages site. At the Taft Hill/Harmony- LCR38E intersection, Harmony Road has eastbound and westbound left -turn lanes, a through lane in each direction, and a westbound right -turn lane. The Taft Hill/Harmony- LCR38E intersection has signal control. The posted speed limit in this area of Harmony Road is 40 mph. Taft Hill Road is to the west of (adjacent to) the proposed Harmony Cottages site. It is a north -south street classified as a four -lane arterial according to the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Currently, Taft Hill Road has a two-lane cross section with center median lane adjacent to the Harmony Cottages site. At the Taft Hill/Harmony-LCR38E intersection, Taft Hill Road has a northbound left -turn lane, dual southbound left -turn lanes, one through lane in each direction, and a southbound right -turn lane. The posted speed limit in this area of Taft Hill Road is 40 mph. Habitat for Humanity Harmony Cottages Modification Request — 30' right of way offset Page 3 of 3 (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; Development of the Harmony Cottages project would result in a substantial benefit to the City because the proposed community would address the need for affordable housing as expressed in City Plan. City Plan contains overarching policy statements that promote balanced and integrated living patterns. Topics addressed include the goal of a mix of housing types in all City sectors. Additionally, affordable housing is encouraged to be dispersed throughout the City. The City also has an Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, which establishes priorities and strategies for the City's affordable housing programs and informs the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans required by HUD. The most recent plan (2010) identifies four priorities to address affordable housing needs: • Increase the inventory of affordable units; • Preserve existing affordable housing units, and; • Increase housing and facilities for people with special needs; To meet the definition of Affordable Housing in the City of Fort Collins, 10% of units must be set -aside for households earning less than 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) adjusted for household size. The Applicant is proposing to set aside 100% of the dwelling units for households earning less than 60% of AMI. In addition the properties will be deed income restricted for 20 years. The first homeowner will have to qualify earning between 35-60% AMI and then, if resold, the new buyer would need to earn less than 80% AMI. Conclusion Affordable housing will become an increasingly important issue within the City of Fort Collins as the property values continue to rise. By filling this City wide need and providing an enhanced landscape buffer between homes and the adjacent arterials, the applicant believes the proposed plans meet the modification requirements set forth in section 2.8.2 of the Land use Code. Thinking outside of the box for ovef two decades 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 ■ Fort Collins, CO 80521 ■ tel. 970.224.5828 ■ fax 970.224.1662 ■ www.ripleydesigninc.com Habitat for Humanity Harmony Cottages Modification Request —30' right of way onset Page 2 of 3 Justifications The Land Use Code states that the decision -maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that the granting of the modification would not be detrimental to the public good; and the decision -maker must also find that the Modification meets one of the following four criteria described in the LUC. (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; The standard set forth in section 3.5.2(E)(1) is to provide an adequate buffer from arterials and single family dwellings. Below are two plan elements incorporated into the Harmony Cottages design that will meet or exceed the intent of the standard set forth in this section. In order to mitigate the proximity of the single family attached houses to the Harmony and Taft Hill road ways, we are proposing to more than double the amount of landscape required along the street scape. The code would require 17 trees along Harmony Road and 8 trees along Taft Hill. In order to provide a visual buffer from the houses and the roads, we are proposing to provide 44 trees along Harmony and 16 along Taft Hill. That would more than double the required landscape. The existing right-of-ways along Harmony and Taft Hill are also larger than the City standard providing a greater distance from the homes and the road than would be typical in the City. The typical park way along a 4 lane arterial is 16' (the area between the back walk and the road). The park way along Harmony is 24' and the park way along Taft Hill it is 55'. With a 30' set back along an arterial and a typical 16' parkway, the code would require single family homes to be set back 46' from the arterial road. Our current design is very close to meeting or exceeding that dimension. The homes along Harmony will be setback from the road between 39' and 44'. That is only 2'-7' closer than the current standards would require. The homes along Taft Hill are set back 72' from the road way exceeding the required 46' set back by 26'. Lastly, if the units along Harmony and Taft Hill were a 3-plex unit rather that a duplex, the code would allow the homes to be 15' from the right of way matching the closest set back shown on the plans. Therefore, due the substantial increase in the streetscape landscape, the separation of the homes from the road ways and the fact that a 3-plex unit would comply with the Code, the applicant believes the proposed development promotes the standard set forth in section 3.5.2(E)(1) equal to or better than a plan that would comply with the code. Thinking outside of the box for over two decades 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 ■ Fort Collins, CO 80521 ■ tel. 970.224.5828 ■ fax 970.224.1662 ■ www.ripleydesigninc.com land planning ■ landscape architecture ■ urban design ■ entitlement Habitat for Humanity Harmony Cottages Modification Request DIVISION 3.5.2(E)(1) RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS Setback from Arterial Streets. The minimum setback of every residential building and of every detached accessory building that is incidental to the residential building shall be thirty (30) feet from any arterial street right-of-way, except for those buildings regulated by Section 3.8.30 of this Code, which buildings must comply with the setback regulations set forth in Section 3.8.30. Reason for Request Habitat for Humanity is seeking to fill a need for affordable housing in Fort Collins. As stated later in this document, Habitat seeks to build single family attached and detached houses for people whose income is between 35% and 60% of the Fort Collins average median income (AMI). With the dramatic increase in home and land prices in Fort Collins, it is crucial the City has attainable housing for it's citizens who fall in the modest income category. For a community to be healthy, housing needs to be available for the certified nursing assistant, the local barista, the single parent and a myriad of other professionals who are crucial to our economy but can not afford to enter the costly and competitive Fort Collins housing market. In order to bring the price of these needed homes to a level these citizen can afford, the density of Harmony Cottages needs to be at a certain level to cover the cost of development infrastructure. In order to get to that density, there are a few of the single family attached units that will be closer than the 30' right of way off set required in section 3.5.2(E)(1). In addition, if these units were a multifamily product (3-plex or greater) the current separation from the right of way would meet code. Below we have laid out our justifications for the modification. Our arguments center around an enhanced landscape buffer to mitigate the proximity to Harmony and Taft Hill roads and the ability of the project to fulfill the need for affordable housing as stated in City Plan and the City's Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. ThiOklr c outside of the box for over two decades 401 W. Mountain Ave., Suite 100 ■ Fort Collins, CO 80521 ■ tel. 970.224.5828 ■ fax 970.224.1662 ■ www.ripleydesigninc.com No Text M MD _.�..aY..,. — uM_e -- BS �y � i •�Yu • r.�u4y • • • u Y uLvu r , � .i. 4 Y� � u u Y •. r •r `�ED H OW COTTAGES PROJECT OEWLOPMERT PL 1 .R PHOTOMETRIC PI 5OF6 PLANT SCHEDULE Iff r Immalmom- m 2— r SM.V—qvw__ m SEED MIXES GENERALLAIMSCAPENOIES STREETTREE NOTES REQUIRED LANDSCAPE HAMONY COTTAGES PROJECT DEVELOPMEMT PLAN erw SPECIES DWERSRV WATER USE TABLE UEGENG-- L--J 2 DETAIL STEEL POSTS I — 4 :PCALa LANDSCAPE NOTES `Pf: =PICXE NC[ 4 OF 6 W Gw ao a Ijil Y 9 1 I Ire 5 !A 0 { 0 ,EE `° k IttYE.- �ileE. ,EPF. ,ais i'°•a G� PEIfi lip e IEUitI i �, e���I!l113i�11t, �ti �i�;iil � eE ; ;�♦.�, . �`�-�., EIIiiItII�E�l1�I 6il�i�itili��i NII tl,lil3E of 1P.11 i y4p 1) ,e..wpn/bsA �Is1lJeeellle �11. I,hnEi 1 IPIIfiPc �,• .�. a I e EI 5I l i: E g E i 4 !",��� . i; gg pp BB 11 eY ........€...... !fill 111 W 5 cc I t e 'lf• F F �. 1" r i lisp 9 ee g hliili d,ekk�- - -_ � sca�IP I ( � � ~ -_ _ fi, YEN �-� �Isee — 54"all-- �.. �i,list �, 11 If ---piY-——sIcR--All NOTES rnwn TYPICAL DUPM LOT —,�-�,r •,wr.er. rT f �. / NARMONY COTTAGES PROJECT .-. OEVELOPMEM PLAN Cp[p �1 _r �� Y • / Y' M �u a✓` < wr a — :`—_ SITE PLAN cd' HARMONY COTTAGES Project Development Plan GENERAL NOTES VICINITY MAP LAND USE CHART I _ LEGAL DESCRIPTION qAx RIM.I„�4Y1lYmW Mf�M1IVIRTMlm�Vl�m�u,"�{IILVM PLANNING CERTIFICATE OWNER'S CERTIFICATION i SHEETINDEX I ONY COTTAGES MWED DEVEWRNENT RLW COVER 1 OF 6 HARMONYCOTTAGES p � • lma t� moo.. - i • .... � � _ J vn a � aPm •w�, (Y} fi �'FAWaY e �� ••v R YMa � � `• I I sSPESf�aETJOF1FOR- CURVE•ANDLINETABLESS PREZI.VEV"Y ' MRMONYC07TAGES ll.T . R,plat,,f La, I and -I lo,u,,atm... Island, Situate to the Southwest Quarter of Section 34. To%envhip 7 North, Range 69 W'e%t of the tith P.M., Cm of Foet caaw, C.ty, of Iotmm Stated Colocul. I, W PRMULVARY Z=T M C=ME3 cm min EMPOM I sidewalk, an additional sidewalk is proposed in front of the dwelling units. This private walk in turn connects to the public street sidewalk at both the north and south edges of the property. There are several connections to the public street sidewalk along Harmony Road as well. The green courts are defined by sidewalks making them attractive and readily accessible for residents and visitors. The project is defined by picket fencing along both Harmony and Taft Hill Road street frontages. Additional picket fencing is located internal to the site partially enclosing green courts. A bus stop is located at the main entrance to the project and community mail boxes are located nearby the entrance as well. A private park space with a small playground is centrally located and shared by all residents. The site drains to the south with storm water collected in a Swale that parallels the south property line. The drainage Swale and associated landscaping provide water quality treatment for the storm water before it leaves the site at the southeast corner and enters the City's storm water system. The area will be seeded with native grasses and provides a 15-25 foot average buffer area between the Harmony Cottages project and Woodridge Subdivision to the south. Although a neighborhood meeting was not required, a neighborhood Open House was held December 3rd to give existing neighborhood residents an opportunity to see the proposed plan and provide comment. The comments and questions along with responses were recorded and submitted to the City. The project as designed meets all the performance standards in the LMN District. The General Development Standards in Chapter 3 of the Land Use Code are also met with one exception. The Applicant is requesting a Modification to the 30-foot setback along Harmony Road. The request and justification is included in the submittal package. City Plan Principles and Policies achieved by the project include the following: • Community and neighborhood livability policies having to do with compact urban development, safe attractive neighborhoods, creating housing options for all household types and income levels, and creating an attractive community image. • Safety and Wellness policies having to do with providing opportunities to lead active and healthy lifestyles, and providing a safe place to live, learn and play. • Transportation policies having to do with providing access to alternative modes of transportation. Thinking outside of the box for over two decades 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 ■ Fort Collins, CO 80521 ■ tel. 970.224.5828 ■ fax 970.224.1662 www. ripleydesigninc.com land planning ■ landscape architecture ■ urban design ■ entitlement December 15, 2015 Planning Objectives Harmony Cottages PDP The Applicant, Habitat for Humanity, is proposing to construct 44 single-family and 4 two-family dwelling units on 4.45 acres located southeast of the intersection of Harmony Road and Taft Hill Road. The property is zoned Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District (LMN). There is a small parcel of land located on the corner that is owned by the South Fort Collins Loveland Water District that is not part of the project. A County residential development known as Westfield is located to the north and Woodridge Subdivision is immediately adjacent to the property on the south. In 2005 Habitat for Humanity proposed a project called Innovation Island, a multi -family and commercial development located on this site. The project was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council upheld the approval in a subsequent Appeal process, however, the project as proposed turned out to be financially infeasible. Additional dwelling units were required to make the project work financially. The LMN zoning allows twelve dwelling units per gross acre of land for affordable housing projects. Habitat seeks to provide housing for people whose income is between 35% and 60% of the Fort Collins average median income (AMI) and therefore qualifies as an affordable housing project. With 48 total dwelling units, the proposed density is 10.79 dwelling units per acre. Access is from Harmony Road via a street -like private drive located approximately 581 feet east of Taft Hill Road with an emergency access located 201 feet east of Taft Hill Road. All the dwelling units are alley -loaded and most of them face on to green courts or park space. Four buildings face Harmony Road and four buildings face Taft Hill Road. In both cases additional landscaping has been provided to insure that these units are adequately buffered from the arterial streets. On -street parking is proposed along the south side of the street -like private drive and the alley courts provide access to single car garages. The alley courts also include an additional parking space for each unit. Trash collection will be provided for individual units accessed from the alleys. There are existing public street sidewalks along both Taft Hill Road and Harmony Road. Since the units along Taft Hill Road are setback approximately 60 feet from the public Ti, rking outside of the Lox for over twC d0C2dC's 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 ■ Fort Collins, CO 80521 s tel. 970.224.5828 ■ fax 970.224.1662 www.ripleydesigninc.com 1pa"InkloSopi,�; Staff Report —Harmony Cottages, PDP150030 Administrative Hearing 03-28-2016 Page 17 6. Traffic Impact Analysis 7. Geotechnical Report 8. Drainage Report 9. Harmony Cottages Utility Plan Set 10. Neighborhood meeting summary — December 3, 2015 11. Neighborhood meeting summary — February 18, 2016 12. Habitat for Humanity Program Description Staff Report — Harmony Cottages, PDP150030 Administrative Hearing 03-28-2016 Page 16 6. Findings of FacVConclusion: In evaluating the request for the Harmony Cottages Project Development Plan, Staff makes the following findings of fact: A. The Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(E)(1) that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good, the plan will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested, and the granting of a modification from the strict application of this 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. B. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Article 3 — General Development Standards. C. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.5, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (LMN) of Article 4 — Districts. While the proposed plan complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, the site plan currently does not match up with the proposed civil engineering documents and plat. Staff recommends approval of the proposed plan with the condition that all documents match at the time of recordation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Harmony Cottages, PDP150030 with the condition that the civil engineering documents and plat match the proposed site plan at the time of recordation. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Zoning & Site Vicinity Map 2. Statement of Planning Objectives 3. Harmony Cottages Subdivision Plat 4. Harmony Cottages Planning Document Set (includes site plan, landscape plan, photometric plan, and elevations) 5. Modification Request Staff Report — Harmony Cottages, PDP150030 Administrative Hearing 03-28-2016 Page 15 which can have a density of 12 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development is a certified affordable housing development with a proposed density of 10.79 dwelling units per acre on a 4.45 acre site. C. Section 4.5(E)(3) — Maximum Residential Building Height The maximum height for single-family and two-family structures is two and a half stories. All of the proposed buildings will be two stories or one story in height. 5. Public Outreach Summary As part of this project, the applicant conducted two neighborhood meetings. The first meeting was held December 3, 2015 at Global Village Academy. This meeting was structured as an open house to gather information about the proposed development, the Habitat for Humanity program, and the process the proposed development would go through. The applicant had not yet submitted a formal development review proposal to the City at the time of the neighborhood meeting. 32 neighborhood members attended their meeting and provided feedback on the preliminary proposal. Due to the number of concerns raised at the first neighborhood meeting, the applicant coordinated a second neighborhood meeting in collaboration with an HOA adjacent to the development site. This meeting was held on February 18th, 2016. Over 80 neighborhood members attended the second meeting. The structure of the second meeting was a more traditional neighborhood meeting format where the applicant and City representatives gave presentations on the project and the development review process followed by a question and answer period. Neighbors raised similar concerns at both neighborhood meetings. Most of the concerns fell in the following categories: • Overall density of the project is too high • Increased traffic due to the development on Taft Hill and Harmony will negatively impact current residents of the area • Concern about potential cut -through traffic through the existing neighborhoods to the south • Desire for additional access point on Taft Hill Road so that there are two entrances and exits for the development • Worried about the development's impact on home values • Safety concerns for kids that will be walking to nearby schools Staff Report — Harmony Cottages, PDP150030 Administrative Hearing 03-28-2016 Page 14 connect to the sidewalk on the "street -like" private drive that serves the development. None of these front doors are more than 350 feet from the nearest street sidewalk. Lots 14-21 and 41-48 have front doors that connect directly to the sidewalks along Harmony Road and Taft Hill Road, respectively. R. Section 3.5.2(E)(3) — Side and Rear Yard Setbacks For residential buildings, the minimum side yard setback is 5 feet and the minimum rear yard setback is 8 feet. Each building complies with the 5 foot side yard setback and the 8 foot rear yard setback. S. Section 3.5.2(F) — Garage Doors Garage doors should be integrated into the development to prevent the streetscape from being dominated by protruding garage doors. The proposed garage doors face an alley and have windows so that the garage appears to be a part of the living portion of the house. T. Section 3.6. 6 — Emergency Access All proposed developments shall provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and for those persons rendering fire protection and emergency services. The proposed development's emergency access plan has gained preliminary approval from Poudre Fire Authority for meeting all applicable code requirements. 4. Compliance with Article 4 of the Land Use Code — Division 4.5. Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (LMN): The project complies with all applicable Article 4 standards as follows: A. Section 4.5(B)(2)(a) — Permitted Uses The proposed use, single-family attached dwellings, is permitted in the LMN zone district and is consistent with the district's intent to be a setting for a predominance of low density housing. B. Section 4.5(D)(1)(b) — Density The maximum density of any development shall be 9 dwelling units per acre except for affordable housing projects containing 10 acres or less, Staff Report — Harmony Cottages, PDP150030 Administrative Hearing 03-28-2016 Page 13 to a public street. All lots meet the minimum dimensional standards outlined in Section 4.5 of the Land Use Code. P. Section 3.5.1 - Building and Project Compatibility New developments shall be compatible with the established architectural character of the area. This includes using similar materials, buildings that are of a similar size, height, bulk, mass, and scale, and minimizing the infringement on adjacent property owners' privacy. The neighborhood immediately to the south of this development consists of a mix of one and two-story single-family detached dwellings. Most of the houses consist of wood siding with brick accents and pitched roofs. All of the duplexes have attached garages. Some of the houses also feature small front porches. The proposed architecture for Harmony Cottages is one and two-story structures with siding and pitched roof forms. Each duplex will also contain covered porches. While the adjacent subdivision does not contain any duplexes, the duplexes as part of this proposal are designed to look like single-family houses with distinct roof forms for each side of the duplex. The duplexes are also comparably sized to the single-family houses in the adjacent. All of the buildings along the southern property line are also oriented to minimize privacy issues for adjacent property owners. These qualities work in concert to create a development that will be compatible with the existing neighborhoods. The proposed site and landscape plan also show extra attention to buffering from adjacent uses. While the proposed residential use is consistent with the adjacent residential uses, the proposed development is denser than the surrounding neighborhoods. To improve the transition between the proposed development and adjacent neighborhood to the south, the landscape plan shows groves of trees that act as a buffer. These tree groves provide visual relief to the adjacent neighborhood and soften the transition from duplexes to single-family detached homes. Q. Section 3.5.2(D) - Relationship of Dwellings to Streets and Parking Every front door shall face the adjacent street to the extent reasonably feasible. Alternatively, front doors may face onto a major walkway spine as long as the front door is no more than 350 feet from a street sidewalk. Most of the front doors face onto a shared green space with walkways that Staff Report — Harmony Cottages, PDP150030 Administrative Hearing 03-28-2016 Page 12 K. Section 3.2.2(J) — Setbacks The minimum setbacks for a vehicle use area are 15 feet along an arterial street and 5 feet along a lot line. All of the vehicle use areas meet these minimum requirements. L. Section 3.2.2(K) — Parking Lots — Required Number of Off -Street Spaces for Type of Use The table below shows the amount of off-street parking spaces required and the amount provided by unit type. Table 1 - Off -Street Parking Summary Unit Tym # of Units '° _ Protirlded Duplex, 2-bed 13 23 23 Duplex, 3-bed 26 52 52 Duplex, 4-bed 5 15 15 Single-family detached 4 8 8 Total 48 98 98 M. Section 3.2.3 —Solar Access, Orientation, Shading All development shall be designed throughout to accommodate active and/or passive solar installations to the extent reasonably feasible while minimizing the casting of shadows onto adjacent developments. The architectural elevations show solar panels on the roofs of each duplex and are located to minimize casting shadows on the neighborhood to the south. N. Section 3.2.4 — Site Lighting The proposed lighting plan is consistent with the requirements of the Land Use Code in regards to the general standard, lighting levels and design standards. O. Section 3.3.1(B) — Lots No lot in a subdivision shall have less area than required under the applicable zoning requirements. Each lot must also have vehicular access Staff Report — Harmony Cottages, PDP150030 Administrative Hearing 03-28-2016 Page 11 the Xeriscape principals in the Land Use Code and has an annual water use of 12.54 gallons/square foot over the site. F. Section 3.2.2(C)(1) — Safety Considerations To the maximum extent feasible, pedestrians shall be separated from vehicles and bicycles. The proposed development will have an extensive system of sidewalks separated from the roadway by a curb. These walkways allow pedestrians to move within the site without encountering vehicles or bicycles. G. Section 3.2.2(C)(5) — Walkways Walkways must be located and aligned to directly and continuously connect areas or point of pedestrian origin and destination. Each walkway shown on the proposed site plan connects to the entry of each duplex and single-family home. These walkways connect to the street like private drive that runs through the site. All of the walkways end up leading to the sidewalks on Harmony Road and Taft Hill Road. H. Section 3.2.2(C)(6) — Direct On -Site Access to Pedestrian and Bicycle Destinations Pedestrian and bicycle facilities provided on site must connect to or allow for direct connections to major pedestrian and bicycle destinations. The sidewalk network connects to the sidewalks on Harmony Road and Taft Hill Road, which provide direct connections to major destinations. Section 3.2.2(C)(8) — Transportation Impact Study A Transportation Impact Study is required for developments that could have an impact on the traffic conditions surrounding the development. The applicant supplied a Transportation Impact Study in accordance with the City's guidelines. J. Section 3.2.2(D) — Access and Parking Lot Requirements The proposal meets the requirements outlined in Land Use Code section 3.2.2(D) including the separation of vehicles and pedestrians, unobstructed vehicle access, location of off-street parking areas, pavement material, and lighting. Staff Report — Harmony Cottages, PDP150030 Administrative Hearing 03-28-2016 Page 10 B. Section 3.2.1(D)(2) — Street Trees Developments that front on streets with a landscape parkway must provide canopy shade trees at 30-40 foot spacing in the center of such parkway areas. The proposed landscape plan shows canopy shade trees along Harmony Road and Taft Hill Road with 40 foot spacing between each canopy shade tree. C. Section 3.2.1(D)(3) — Minimum Species Diversity To prevent uniform insect or disease susceptibility and eventual uniform senescence on a development site or in the adjacent area or the district, species diversity is required and extensive monocultures are prohibited. The maximum percentage of any one species when there are 60 or more trees on site is 15%. No species consists of more than 15% of the overall amount of trees provided. D. Section 3.2.1(D)(4) — Tree Species and Minimum Sizes All trees provided must meet the minimum sizes as follows: Type Minimum Size Canopy Shade Tree 2.0" caliper balled and burlapped or equivalent Evergreen Tree 6.0' height balled and burlapped or equivalent Ornamental Tree 1.5" caliper balled and burlapped or equivalent Shrubs 5 gallon or adequate size consistent with design intent Canopy Shad Tree as a street tree 1.25" caliper container or equivalent on a Residential Local Street Only The trees shown on the landscape all meet these minimum requirements. E. Section 3.2.1(E)(3) — Water Conservation All landscape plans must be designed to incorporate water conservation materials and techniques in order to meet the Xeriscape principals established in the Land Use Code. Total annual water use shall not exceed 15 gallons/square foot over the site. The landscape plan meets Staff Report — Harmony Cottages, PDP150030 Administrative Hearing 03-28-2016 Page 9 Principle LIV 8: The City will encourage the creation and expansion of affordable housing opportunities and preservation of the existing affordable housing supply. Policy LIV 8.1 — Support Affordable Housing Programs Support the development and provision of affordable housing in the community by maintaining and allocating funding for affordable housing services and programs including management of a competitive process for federal and local funding, development incentives, homebuyer assistance, and the Land Bank program. The recently adopted Affordable Housing Strategic Plan also aims to increase the amount of affordable housing in Fort Collins. One of the overarching goals of the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan is that publicly assisted affordable housing will consist of 10% of the housing stock by 2040. To reach this overall goal, the City must meet a short-term goal of having publicly assisted affordable housing consist of 6% of the housing stock by 2020. To reach this goal with the projected growth of the community, 94 affordable, owner -occupied units would need to be built by 2020. This project would help fulfill a substantial portion of this goal. Staff finds that the modification request for relief from the 30' setback requirement from arterial streets is justified due to the proposed plan's alignment with an important community need expressed within City Plan and the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code — General Development Standards: The project complies with all applicable General Development Standards as follows: A. Section 3.2.1(D) — Tree Planting Standards All developments must establish groves and belts of trees along all city streets, in and around parking lots, and in all landscape areas that are located within 50 feet of any building or structure in order to establish at least a partial urban tree canopy. The proposed landscape plan shows trees that line the private drive that runs through the development that will provide a tree canopy along the street. Each shared green space between the units feature trees that will further enhance the tree canopy on the site. Staff Report — Harmony Cottages. PDP150030 Administrative Hearing 03-28-2016 Page 8 family units with a 15 foot setback. Multi -family buildings only require a 15 foot setback from arterial streets per Land Use Code section 3.8.30(E)(3), which supersedes the standard outlined in 3.5.2(E)(1). The proposed plan could comply with the minimum setback standard by changing the unit type to triplexes. Staff finds that a plan featuring triplexes with a 15 foot setback would be inferior to the current plan. The current plan allows each unit to have more access to air and light due to the required side yard setbacks between each duplex. In a triplex configuration, the middle unit would likely have less access to air and light and would result in a less livable and desirable unit for potential home owners. The scale of duplexes also more closely matches the existing character of the neighborhood. In summary, staff finds the proposed site plan is equal to or better than a plan that meets Land Use Code section 3.5.2(E)(1). The proposed plan addresses safety and noise issues through enhanced landscaping and fencing. The proposed buildings will also be further away from the nearest travel lanes along Harmony Road and Taft Hill road than usual due to the unique parkway strips along these roadways. The proposed site plan will also allow for more livable units that are more compatible with the surrounding area than would a similar plan featuring triplexes. Staff Finding for Criterion 2: Staff finds the proposed development meets goals identified in City Plan, Fort Collins' comprehensive plan, as well as the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, which was adopted by City Council unanimously in August 2015. City Plan has numerous principles and policy objectives that target an increased supply of affordable housing in Fort Collins. Some of these policies include but are not limited to: Principle LIV 7: A variety of housing types and densities for all income levels shall be available throughout the Growth Management Area. Policy LIV 7.4 — Maximize Land for Residential Development Permit residential development in most neighborhoods and districts in order to maximize the potential land available for development of housing and thereby positively influence housing affordability. Staff Report- Harmony Cottages, PDP150030 Administrative Hearing 03-28-2016 Page 7 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 Staff Finding for Criterion 1: Staff finds that the proposed plan meets the intent of the Code section equal to or better than would a plan that complies with the standard for which this modification is requested. The purpose of the setback standards for single-family houses along arterial streets is to provide safety for residents and minimize the impact of road noise. Two factors provide increased safety and minimize road noise in lieu of the typical 30' setback. One is the increased landscaping provided along both Harmony Road and Taft Hill Road. The proposed landscape plan shows double the landscaping required along Taft Hill Road and more than double the required landscaping required along Harmony Road. The increased landscaping is complemented by a white picket fence to further delineate the edge of the lots. The other factor that aids the safety and minimizes noise from arterial roads is the distance of the buildings from the nearest traffic lanes on Harmony Road and Taft Hill Road. Harmony Road is unique in that the parkway abutting this parcel is 24 feet wide as opposed to the typical 16 foot parkway along most arterials. This means the buildings of this development are 8 feet further away from the nearest travel lane than is typical. While this means some buildings are still 7 feet closer to the nearest travel lane than is typical, the additional landscaping and fencing reduces the impact of Harmony Road on the development. The buildings are even further away from the nearest travel lane on Taft Hill Road since Taft Hill has yet to be widened. According to the City's latest Capital Improvement Plan, the widening of Taft Hill Road between the Growth Management Area boundary and Harmony Road would cost approximately $8.5 million. This project is identified as a long-term or forecasted need. Like many of the projects identified in the Capital Improvement Plan, the widening of Taft Hill Road from the Growth Management Area boundary is unfunded. As such, it is unclear at this time when Taft Hill Road will be widened. In its current condition, the buildings are 72' away from the nearest travel lane on Taft Hill Road, which vastly exceeds the typical 46 feet when accounting for the setback, sidewalk, and parkway seen on most arterials. Staff also finds that the proposal as shown with single-family attached units with a decreased setback to be equal to or better than a plan that would show multi- Staff Report — Harmony Cottages, PDP150030 Administrative Hearing 03-28-2016 Page 6 Applicant's Justification for Criterion 2: Development of the Harmony Cottages project would result in a substantial benefit to the City because the proposed community would address the need for affordable housing as expressed in City Plan. City Plan contains overarching policy statements that promote balanced and integrated living patterns. Topics addressed include the goal of a mix of housing types in all City sectors. Additionally, affordable housing is encouraged to be dispersed throughout the City. The City also has an Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, which establishes priorities and strategies for the City's affordable housing programs and informs the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans required by HUD. The most recent plan (2015) identifies four priorities to address affordable housing needs: • Increase the inventory of affordable units • Preserve existing affordable housing units • Increase housing and facilities for people with special needs To meet the definition of Affordable Housing in the City of Fort Collins, 10% of units must be set -aside for households earning less than 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) adjusted for household size. The Applicant is proposing to set aside 100% of the dwelling units for households earning less than 60% of AMI. In addition the properties will be deed income restricted for 20 years. The first homeowner will have to qualify earning between 35-60% AMI and then, if resold, the new buyer would need to earn less than 80% AMI. Staff Finding: Staff finds that the request for a Modification of Standard to section 3.5.2(E)(1) is justified by the applicable standards in 2.8.2(H)(1) and 2.8.2(H)(2). A. The granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good; B. The project design satisfies 2.8.2(H)(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; and C. The project design satisfies 2.8.2(H)(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 Staff Report — Harmony Cottages, PDP150030 Administrative Hearing 03-28-2016 Page 5 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. Any finding made under subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4) above shall be supported by specific findings showing how the plan, as submitted, meets the requirements and criteria of said subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4). Summary of Applicant's Justification: The applicant requests that the Modification be approved and provides the following justification based upon Criterion 1 (proposal is equal or better than provisions in the Land Use Code): Applicant's Justification for Criterion 1: • In order to mitigate the proximity of the single family attached houses to the Harmony and Taft Hill road ways, the applicant is proposing to more than double the amount of landscape required along the street scape. The code would require 17 trees along Harmony Road and 8 trees along Taft Hill. In order to provide a visual buffer from the houses and the roads, the applicant is proposing 44 trees along Harmony and 16 along Taft Hill. That would more than double the required landscape. • The existing right-of-ways along Harmony and Taft Hill are also larger than the City standard providing a greater distance from the homes and the road than would be typical in the City. The typical park way along a 4 lane arterial is 16' (the area between the back walk and the road). The park way along Harmony is 24' and the park way along Taft Hill it is 55'. With a 30' set back along an arterial and a typical 16' parkway, the code would require single family homes to be set back 46' from the arterial road. The current design is close to meeting or exceeding that dimension. The homes along Harmony will be setback from the road between 39' and 44'. That is only 2'-7' closer than the current standards would require. The homes along Taft Hill are set back 72' from the road way exceeding the required 46' set back by 26'. • Lastly, if the units along Harmony and Taft Hill were a 3-plex unit rather that a duplex, the code would allow the homes to be 15' from the right of way matching the closest set back shown on the plans. Staff Report — Harmony Cottages, PDP150030 Administrative Hearing 03-28-2016 Page 4 2. Compliance with Section 2.8.2(H) of the Land Use Code - Modification of Standards Modification Description: The applicant requests a Modification to Section 3.5.2(E)(1) — Setback from Arterial Streets to set the proposed buildings back from Harmony Road and Taft Hill Road 15 feet where 30 feet is required. Land Use Code Standard Proposed to be Modified (areas underlined and bolded for emphasis): Land Use Code 3.5.2(E)(1): The minimum setback of every residential building and of every detached accessory building that is incidental to the residential building shall be thirty (30) feet from any arterial street right-of-way, except for those buildings regulated by Section 3.8.30 of this Code, which buildings must comply with the setback regulations set forth in Section 3.8.30. Land Use Code Modification Criteria: "The decision maker may grant a modification of standards only if it finds that 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 Staff Report — Harmony Cottages, PDP150030 Administrative Hearing 03-28-2016 Page 3 The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: Direction Zone District Existing Land Uses North County Single-family detached residential, multi -family South Low Density Residential (RL) Single-family detached residential East Low Density Residential (RL) Single-family detached residential West County Single-family detached residential, gas station and convenience store, mobile home park Below is a zoning and site vicinity map. Figure 1: Harmony Cottages Zoning & Site Vic -----r _ �.. , D.a� .. _ (-� Map Staff Report — Harmony Cottages, PDP150030 Administrative Hearing 03-28-2016 Page 2 • The Modification of Standard to Section 3.5.2(E)(1) — setback from arterial streets - that is proposed with this Project Development Plan meets the applicable requirements of Section 2.8.2(H), in that the granting of the Modification would not be detrimental to the public good, the plan will promote the general purpose of the standard for which the modification is requested equally or better than would a plan which complies with the standard for which a modification is requested, and the granting of a modification from the strict application of this 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. • The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 — General Development Standards. • The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.5, Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood (LMN) of Article 4 — Districts. While the proposed plan complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code, the site plan currently does not match up with the proposed civil engineering documents and plat. Staff recommends approval of the proposed plan with the condition that all documents match at the time of recordation. COMMENTS: 1. Background The property was annexed into the City as part of the Horsetooth — Harmony West Annexation on June 3, 1980. In 2005, Habitat for Humanity pursued a project on the property called Innovation Island. Innovation Island was a development that separated the 4.45 acres of land into two lots. As proposed, Innovation Island would have consisted of 27 multi -family units with 61 parking spaces on 3.16 acres on Lot 1. Lot 2 was to be developed as multi -family residential or commercial as part of a later phase of development. The Innovation Island PDP sought entitlement for the development of Lot 1. The Innovation Island PDP was approved by the Planning & Zoning Board on November 17, 2005. The decision of the Planning & Zoning Board was appealed to City Council on January 17, 2006. City Council upheld the Planning & Zoning Board's decision. Despite gaining this approval, the Innovation Island development did not move forward and the PDP lapsed in 2009. F6rt Collins ITEM NO 1 MEETING DATE STAFF Mar. 28, 2016 Clay Frickey ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER PROJECT: Harmony Cottages, PDP150030 APPLICANT: Russ Lee Ripley Design, Inc. 419 Canyon Ave. Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 OWNERS: Harmony Limited, LLC PO Box 271519 Fort Collins, CO 80527 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Project Development Plan for Habitat for Humanity to construct 44 two-family and 4 single-family dwelling units on a 4.45 acre site located southeast of the intersection of Harmony Road and Taft Hill Road. The LMN zoning district allows twelve dwelling units per gross acre of land for affordable housing projects. Habitat for Humanity seeks to provide housing for people whose income is between 35% and 60% of the Fort Collins average median income (AMI) and therefore qualifies as an affordable housing project. With 48 total dwelling units, the proposed density is 10.79 dwelling units per acre. This site is located in the LMN (Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Harmony Cottages PDP150030 with conditions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff finds the proposed Harmony Cottages Project Development Plan complies with the applicable requirements of the City of Fort Collins Land Use Code (LUC), more specifically: • The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. Planning Services 281 N College Ave - PO Box 580 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 fcgov.com/developmentreview/ 970.221.6750 Fort Collins Habitat for Humanity builds tomes In partnership with selected and qualified, modest - income households. Habitat homeowners: ■ Contribute a minimum of 250-500 tours of 'sweat-equily' building their homes, the homes of others, and preparing to be successful homeowners. ■ Consent to a criminal background check, sex offender registry check, credit check, and the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons check via the US Treasury. ■ Complete homeowner education classes Including: • Hornelwyer Education Class provided by Neighbor to Neighbor • Financial Peace University, a nine week study on personal financial fitness and management • How to be a Good Neighbor • Home Maintenance • Legal Aspects of Homeownership • Media and PR Training is Pay beck a no -interest mortgage through affordable payments based on 28% of a household's gross monthly Income. Homeowner applicants must meet the following criteria: 1. Residency: • Uve or work in Fort Collins or the surrounding rural areas. • Are a US citizen or a lawful permanent resident 2. Have a need for housing: • Unable to quality for a conventional or government assisted loan, or • Live in overcrowded conditions, or • Live in unsafe housing, or • Housing Is temporary or transitional, or • Rent Is more than 30% of gross Income. 3. Willingness to partner with Habitat • Complete Gasses once selected. • Complete'sweat-equity' volunteer hours prior to closing on home. • Save $1,500 toward closing costs. 4. Ability to pay for the home: • Meet the income qualifications. • Currently able to pay bills on time. • Have had no bardatlpky in pest 2 years. • Ham had no foreclosure In past 3 years • Have no outsb ndirlg liam orWgnvrrts • Complete mortgage application and fulfill all underwriting requirements.' Applicants must have a steady Income history. This can Include Income from reliable sources other than employment, such as social security. Current Income guidelines are shown below. 2.700 }}}}} $29,435-S0,4W 7iffts 7,380 tiffitfi 531,6a5-s4,lso 2.060 tfffiftf 533.77S-57,1100•••+• tittttfifi s3sws61,620 t 51,SW-2.725 tfttt $2,453-4.30S tf 51,817-3,115 tftftt 52,634-4jiS }tt S2.045-3,505 ttttttt 57,815 4,825 tit} $2-269-3.890 tfttffff 52.995-5,135 - Fat CaWm HAW for Hmwey Wwat a In •anrftr rr8h Wn Fak I kKM Act, ale E*W CMM Oppm U Act, aid the An■ kwo with OWnbO raa Ad w well N •r1411ap caa ftm with •8 SAFE Art, Anil Mo•I•y kyaat ■W TILA Loan Oft.o36r %eNcedon mquY•r11er8•- L �� Meeting these minimum criteria helps ensure the success of families. Fort Collins Habitat for Humanity (FCHFH) provides families the necessary resources to be successful homeowners. The Homeowner Services Manager facilitates family selection and then, after selection, provides case management, ongoing support services and education, and consultation throughout the term of the home loan. With a total of 60 homes in Fort Collins, there has only been 1 foreclosure or less than 2% of loans. Prior to closing on their homes, partner families participate in a series of 6 homeowner education classes including the following: Homebuyer Education through Neighbor to Neighbor, Legal Aspects of Homeownership, and Financial Management. They also are required to participate in the 9-week Financial Peace University program Green, Energy Efficient Homes Each home is carefully designed to be aesthetically pleasing as well as energy efficient. We have built single-family homes, duplexes, and multi -family developments throughout Fort Collins. Fort Collins Habitat for Humanity has built multiple LEED Gold certified homes and continues to build to these standards although not every home is certified. LEED standards have been incorporated into the design and construction, with energy efficiency components of Energy Star and much more. our homes include the following: • Low VON paints, finishes, carpet • Upgraded Low-E Windows • Programmable Thermostats with Limits • Energy Star Rated appliances • CFL bulbs • Insulated Foundation • Upgraded HVAC • Upgraded building shell with spray foam insulation • Low flow shower heads and toilets Another component of green building we are committed to is providing homeowner education about efficiency usage. This is included in the walk-through upon completion of the home. Habitat for Humanity' How Habitat Works Habitat for Humanity brings people together to build homes, communities and hope. All are welcome to help with the work, regardless of race, religion, age, gender, political views or any of the other distinctions that too often divide people. This grassroots effort is made possible through the generous donations of materials, funds, and labor from members of the Fort Collins community. With this leveraging of resources, Habitat is able to help partner families earning 35-60% of the area median income to build and buy their own home. For example, a family of 4 earning between $27,230 and $46,680 qualifies for the program income -wise. Partner families pay a 0% interest fixed-rate mortgage payment that does not exceed 28% of their income and this helps to build more homes. If the first mortgage, the maximum affordable mortgage over 30 years, is less than the appraised value of the home then Habitat places a second deed of trust. This "silent second" on the home represents the difference. It is called a "silent second" because the homeowner pays no payments on this amount but, in the event the homeowner decides to sell the home, they would still owe what remains on their first deed of trust and also this "silent second." The second deed of trust would be paid back upon sale of the home to allow Habitat to build more homes. Habitat homeowners also contribute $1,500 toward closing costs and up to 500 hours of "sweat equity" building their home and those of other families. The lasting, generational impact of Habitat for Humanity is well -documented and includes educational and job attainment, health and wellness, and a sense of security and confidence in managing finances. Partner Family Qualifications To be eligible to purchase a Habitat home, families meet the following four criteria: 1. Residency - Live or work in Fort Collins (or surrounding rural areas), are a US citizen, or a legal permanent resident 2. Need of Housing- Housing is inadequate, unaffordable, unsafe, or not stable 3. Ability to Pay — Consistent income at 35-60% AM], save $1,000 down payment 4. Willingness to Partner - Committed to giving 250-500 hours of "sweat equity" building homes or through other volunteer activities, including working at the Restore. Sweat equity activities can be modified based on ability. Response (Applicant): No. Question: What is the cost of the water taps? I thought water taps were really expensive. Response (Applicant): We're getting our water from City Utilities, not the South Fort Collins Loveland Water District. Question: Who pays for the taps? Response (Applicant): The developer pays for the taps Question: What about water pressure? I have pretty low water pressure right now and so I am concerned about this development impacting my water pressure. Response (Applicant): Utilities will ensure there will be sufficient water pressure. Question: I have a question about the covenants. So an attorney will write the covenants, but when will they be available? Will they be available before the hearing? Response (Applicant): Covenants are based on our selection process to prospective owners so we probably won't have the covenants ready by the hearing. As a developer we stick around so if there are issues we can step in. Comment: I just wanted to speak for a moment on something that happened recently. A car had missed the turn at Greengate and ran through two fences and into a house. We need to address the traffic issues in this area. Comment: The car came within 10' of a woman's pillow. Question: 48 units seem like awfully high density. Have fewer units been considered? Is there a possibility to reduce the number of units? Response (Applicant): Density is there so they can provide an affordable product. We looked at many iterations but the density has not changed much due to affordability. Question: How will you address all of the questions? Response (City): I'll type up all of the notes and send them out to everyone who gave us their e-mail. We'll also make sure to address these comments with the proposal that goes to the hearing officer so they will be addressed at the public hearing. Question: Does Habitat own the property? Response (Applicant): No, the developer owns the property and we will buy it back Question: Can you e-mail your staff report as well? Response (City): Yes. has said they wish they could live in homes like the ones we build. In my opinion, we have the best neighborhood in Fort Collins but if we open up the picture a little bit, the trailer park to the north of us hasn't impacted our property values. I'm scared for the kids, too, but it looks like they have done a good job addressing our concerns. 1 car a minute will piss me off when I'm trying to get out of the neighborhood too but I'll deal with. It's also very hard to get land in Fort Collins. New teachers can't afford Fort Collins so I think we have to give a little on this project. Comment: So with the decision maker that means that one person will decide whether this project happens or not. Response (City): That's why we have a public hearing so the community can provide testimony to influence the decision. The decision maker can choose to attach conditions to the project's approval to address concerns of the community. Comment: I don't like the decision maker scenario, City Council should vote on it. Question: Has Habitat ever been denied in Fort Collins? Response (Applicant): No. Comment: I hear sirens all the time and I live 5 houses off Harmony. We should also look at boat traffic and emergency vehicles in the summer. This causes a lot of congestion. I'm concerned about the safety of kids in the summer. Response (City): We will look into more enforcement for traffic on Harmony. Question: How far are duplexes away from traffic? Response (Applicant): The closest one is 39' from Harmony and the unit furthest away is 52' from Taft. Comment: I thought the minimum offset was 25'. Response (Applicant): It's 5' for side yards. Question: Will there be windows on both sides of the houses? Response (Applicant): Yes. Comment: So the people living there can look right into our backyards, then. Question: Shouldn't they locate the development in east Fort Collins due to all of the development out there? Response (Applicant): Securing property in Fort Collins is difficult. I've been looking for a year for a lot for a Poudre School District home and I haven't been able to find one. Question: Was this property purchased by HUD? weeks ahead of the scheduled hearing date. The decision maker is a hearing officer, which is a land use attorney from outside the community. At that meeting, the applicant and City will give presentations on the project and the City will provide a recommendation to the hearing officer. This meeting will open to the public to comment on the project and the hearing officer will take your concerns into consideration when making their decision. After the hearing, the decision maker has 10 business days to render a decision. Once the hearing officer renders a decision, everyone who provided testimony at the hearing will receive a notice of the decision. Those who are in the notification area or provided testimony can appeal the decision within 10 business days to City Council. Comment: I can't even sit and enjoy my backyard that sits along Taft Hill due to all of the traffic. My living room and office are also quite noisy. Traffic also cuts through our neighborhood all the time. Response (City): We want to talk to you in further detail and make sure we are monitoring the neighborhood at the right times. We want to address these issues. Comment: People don't want to wait at the light and that is what causes a lot of the cut through traffic. Response (City): We are trying to address that and thought it was going well. We need to take a closer look. Comment: I would like to say that having experience with developers they say one thing and do another. This seems like a great idea just not here. Property values went way down in 2008 and we're worried about property values going down now and losing all of our retirement money. Question: How can we help Habitat find a different property? Question: What is the maximum length of a cul de sac in Fort Collins? Response (Applicant): 660'. Question: What is the distance from the entry to the end of the cul de sac at the southwest end of the site? Response (Applicant): Our street is a private drive, not a cul-de-sac. We have a second point of access less than 660'. Question: Is it big enough to do a turnaround for a bus? Response (Applicant): I haven't used a bus turning template on this cul de sac so I am not sure. PSD bus will use east bound Harmony. Comment: I appreciate everyone's concerns. I work at Poudre High School and I teach math. I've lived in the neighborhood for 15 years and had asked my realtor about this project since there was a rumor that there was low income housing coming to our neighborhood and what it would do to property values. He told me that our property values won't go down. I build homes in our geometry class and that has changed my perspective on Habitat homes. I'm a numbers guy so I'm not making this up, 1/3 of my class Response (Applicant): The green belts and roads will be built right away following by the individual lots. Roads and landscaping that would not be affected by house construction will be installed right away. House construction will be at least 6 years. Question: How about the street trees? Response (Applicant): Yes, street trees will be installed. Question: As for the home values, what were the values before the Habitat homes were built in Rigden and what were they after? Response (Applicant): Recent appraisals of our single-family homes have been at $250,000. That is an appreciation of 20%. Question: I appreciate everyone's concerns so far. Pedestrian safety is a concern for me. What happened to the trees on the south edge of the development? Response (Applicant): We will look at trees on the property line. Trees have been added to south property line. Comment: This is an odd property in that there are nice homes and low income housing nearby. Comment: South Taft Hill becomes a drag racing strip. The entrance shown on Harmony will have lots of fast traffic, too. Question: Since this will be a construction site for 6-7 years, where will volunteers park? This is not a good site. Response (Applicant): Parking for volunteers will be available on site and at the Habitat Restore on northwest corner of Harmony and Taft. To respond to some of the construction questions, most of the intensive construction will be done at the beginning. This includes putting in the roads. We will also place fences early on to increase safety. Comment: I have some words of support for the project. My father is a Habitat volunteer in Columbus, CH and he always comments on how these developments improve the neighborhoods around them. I'm a school teacher and I have kids that live in Habitat homes. Habitat homes increase their housing security, which results in improved school performance. I have fellow school teachers that have applied to live in a Habitat home and this provides a homeownership opportunity for them. Plus, students help build some of these homes and this gives them something to build their pride. Question: Everyone here loves Habitat but not here. What is the process for the remainder of the project? Response (City): The next step is to incorporate this feedback into the proposal. After that, the project will go to a public hearing for approval. Everyone who signed in will be notified via e-mail of this meeting. Every property owner within 800' of the development will also receive a letter in the mail two Question: Will the development share a fence with the abutting properties or will you build your own fence? Response (Applicant): There will just be the existing fence. Question: So then the HOA is on the hook if something happens to the fence? That doesn't seem right. Response (Applicant): That's usually how it works. Our HOA will share the expense of agreed maintenance of the fence. Question: I am curious about the sweat equity you talked about during the presentation. How long will construction take? Response (Applicant): It depends on funding and volunteers but it could potentially take 6 years. Comment: We've heard a lot of great stories about opportunities but we want answers to our questions. Response (Applicant): We work hard on this every day, these things are a big concern to us, too. Comment: That's what you said last time. Response (Applicant): We need to look at some of these things in greater detail. Response (City): Development is responsible for installing any needed sidewalks. We need to look at the signal timing and crosswalks and it will deal with pedestrians getting across Harmony safely. Question: How will kids get to Johnson? Response (Applicant): The underpass across Harmony. Comment: We shouldn't have to worry about our own fence. You should put in your own fence. Question: Will the single-family homes be 1 story or 2 stories? Response (Applicant): The single-family homes will be 1 story and the duplexes will be 2 stories. Comment: The most direct way to get to Johnson is to cross through the greenbelt. We would like to see the kids go some other direction. Question: How much right of way is required to get Taft Hill to 4 lanes? Will we lose any trees? Response (Applicant): The proposed sidewalk is located to be sited appropriately based on the Taft Hill expansion. The trees shown are behind the sidewalk so they will work with the road's expansion. Question: So in other words we could have a construction site for 5-6 years, what is the process and timing for installing the landscaping? Response (City): We're not sure on the route but I will follow up with you. The bus routes are determined by Poudre School District. Poudre School District does not allow crossover on arterial streets. Response (Applicant): Development is within walk zone for all schools. Bus to Rocky would be on the proposed east bound Harmony bus stop. Question: Has there been a study done on school buses backing traffic up? Response (City): This is included in our traffic analysis. We include projected and existing buses in this analysis. Question: How does ownership work? Can property owners turn these into rental properties? Response (Applicant): No, they must be owner occupied and they come with a 20-year affordability term. Comment: Most children will walk to school so there may not be bus service there. Comment: Children will cross Harmony without using a crosswalk. Comment: I have a comment on the impact to schools. I am worried about the capacity of schools in the area. These areas need to be attractive to families and the quality of our schools helps make this area attractive. Pushing schools over capacity will lower the quality of our schools. Response (Applicant): I don't have a firm response to that comment but Poudre School District is routed on all development projects and they have not commented on this proposal. Comment: Poudre School District may not care. What difference does it make if kids go to one school or another? Response (Principal): Johnson is at 75% capacity right now. Question: Greengate and Harmony has a turn lane. How will this development impact our access to that turn lane? Response (Applicant): This won't impact Greengate's access. Question: When they are turning left will they go into the median or the turn lane? Response (Applicant): They will queue in the center turn lane before Greengate. Comment: I have a backyard that faces Taft Hill and our backyard and patio are not attractive because of all of the traffic noise. Question: Will the HOA have the same standards as our HOA? Response (Applicant): We are still developing the HOA so we are not sure. Response (Applicant): The streets will be private with parking on one side of the street. The private drive is 24' wide with parking on the north side of the drive only. Question: What will the value of the cottages be? Response (Applicant): We're not sure yet but recent appraisals of our single-family homes elsewhere have been at $250,000. These homes have seen an appreciation of 20%. Question: Will current occupancy ordinance apply to this development? Response (Applicant): Yes, we will abide by the occupancy ordinance. Question: How will kids get to school and access the school bus? What school will these kids go to? Response (Applicant): We will follow up with you on that. Access is designed to use the under pass across Harmony to the south. The site is within the walking zones of Johnson, Webber and Rocky. Rocky students would cross at crosswalk at Harmony and Taft. If bussing was needed it would be provided on east bound Harmony, most likely at the bus stop located to the north of this site and would be provided for Rocky only. Response (Principal): The kids in this development will go to Johnson Elementary. Question: The current conditions for turning out onto Harmony from Greengate is a challenge. Could you adjust the signal timing at the Harmony and Taft Hill intersection to allow for more time for residents to turn on to Harmony? Response (City): We will follow up with you at a later date. Question: Where will guests park? Response (Applicant): Each unit has an extra parking space and there will be parking on the north edge of the private street. Question: Is the applicant seeking any variances? Response (Applicant): Yes, normally the required setback along arterials is 30'. We are looking for a modification to allow the buildings to be 25' from the curb. We could comply with the 30' setback but would have to change unit types from duplexes to triplexes to make that work. Question: Is the site plan contingent on the modification being granted? What happens if you don't get approval for that? Response (Applicant): Yes, we would have to change to triplexes or 4-plexes if we don't get the modification. Question: Could you walk us through how school buses will drop off kids on Harmony? Will buses stop on the wrong side of Harmony and force kids to cross the street? conduct speed studies and studies of trip origins and destinations to see how traffic is impacting your neighborhood. Based on the results of the study, we might look in to installing speed bumps or signs to slow traffic down. The nice thing is that this program is funded by the City so you will not have to pay for any of these improvements. Question: What is the baseline for the Level of Service at Harmony and Taft Hill? Response (Applicant): It is a C right now and will be a C or a D with this development. Question: Is the water quality feature detention or retention? Response (Applicant): Neither, the water will go to a detention area off site. We will be treating for water quality with Low Impact Development. The water on the site will drain within 24 hours, the water goes through fast. Question: Have you looked at the hydrology for the site? There are problems with water in basements in wet years right now. I'm concerned that digging basements for these homes will impact our neighborhood. I want to make sure that flows won't go to our neighborhood. Response (Applicant): We've done 2 geotechnical studies, one in 2006 and one last year. Neither showed a water table within 15'. We won't do many basements due to the soil. If we do basements, they will be in the northwest corner of the site. Question: Since traffic is at a C or D level right now, what are we doing before this project goes in to improve traffic? Have you considered a right turn on northbound Taft Hill or an access point for this development on Taft Hill? Response (City): Yes, we have considered both. We wouldn't allow an access point on Taft Hill since it would be too close to the intersection. We have also looked at a right turn lane on northbound Taft Hill but would prefer to do that improvement as part of the project to widen Taft Hill to 4 lanes. The City prefers to do projects that are a part of a larger capital project rather than small pieces. Comment: The way to solve the Taft Hill traffic problem is to make Shields 4 lanes since it goes all the way through Loveland. The thing is with this site is that if it were any good, we would have a bank or some other better use on it by now. I'm concerned about the safety of kids. Right now, kids can't go anywhere because the sidewalks are incomplete along Taft Hill north of here. There's been no consideration for kids at the intersection. You should find a different property that is better for kids. There's no grocery store, schools, or transit nearby. Plus I've seen more and more cars on Taft Hill over the past 10 years and this isn't going to help. Also, this will hurt the property values in our neighborhood, which means the City will lose tax revenue and I don't think the City wants that. Comment: Taft Hill being 2 lanes is a problem right now so what is the hold up in getting it widened? I also don't like the left turn situation onto Harmony from the development. Question: How wide will the streets be in the development? Questions and Answers Question: How will the ingress and egress to the site work? Will it be limited to right in, right out only? Response (City): The ingress and egress to the site will allow for left turns in and out. The left turn out will occur in 2 stages. Question: What is a 2 stage turn? Response (City): It means the vehicle turning left will first enter into the center lane and then merge into traffic from there. Question: It's my understanding that the Habitat for Humanity project at Rigden Farm was part of the original design and part of the HOA. Since this proposed development won't be a part of our HOA, how will it be regulated? Response (Applicant): Actually, the Habitat project at Rigden is part of a sub -association that came later and wasn't part of the original design. For this development, the owners will form their own HOA. We are working with a management company right now on developing the HOA. Question: During the presentation on traffic you mentioned there will be 1 car per minute entering and leaving the site. Is this based on the 1 car garage shown for each building or is this based on the number of units? Response (Applicant): Actually, there will be two parking spots per home, 1 garage spot and 1 in front of each house. Response (City): We base traffic predictions on the number of units in the development. We know, for example, that single-family homes tend to generate a certain amount of trips per day and use that to predict the estimated traffic impact. At peak hour in the PM, we estimate that the development will generate 54 trips. Question: For the light at Seneca, I see problems coming out of my neighborhood. I already have a difficult time getting out of my neighborhood. People will go on other streets to avoid the traffic. Response (City): We look at delays at intersections at peak hours and we have minimum Level of Service standards. We grade Level of Service like we do for grades at school. The Level of Service for that intersection will be a C or D, which is acceptable by City standards. Question: I live on Silvergate and have a terrible time getting out during the day now. This development will impact us. You say this won't cause cut through traffic but since we're experiencing cut through traffic right now what will you do to stop it? Response (City): Traffic delays are going to happen and we will do our best to manage the signal timing at Harmony and Taft Hill to prevent cut through traffic. We also have the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program to help your neighborhood out if you have lots of cut through traffic. We can Harmony Cottages Neighborhood Meeting Summary Date: February 18, 2016 Facilitator: Patsi Maroney (City of Fort Collins — Neighborhood Services) Presenters: Clay Frickey (City of Fort Collins — Planning Services) Martina Wilkinson (City of Fort Collins - Traffic Operations) Russ Lee (Applicant) Kristin Candella (Applicant) Greg Fisher (Applicant) Sara Coutts (Applicant) Matt Delich (Applicant) Skylar Brower (Applicant) City Presentation Summary: • This is the second neighborhood meeting designed to follow up from first neighborhood meeting and address concerns • Next step is public hearing • Current submittal has addressed emergency access, traffic, setback concerns • City is aware of traffic issues and has adjusted signal timing at Harmony and Taft Hill to reduce cut through traffic in the morning Applicant Presentation Summary: • Applicant team has worked hard to address main concerns identified at first neighborhood meeting o Habitat program o Impact of product o Density • Habitat serves important niche and builds community through home ownership • The architecture has been designed to integrate into community and will be high quality product • Impact of product reduced o Landscaping along Taft Hill and Harmony o Turf along property line o Shifting houses north o Sidewalks and fencing 0 42% of site is open space • Ditto concern about traffic onto Harmony (Exit onto S. Taft Hill would be worse morning and evening rush) • You have to put an ingress/ egress on Taft Hill Rd. If you don't our street Lookout Lane will be used to get around to get onto Taft Hill Rd. • Concerned about traffic increasing on adjacent neighborhood. Too many cars coming and going. • Concerned about Traffic in the adjacent neighborhood. Cars cutting thru neighborhood rather than waiting to turn left off of W. Harmony. • Site plan seems over built, consider reducing # of units to increase separation distance from adjacent homes back of lot lines. • Impressive design- like the green space • How do children walk/ bus to school? • Speed limit on Harmony? • Only one entrance/ exit for 122 people (2.53 per household) • Drainage • Not near any employment offices that people would work • Traffic increase in our neighborhood • Dangerous turning west onto Harmony • We didn't want it then and we don't want it now • What about our real-estate values • Too much traffic for all these kids safety • Harmony U turns • Harmony & Taft ALREADY OVERBURDENED WITH TRAFFIC DUE TO POOR PLANNING. LOOKOUT LANE ALREADY USED AS WAY AROUND INTERSECTION. See Taft between Harmony & Horsetooth lots of money spent to achieve no relief in vehicle traffic. One lane each way. • Concern with traffic and safety. 1. Too many cars going too fast 2. no better place to enter the site but there are too many houses proposed to enter the site. • Our home values will go down • 1 love the playground and green spaces very family friendly • Need 2 entrances and exits • Green court is a great idea • Looks like a real neighborhood • 1 like the look of separated duplexes • All schools are already overcapacity you will be bringing in children to schools that cannot maintain their success with the addition of so many families • Concern with traffic increase on Harmony close to major intersection • Kids and busy street • Geographically isolated from resources (employment, stores, etc.) • 1 transportation bus system nearby • Bad bad idea • Impact on schools • Traffic at Harmony and Taft already very problematic and dangerous. Cannot support traffic of 48 more dwellings- wrecks occur regularly in the general area. No nearby grocery stores to support. School right down the street dangerous to kids and to traffic • Too many buildings in this small space. No buffer between existing neighborhood & this will kill our home property value. • School impact? Traffic will be unsafe and congested • Home values will decrease in nearby neighbors • Concentration of low income housing is an idea stuck in the 60's it has never worked • 1 love the individual roofs • The intersection with Harmony and Taft is extremely problematic, in part due to just 2 way street (Taft) between Horsetooth and Harmony. There are major squeeze plays with this area routinely. Very bad situation for traffic in adding 48 additional units at this location. • Not enough street parking 0 Bad design, bad left turn design- traffic will increase on Lookout Lane. COMMENTS FROM HARMONY COTTAGES NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING DECEMBER 3RD 2105 • The "meeting" felt very much like no one wanted anyone's input- done deal. TOO MUCH in a very small space. • We are very concerned with the amount of buildings in a small space._Existing home values will decrease. Entrance onto harmony will create even more traffic & safety issues. Meeting was misrepresented in the letter, it was not represented as an "open house" forum. Concerns in regards to maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood - i.e.: HOA, etc. Existing neighborhood has very high standards. WORRIED! • Thanks for having such a nice meeting. Lots of good info. Project looks good. • HUGE traffic concerns, dangerous intersections - too many units in an already congested area - will use existing roads increasing dangerous traffic in neighborhood! • Outer Roads Harmony & S. Taft. Have so much traffic, worried about safety for kids, intersection borders county area, no sidewalks on E. Side or West Side. Not a Logical place for these homes. • Make intersection at Harmony and Taft more pedestrian friendly. • Traffic flow, as they can't go left on Harmony. All traffic trying to get through left will go through our neighborhood. Speeding cars will cause a more dangerous environment for children, pets, and families. • 1. Two-story homes much too close to existing houses on Lookout Lane.2. Too many vehicles- 92 for that size area. 3. Our property values will be very adversely effected. • Not enough parking with having kids whom drive. Will the people that move in there keep it up? HOA In 30 years will their kids of whoever else going to keep it up? • Our house values are going to go down! Thanks a lot. • What's estimated time of construction? Will it be in phases? Will a family be designated before build starts? • Believe the annual income on Habitat chart is false/ misleading. • TOO MANY UNITS PROPOSED FOR THIS SITE. Lack of support for low income families to access basic services 1. no access to bus. 2. no grocery within walking distance. 3. no shopping. • THERE IS ALREADY AN ABUNDANCE OF LOW INCOME OF HOUSING WITHIN 1/4 MILE OF THIS INTERSECTION. LACK OF BUFFER BETWEEN EXISTING HOMES THAT WILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED. WATER M nTYPK:A LAYOI ¢`y FI -I-7"I r x< caw cwc —i r vc< w.r mrc // \ N= u.ou.vc rw arw �• cox.crm wew.oCJ �-cun.crtn vlew+u ... F K LNrosc.ve r FIRE ACN 1. WALKK is PERMEABLE INTERLOCKING CONCRETE PAVER SECTION PRWATEORNETYPICALSECTION MIN WTd T1TC,•LICGTpN PRIVATE ALLEV TYPICAL SECTION m,u �ww i era PRELIMINARY ••- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION m•'�� N k °u 2 Z C S h 1 I 'fw'oyarr.♦♦♦� -� g 1 0 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION .... ab.�.m 3 I _ 61 II i — I i I II I.E� S- I y� .M ..i $u� jl wilampos-00000", .I. a I- LEGEND fA4F F t C3 " PRELIMINARY -' NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ~3ws v e ire ---- I i ;! i OU Iz 5$0 k 1 11 - — - 11 — — 1 W'— r - SR.�..u....,�.,.......o.^....... LEGEND 3 17 PRELIMINARY _�T�^ NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UTILITY PLANS FOR HARMONY COTTAGES BEING A REFI-AT OF LOTS I AND 2, INNOVATION ISLAND SITUATE IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 7 NORTH, RANGE 69 WEST Or Tma STm P.M., CRY OFFORT CoWNs, COUNTY OF LARIMER, STATE OFCOILDRADO JANUARY 2016 ABBREVIATION LIST z �WWATOI 970,=A.SIM INDEXOFSHEErS PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUC'nON U IW5 FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer (Official) FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer (Official) Data from Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) where available digitally. Try http://bit.ly/lbPpUjq (Unofficial) if this map is down scott.mcafee@fema.dhs.gov I National Geospatial -Intelligence Agency (NGA); Delta State University; Esn http://fema.maps.aregis.com/home/webmap/print.html[12/32015. 11:16:14 AM] Hydrologic Soil Group—Larimer County Area, Colorado Component Percent Cutoff.- None Specified Tie -break Rule: Higher Harmony Cottages USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/2/2015 9 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—Larimer County Area, Colorado Hydrologic Soil Group Harmony Cottages Hydrologic Soil Group— Summary by Map Unit — Larimer County Area, Colorado (COS") Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres In AOI Percent of AOI 3 Altvan-Satanta loams, 0 B 4.1 86.3% to 3 percent slopes 35 Fort Collins loam, 0 to 3 C 0.6 13.7% percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 4.7 100.0% Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long -duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink -swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Rating Options Aggregation Method. Dominant Condition USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/2/2015 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group-.arimer County Area, Colorado (Harmony Cottages) MAP LEGEND Ana of In inni (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Solb Soil Rating Polygons Q A o AD 0 B I] BID 0 C Q CID I] 0 Q Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines 4 A •v aD .✓ B y BID N C N CID .� D • • Not rated or not aanable Soil Rating Points 1] A 13 c ■ B ■ BID 13 C ■ CID ■ 0 E3 Not rated or not awilabie Water Futures Streams and Canal. Transportation Rails •.y Interstate Highway. US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background . Aerial Photography MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 124.000 Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scab. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: httpJlwebsoilsu"ey.n=.usda.gov Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version dates) listed below. Soll Survey Area: Lanmer County Area, Colorado Survey Area Data: Version 10, Sep 22. 2015 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,0D0 or larger. Data(s) aanal images were photographed: Apr 22, 2011—Apr2B, 2011 The orlhopholo or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result. some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12=15 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of4 W )rwm Hydrologic Soil Group--Lanmer County Area, Colorado (Harmony Cottages) 3 Map ScNe: 1:1,410 Ppnmim AeltragR (l1'r8.5'easc. N 0 Mers 20 4D a0 120 A o 0 50 Im 200 YJO t'mp PoJ�m: VFD Me�i Cnnem�s: Y1684 FdD=e6: UIM ZOe 13N WCSBO 66pi9 Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/2/2015 i Conservation Service National Cooperative Sal Survey Page 1 of 4 APPENDIX G SOIL REPORT AND FEMA INFORMATION G No Text pj \8' fL . ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- UDINLET: STREET FLOW ANALYSIS DEVELOPED BY DR JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT, U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UDSFCD -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- SER-KEVIW GINGERY-RDS INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO .............................. N DATE 05-26-1994 AT TIME 13:37:39 '• STREET GUTTER HYDRAULICS GIVEN GUTTER GEOMETRIES: LONGITUDINAL SLOPE M = 0-60 CROSS SLOPE M = 2.00 DEPRESSION AT GLITTER (inch)= 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (feet)= 2.00 STREET MANNING ROUGHNESS N 0.016 STREET UNDER THE GIVEN FLOW: PEAK RUNOFF FLOW RATE (cfs)= 0.60 FLOW CARRIED BY GUTTER (cfs)= 0.58 FLOW CARRIED BY STREET (cfs)- 0.D2 WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 3.71 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (in) = 2.89 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY (fps)= 1.97 .------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- UDINLET: STREET FLOW ANALYSIS DEVELOPED BY DR JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT, U OF COLORADO AT DENM SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UDSFCD ---------------------------------------------- --- ----------.....-.-...-..... ISER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO .............................. 9N DATE 05-26-1994 AT TIME 13:37:52 ** STREET GUTTER HYDRAULICS GIVEN GUTTER GEOMETRIES: i LONGITUDINAL SLOPE M = 0.60 CROSS SLOPE M = 2.00 DEPRESSION AT GUTTER (Inch)= 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (feet)= 2.00 STREET MANNING ROUGHNESS N = 0.016 STREET UNDER THE GIVEN FLOW: PEAK RUNOFF FLOW RATE (cfs)= 10.50 FLOW CARRIED BY GUTTER (cfs)= 3.59 FLOW CARRIED BY STREET (cfs)= 6.92 WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 18.41 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (in) = 6.42 AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY (fps)= 2.96 Ravi a 9Or oa�� y1� 6+ *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING" INLET ID NUMBER: 21 160, INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 15.00 REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 59.26 IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.41 ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.37 STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ($) = 0.60 STREET CROSS SLOPE ($) = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 33.63 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.84 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 4.24 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 11.47 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR M = 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR($)= 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 19.98 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 48.90 FLOW INTERCEPTED (Cfs)= 18.20 CARRY-OVER FLOW (Cfs)= 30.70 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 48.90 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 17.99 CARRY-OVER FLOW (Cfs)= 30.91 F-l2 ------------------------- ------------------------------- --------------------- UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND'SIZING DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO.............................. )N DATE 05-26-1994 AT TIME 13:18:44 ** PROJECT TITLE: Overlook 14 2-year *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 21 INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ($) _ STREET CROSS SLOPE M _ STREET MANNING N = GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: Frm Ovtf6 at 15,00 25.52 ` 0.80 0.74 0.60 2.00 0.016 2.00 2.00 WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 18.44 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.54 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 2.96 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 3.57 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR M = 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 8.37 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (Cfs)= 10.50 FLOW INTERCEPTED (Cfs)= 7.79 CARRY-OVER FLOW (Cfs)= 2.71 l BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 10.50 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 7.53 CARRY-OVER FLOW (Cfs)= 2.97 �.:--------------- :,------------------------------------------------------------ UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING DEVELOPED BY 1 DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD ------------------------------------------------------------------- 79ER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO...................•.......•.. I)N DATE 05-26-1994 AT TIME 13:19:09 *** PROJECT TITLE: Overlook 14 100-year *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING:' INLET ID NUMBER: 10 INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 15.00 REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 36.06 IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.62 ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.57 STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ($) = 0.60 STREET CROSS SLOPE M = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 23.50 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.64 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 3.40 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 5.69 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR M = 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (Cfs)= 12.09 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 19.50 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 11.12 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 8.38 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 19.50 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 10.88 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 8.62 i3� P_ - II Iz: -------------------------------------=---------------------- UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND'SIZING DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD ------------------------------------------------ ------------ OSER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO.............................. ON DATE 05-26-1994 AT TIME 12:18:27 *** PROJECT TITLE: Overlook 14 2-year II L *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: �r DJ�f'�poY� lJ✓] INLET ID NUMBER: 10 l�oer�r�� INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. L pQJYI GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 15_.00 REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 16.78 IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.98 ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.95 STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = 0.60 STREET CROSS SLOPE M = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 13.56 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.44 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 2.53 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 2.01 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 5.01 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 5.10 ¢— z 83 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.27 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 5.10 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4.51 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.59 UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND -------------------------------------------------------------------------- UD&FCD ")SER:YMIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO.......... )N DATE 05-26-1994 AT TIME 12:18:59 .................... *** PROJECT TITLE: Overlook #4 100-year | • | - | !�|�||f ! !! !. § \|\��/\/I /!! © / j 20 ha Q. Jwgh# . R`;g . ; �! ! � ■ � ; ; ; ; §;, • . . _ . . , §� • ! ! ! ! ! ! . � oil. ; | ; ||! ■; ! � � � §!, ,� §! !§ « ! ; |! : ! ■ �! �: „ ! ! !! �, ■�■s !!� ! , ! ! ■ !! �! ■§ „ = ;■ � ■ �; §■ z■=; §Z;;: ,: ,,, |. ■ . ■ • ■ ■ ■ ... _ r f.. ,. .. !. !. ,,,,.;.1. P_a � I \/\ '|•^ t )} § � I| |� : | ! ! � � ! / � §* ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! !!!! E P . ! � � •• !! !! ! ! B ! !!B! !! Ell - � - ,! E; |� , . . • ■ ,�� as g. , . In !. R-7 The proposed drainage, erosion control, and grading plans are included in the back pocket of this report. B. Specific Details The Overlook at Woodridge has been broken down into 15 sub -basins. The sub - basin designations correspond to the basin designations of the Preliminary/Master Drainage Study for the Woodridge development. Specific details of off -site basins will be addressed again in the final report for the entire Overlook Fourth Filing development. Runoff from sub -basins 1, 2A, 2B, 3A, 313, 3C, 12, and 13 will be conveyed easterly towards Harmony Road by a combination of gutter flows and a storm drain system. At Harmonv Road_ developed runoff will be conveyed via storm ins within the Harmony Road alignment to Inlets at the low point of Harmony Road (D.P. 120 and D.P. 130) intercept the remaining street flow from the above basins, as well as remaining street flow from the Overlook and Gates Third Filings_ The storm drains will daylight in the regional channel downstream of the Harmony Road crossing. To complete the storm drain design from the Overlook Third Filing Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study, a curb inlet will be constructed within the Third Filing at the northwest corner of the Harmony Road and Silvergate Road intersection_ A curb inlet will be required at this point (D.P. 11) as curb and gutter flows exceed City criteria. Third Filing storm drain flows will be piped from this inlet across Harmony Road to the regional channel. Runoff from sub -basins 4A, 4B, and 4C will be conveyed to the regional channel by a combination of gutter flows and a short storm drain system (using 21- and 30-inch pipe). This storm drain will daylight in the regional channel immediately upstream of the Harmony Road crossing (D.P: 55). Runoff from sub -basins 5A, 5B, and 5C is primarily generated within the most upstream portion of the regional channel itself and flows eastward along the channel alignment. Runoff is combined with flows from sub -basins 4A, 413, and 4C at D.P. 55. Storm water runoff collected in the regional channel will be directed easterly to the two existing 42-inch culverts immediately north of Seneca Street_ From that point, flows travel via open channels and additional 42-inch culverts to the Regional Detention Pond at Wake Robin Lane and Regency Drive. Two swales along the south edge of the Overlook Fourth Filing site allow sidewalk access to the pedestrian walkway system within the regional drainage Regency Drive to the existing Regional Detention Pond. This development will also include improvements to a portion of the existing Taft Hill Road, although these off -site improvements are not seeking Phase One approval. B. Sub -basin Description The Overlook Fourth Filing has been divided into 15 sub -basins. Fourteen (14) of these basins will drain to Basin 80 of the McClellands and Mail Creek Master Plan, while the remaining Basin 0-2 drains into the historic Basin 77 of the McClellands and Mail Creek Master Plan. Except for the off-street portions of Basins 1 and 2A, all 15 basins will be developed consisting of proposed residential housing and street improvements, including improvements to Taft Hill Road and to Harmony Road. Basins 1 and 2A will be developed as neighborhood '�— commercial sites at a later time. These sub -basins are shown on the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan in the back pocket of this report. C. SWMM Revisions The portion of the City of Fort Collins' SWMM model for a 100-year storm event within the Mail Creek Basin --tributary to Seneca Street (conveyance element 24)--was updated to reflect field conditions, phasing, and proposed storm drainage system modifications. Basins 75, 77 through 80, 86, 175, 176, 179, and 186 were added or updated to account for the presently developed Woodridge subdivisions (Overlook and Gates First through Third Filings) and the proposed Overlook Fourth Filing Phase One subdivision. Conveyance elements 23, 26, 31, 34, 37, 44, 47, 49, and 230 were also added or updated to be consistent with present and proposed conditions. III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Regulations The City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria is being used for the subject site. B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints The 1990 Preliminary Drainage Report for Webber Junior High School states that the channel and culvert system along the north side of Seneca Street and the east side of Regency Drive was sized for undetained off -site 100 year developed runoff from Basins 79, 80, and 85. Recent SWMM analysis for Basins 79 and 80, by the City of Fort Collins, has determined that the existing channel, culverts and Seneca Street (downstream of the subject site) will receive greater 100-year N FINAL DRAINAGE AND �• • EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR THE OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE 1, FOURTH FILING PHASE ONE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location The Overlook at Woodridge Fourth Filing P.U.D. is bounded by Taft Hill Road (County Road 19) on the west, Imperial Estates on the north, future Harmony Road and The Gates Fourth Filing to the east, and by the Overlook Third Filing on the south. The site location can also be described as situated in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 34, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. The site location can be seen on Exhibit 1 in the Appendix. B. Description of Property The Fourth Filing of the Overlook at Woodridge contains approximately 32.8 acres, more or less. Presently, the property is undeveloped. The property is being proposed for planned unit development within the City of Fort Collins Zoning District and will be developed consistent with the Overlook First through Third Filings at Woodridge. Native grasses presently cover the property. The topography of the site generally slopes from west to east at approximately 1.5 percent. II. DRAINAGE BASINS A. Major Basin Description The majority of the proposed development lies within Basin 80 (see SWMM portion of Appendix) of the McClellands and Mail Creek Major Drainageway Plan prepared by Cornell Consulting Company. A natural drainageway nuns from west to east along the southern edge of the project boundary within Basin 80. Runoff from Basin 80 is routed by open channels and culverts along the northern boundary of the Gates First, Second and Third Filings, along the north side of Seneca Street past Webber Junior High School, and then along the east side of P-r, FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR THE OVERLOOK AT WOODRIDGE FOURTH FILING PHASE ONE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO June 14, 1995 Prepared for: Woodcraft Homes 3665 JFK Parkway Building 1, Suite 300 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-3153 Prepared by: RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants 209 South Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (303) 432-5922 RBD Job No. 434-011 F-y 2 1 1 2 WATERSHED Manhattan Pond Final Design 1176cfs Tallwater) - MAIL CREEK BASIN, 100-YEAR STORK, DEVELOPED CONDITIONS 2002 RE:ISED 3), March, 2005 ICON ENGINEERING 1 1000 000 5. 1 1. , 24 5. 1.0 1.14 1.33 2.23 2.84 5.49 9.95 4.12 2.48 1.46 1 " 1..06 2.0 .95 .91 .87 .84 .81 .78 .75 .71 .69 .67 • Prepared fort City of Fort Collins • SWMM developed condition, existing facilities, 100-yr recurrence interval • /" ' '/ -2 ' .016 .250 .1 .3 .51 .5 .0018 1 51 104309. 87.1 30.7 .040 1 151 1506635.58.23 30.0 .023 1 52 113717. 38.4 17.0 .064 1 53 2113630. 35.0 24.5 .032 1 153 1526377.46.05 35.0 .014 1 54 142895. 18.6 95.0 .040 1 55 2612150. 12.8 95.0 .016 1 56 567665. 93.3 95.0 .016 1 57 571908. 12.7 95.0.0088 1 120 1204538. 37.5 95.0.0088 1 12.1 1216757. 60.5 95.0.0088 1 122 1222659. 17.7 95.0.0008 1 58 1112242. 29.3 28.9 .032 1 59 161214. 9.2 30.0.0134 1 159 331125. 6.3 03.3 _01 1 60 357608. 57.6 35.0 .016 1 61 422308. 19.6 30.0 .016 1 62 386572. 47.4 37.6 .016 1 162 3622465. 27.2 42.0 .015 1 163 3791496. 4.29 80.0 .010 1 401 3671863. 0.63100.0 .015 1 63 9002763. 18.2 95.0 .010 1 165 3654561. 29.4 37.0 .016 1 166 3664325. 27.8 47.8 .01 1 167 3673647. 17.6 37.0 .01 1 16B 3681188. 6.0 95.0 .01 1 169 3681836. 1.3100.0 .02 1 170 3703640. 33.4 36.5 .01 1 173 3712315. 23.4 47.8 .01 1 172 3722304. 4.2 72.4 .01 1 173 3734663. 36.4 32.0 .01 1 164 3642093. 23.5 65.3 .01 ' 402 412.2594. 9.43 80.0 .01 403 4321241. 0.76100.0 .015 65 2103960. 20.0 37.6 .064 1 67 367462. 39.4 36.0,0088 1 68 326758. 54.3 32.0 .016 1 69 3182756. 8.9 49.8 .011 1 70 2543289. 15.2 53.9 .016 1 71 281536. 5.3 36.7.0143 1 72 6015055. 44.1 60.0 .020 1 801 139 997. 8.7 5.0 .020 1 73 292908. 20.0 35.0 .035 1 74 27 543. A-0 35.0.0104 1 75 255341. 51.5 45.3.0134 1 175 243143. 10.1 50.0 .015 1 76 2214804. 3.8.6 38.0 .016 1 176 374011. 13.8 53.5 .019 1 77 441780. 16.3 35.0 .012 1 177 462043. 16.4 38.0 .02 1 78 4910616 65.8 25.0 .016 WESTFIELD PARK 1 178 481276. 15.5 25.0 .035 1 79 395615. 36.1 35.0 .019 1 179 2803390. 23.4 50.0 .020 1 80 314208. 19.3 35.0 .032 1 186 263004. 13.8 35.0 .032 1 81 2042482. 24.5 30.0 .016 1 181 2033570. 16.4 30.0 .016 1 182 2063144, 15.9 35.0 .016 1 82 2013022. 33.3 59.9.0091 DIVIDE BASIN 83 TO REFLECT FLOW TO POND 831 1 83 3477115. 29.4 35.0 .02 1 831 8311711. 5.5 35.0 .02 1 84 843065. 24.6 38.0.0072 1 85 1852138. 17.2 38.0 .016 1 86 345330. 30.6 40.0 .032 1 81 2871938. 34.5 23.0 .02 1R 89 4812.1 5.9 2r95. If�o054 32 2 I1 18C 514243. 26.3 38.0 .01218C 514243. 26.3 38.0 .012 90 286 788. 7.8 23.0 .020 109 387364'1. 25.1 35.0 .013 0 1 1 62 10 1 0 1 10.0 3400. .011 4.0 4.0 .044 12.0 150 10 0 1 48.0 1850. .015 50.0 50.0 .020 5.0 11 10 0 1 10.0 1900. .013 2.5 2.5 .060 16.0 12 210 0 1 10.0 1000. .011 2.0 2.0 .060 12.0 _ fit ei\Be B } j 0 750 1500 5000 CITY OF FORT GOLLJNS %--� SCALE ie r[v 'xls ti,« stare* � CO E ?O MAB. CREFX BnSM SUB -BASIN OUGMM 33 �.�-w._a9suoa� m:NVFA. �e. sw-xru nr. No Text MAIL CREEK BASIN MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN HYDROLOGY TECHNICAL APPENDIX PREPARED FOR: City of Fort Collins Utilities 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 PREPARED BY: Sear -Brown 209 South Meldrum Fort Collins, CO 80521 April 22, 2002 F-J /;VW 7:4a 01 it EXCERPTS FROM REFERENCE REPORTS No Text --_---- •, I i I `• [ ■ r ■ 1 r■ •i xI 1111 \1 fl 1 1 • ��� 1 s if Ir 1 q��,� • ii S i SIqS 7i3 � 1 1 •� t • yl� ■' It • 7I ■ 11 1 1 � 4 I d� � III �11 l III .. v 9 HARMONY COTTAGES cr�p awls. roeos_xs LIDEXHIBR RAIN GARDENS FH�ave.sm.xzaas Harmony Cottages LID Table 50% On -Site Treatment by LID Requirement New Impervious Area 110,940 sq. ft. Required Minimum Impervious Area to be Treated 55,470 sq. ft. Area Treated by Pavers 57,808 sq. ft. Area Treated by Rain Garden A 35,370 sq. ft. Area Treated Rain Garden B 70,426 sq. ft. Total Impervious Area Treated 163,604 sq. ft. Actual % On -Site Treated by LID 147 % 25% Porous Pavement Requirement New Pavement Area 27,679 sq. ft. Required Minimum Area of Porous Pavement 6,920 sq. ft. Area of Paver Section 7,427 sq. ft. Total Porous Pavement Area 7,427 sq. ft. Actual % of Porous Pavement Provided 27 % Harmony Cottages LID Table 75% On -Site Treatment by LID Requirement New Impervious Area 110,940 sq. ft. Required Minimum Impervious Area to be Treated 83,205 sq. ft. Area Treated by Rain Garden A 35,370 sq. ft. Area Treated by Rain Garden B 70,426 sq. ft. Total Impervious Area Treated 105,796 sq. ft. Actual % On -Site Treated by LID 95 % Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Sheet 2 of 2 Designer: so Company: Interwest Consulting Group Date: January 19, 2016 Project: Harmony Cottages Location: Basin B 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric chwC r>ne - Q YES A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity NO of structures or groundwater contamination? 6. Inlet / Outlet Control Choose One Q Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required A) Inlet Control QQ Concentrated Flow- Energy Dissipation Provided Chm, a (I 7. Vegetation Q Seed (Plan for frequent weed mntrop Q Plantings Q Sand Grown or Other High Infiltration Sod 8. Irrigation Choose One - Q YES A) Will the rain garden be irrigated' Q NO Notes. Rain Garden Basin B.xls, RG 1 /1912016, 6:49 PM Designer: Company: Date: Project: Location: so Interracial Consulting Group January 19, 2016 Harmony Cottages Basin B Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Sheet 1 of 2 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, I, I, = 50.0 % (100% 8 all paved and roofed areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i . 1.1100) i = 0.500 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WQCV = 0.17 watershed inches WQCV- 0.8-(0.91•0-1.19-i2+0.78-it D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area - 124,007 sq ft E) Water Ouality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume V,=- 1,705 cuff Vol. (WOCV / 12)' Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of ds = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VwocV OTHSR - cu 6 Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume Vwocv oSEE = cu 0 (Only 8 a different WOGV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WOCV Depth (12-inch maximum) DwocV = 12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 4.00 ff / ft (Use "0" if rain garden has vertical walls) G) Mimimum Flat Surface Area Aµ, = 1137 sq it D) Actual Fiat Surface Area Ake,,, - 1465 sq It E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area) ATw = 2567 sq It F) Rain Garden Total Volume VT. 2,016 cu ft (Vr- ((ATw+Alcor) / 2)' Depth) 3. Growmg Media r Choose One (0 18" Rain Garden Growing Media OQ DOW (Eiwlain): Standard City of Fort Collins Spec 4. Underdrain System Lhoase One A) Are underdrains provided? ® YES ONO B) Underdraln system orifice diameter for 12 how d/am time it Distance From Lomst Elevation of the Storage y. 9 Volume to the Center of the Orifice ii) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours Vol,, = WA cu ft iii) Orifice Diameter, 3/8" Minimum D� = WA in Rain Garden Basin B.xls, RG 1/19/2016, 6:49 PM Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Sheet 2 o1 2 Designer: sb Company: Interwest Consulting Group Date: January 19. 2016 Project: Harmony Cottages Location: Basin A 5. Impermeable Geomembrane Liner and Geotextile Separator Fabric Choose fine Q YES A) Is an impermeable liner provided due to proximity NO of structures or groundwater contamination? 6. Inlet / Cutlet Control Choose One Q Sheet Flow- No Energy Dissipation Required A) Inlet Control Q Concentrated Flow- Energy DisSipatiOn Provided chop. (lne 7. Vegetation Q Seed (Plan for frequent weed mntrol) 0 Plantings Q Sand Crown or Other High Inflitrabon Sod B. Irrigation arooseOne Q YES A) Will the rain garden be irrigated? Q NO Notes: Rain Garden Basin A.xls, FIG 1/19/2016, 6:48 PM Design Procedure Form: Rain Garden (RG) Sheet 1 of 2 Designer: sb Company: Interwest Consulting Group Date: January 19, 2016 Project: Harmony Cottages Location: Basin A 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Effective Imperviousness of Tributary Area, I, 1, = 50.0 % (1000h if all paved and rooted areas upstream of rain garden) B) Tributary Areas Imperviousness Ratio (i = I,/l00) = 0.500 C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WOCV) for a 12-hour Drain Time WOCV = 0.17 watershed inches (WQCV= 0.8' (0.91' i'- 1.19. I2. 0,78' i) D) Contributing Watershed Area (including rain garden area) Area = 77.160 so it E) Water Quality Capture Volume (WOCV) Design Volume Vwccv = 1,061 cu it Vol = (WQCV / 12) "Area F) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, Depth of ds = in Average Runoff Producing Storm G) For Watersheds Outside of the Denver Region, VWQCv O, R = cu It Water Quality Capture Volume (WOCV) Design Volume H) User Input of Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Design Volume VW WV WER - cu it (Only it a different WQCV Design Volume is desired) 2. Basin Geometry A) WQCV Depth (12-inch maximum) Dwocv = 12 in B) Rain Garden Side Slopes (Z = 4 min., horiz. dist per unit vertical) Z = 4.00 it / fl (Use "0" it rain garden has vertical walls) C) Mimimum Flat Surface Area Aw = 707 sq ft D) Actual Flat Surface Area Ak„ = 725 set If E) Area at Design Depth (Top Surface Area) AT. = 1400 sq It F) Rain Garden Total Volume Vr= 1,063 cu If (VT. ((AT. . A„a,r) / 2)' Depth) 3. Growing Media r Choose One Q 18' Rain Garden Growing Media Q other (Explain)- Standard City of Fort Collins Spec 4. Underdrain System A) Are underdrains provided? Choose one Q YES O NO B) Underdrain system orifice diameter for 12 hour drain time i) Distance From Lowest Elevation of the Storage y = ft Volume to the Center of the Orifice it) Volume to Drain in 12 Hours VGI,i= WA cu If iii) Orilice Diameter. 3/8" Minimum Do = WA in Rain Garden Basin A.xls, FIG 1/ 19/2016. 6:48 PV APPENDIX E WATER QUALITY AND LID INFORMATION DETENTION VOLUME CALCULATIONS Rational Volumetric (FAA) Method 100-Year Event LOCATION: Harmony Cottages PROJECT NO: 1255-028-00 COMPUTATIONS BY: es DATE: 12/5/15 Eauations: Area trib. to pond = 4.45 acre Developed flow = Qo = CIA C (100) = 0.70 Vol. In = Vi = T C I A = T Qp Developed C A = 3.1 acre - site only Vol. Out = Vo =K Qpo T Release rate, Opo = 40.1 cfs storage = S = Vi - Vo K = 0.9 (from fig 2.1) Rainfall intensity from City of Fort Collins IDF Curve with updated (3.67) rainfall Storm Duration, T (min) Rainfall Intensity, I (in/hr) OD (cfs) Vol. In Vi (ft3) Vol. Out Vo (ft) Storage S (ft) Storage S (ac-ft) 5 9.95 31.0 9298 10814 -1515 -0.03 10 7.77 24.2 14515 21627 -7112 -0.16 20 5.62 17.5 21010 43254 -22244 -0.51 30 4.47 13.9 25054 64881 -39827 -0.91 40 3.74 11.6 27960 86508 -58548 -1.34 50 3.23 10.1 30220 108135 -77915 -1.79 60 2.86 8.9 32069 129762 -97693 -2.24 70 2.57 8.0 33634 151389 -117755 -2.70 80 2.34 7.3 34993 173016 -138023 -3.17 90 2.15 6.7 36195 194643 -158448 -3.64 100 1.99 6.2 37273 216270 -178997 -4.11 110 1.86 5.8 38251 237897 -199646 -4.58 120 1.75 5.4 39148 259524 -220376 -5.06 130 1.65 5.1 39977 281151 -241174 -5.54 140 1.56 4.9 40747 302778 -262031 -6.02 150 1.48 4.6 41467 324405 -282938 -6.50 160 1.41 4.4 42144 346032 -303888 -6.98 170 1.35 4.2 42783 367659 1 -324876 -7.46 180 1.29 4.0 43388 389286 1 -345898 -7.94 Required Storage Volume: -1515 ft3 -0.03 acre-ft 0L-D CiT� OF Fo :T CoUrll�s INTERPOLATED VALUES FOR 100 YEAR INTENSITIES Tc Value 6Q-�;4Z:) 15.00 9_0 -- 5.10 9.0 5.20 8.9 5.30 8.9 5.40 8.9 5.50 8.8 5.60 8.8 5.70 8.7 5.80 8.7 5.90 8.7 6.00 8.6 6.10 8.6 6.20 8.6 6.30 8.5 6.40 8.5 6.50 3.5 6 -8,4- 6.70 8.4 6.80 8.4 6.90 8.3 7.00 8.3 7.10 8.2 7.20 8.2 7.30 8.2 7.40 8.1 7.50 8.1 7.60 8.1 7.70 8.0 7.80 8;0 7.90 8.0 8.00 7.9 ` 8.10 7:9 8.20 8.30 7._8 / 7_8 8.40 7.8 8.50 7.7 8.60 7.7 8.70 - -7-. 7 8.80 7.6 8.90 7.6 9.00 7.6 9.10 7.5 9.20 7.5 9.30 7.5 9.40 7.4 9.50 7.4 9.60 7.3 9.70 7.3 9.80 7.3 9.90 7.2 10.00 7.2 moll -PA-rp� RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (City of Fort Collins, 100-Yr Storm - OLD rainfall) LOCATION: Harmony Cottages PROJECT NO: 1255-028-00 COMPUTATIONS BY: es DATE: 12/5/2015 100 yr storm, Ct = 1.25 DIRECT RUNOFF CARRY OVER TOTAL REMARKS Des. Point Area Design. A (ac) C Cf tc (min) (iNhr) O (100) (cis) from Design Point O (100) (cis) O(100)tot (cis) 1 site 4.45 1.00 5.00 9.00 40.05 40.1 Allowable release under old reainfall conditions O=CIA O = peak discharge (cfs) C = runoff coefficient i = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from OLD City of Fort Collins OF curve A = drainage area (acres) APPENDIX D STORMWATER DETENTION POND ANALYSIS 7 APPENDIX C HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS (PROVIDED AT FINAL) c (b) For a Project Plan or Final Plan submittal, runoff coefficients based on the proposed land surface types must be used. Since the actual runoff coefficients may be different from those specified in Table RO-10, Table RO-11 lists coefficients for the different types of land surfaces. The runoff coefficient used for design must be based on the actual conditions of the proposed site. Table RO-10 Rational Method Minor Storm Runoff Coefficients for Zoning Classifications Description of Area or Zoning Coefficient R-F 0.3 U-E 0.3 L-M-hi 0.55 R-L, N-C-L 0.6 M-M-N,N-C-M 0.65 N-C-B 0.7 Business: C-C-N, C-C-R C-N, N-C, C-S 0.95 R-D-R, C-C, C-L 0.95 D, C 0.95 H-C 0.95 C-S 0.95 Industrial: E 0.85 1 0.95 Undeveloped: R-C, T 0.2 P-O-L 0.25 For guidance regarding zoning districts and classifications of such districts please refer to Article Four of the City Land Use Code, as amended. Table RO-1 t Rational Method Runoff Coefficients for Composite Analysis CkarecterofSudin r Runoff Coefficient Streets, parking lots, drives: Asphalt 0.95 Concrete 0.95 Gravel 0.5 Roofs 0.95 Recycled asphalt 0.8 Lawns, sandy soil: Flat <2% 0.1 Average 2 to 7% 0.15 Steep >7% 0.2 Lawns, heavy soil: Flat <2% 0.2 Average 2 to 7% 015 Steep >7% 0.35 (4) A new Section 2.9 is added, to read as follows: 28 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) Table 110-3—Recommended Percentage Imperviousness Values Land Use or Surface Characteristics Percentage Imperviousness Business: Commercial areas 95 Neighborhood areas 85 Residential: Single-family Multi -unit (detached) 60 Multi -unit (attached) 75 Half -acre lot or larger " Apartments 80 Industrial: Light areas 80 Heavy areas 90 Parks, cemeteries 5 Playgrounds 10 Schools 50 Railroad yard areas 15 Undeveloped Areas: Historic flow analysis 2 Greenbelts, agricultural 2 Off -site flow analysis (when land use not defined) 45 Streets: Paved 100 Gravel (packed) 40 Drive and walks 90 Roofs 90 Lawns, sandy soil 0 Lawns, clayey soil 0 " See Figures RO-3 through RO-5 for percentage imperviousness. RUNOFF C, = K, + (1.31i'—1.44i' + 1.135i — 0.12) for C, >- 0, otherwise CA = 0 (RO-6) CCD = KCD + (0.858i' — 0.786i' + 0.774i + 0.04) (RO-7) CB = (CA + CCD)12 2007-01 RO-9 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District SUMMARY DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE Design Point Tributary Sub -basin Area (ac) C (10) O (100) is (10) (min) tc (100) (min) 0(2)tot (cfs) O(10)tot (cfs) D(100)tot (cfs) REMARKS a A 1.77 0.55 0.69 7.7 6a 2.4 4.1 10.9 WO Pond b B 2.85 0.55 0.69 14.0 12.5 3.0 5.2 13.8 Rain Garden 10 OS-10 0.94 0.62 0.78 8.6 7.8 14 24 6.3 Ex Inlet#10 21 OS-21 0.54 0.65 0.81 5.0 5.0 1.0 1.7 4.3 Ex Inlet #21 3 OS-3 0.49 0.58 0.73 8.6 7.6 0.7 1.2 3.6 BiOSwale Page 8 RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (City of Fort Collins, 100-Yr Storm) LOCATION: Hamiany CMtaga PROJECT NO: 1255-028-00 C OMPUfATIONS BY. a DATE: 12/112015 100yr storm, Cf_ 1.25 Intemest Consulting Group DIRECT RUNOFF CARRY 0V R TOTAL R NARZS Dea. Part Aiaa Dacgn. A W) CCfd7.8 1 (I'll") 01150) Id9) Ir9m O9upn PNM O(100) Idal 0(impd Idyl a A 1.T2 Omer0.92 10.9 10.9 WO Pond 0 a 2.0.5 0.09 7.05 13.9 13.9 Rain Garden 10 06-10 0.94 0.1e6.52 6.3 9.3 EX Inlet 010 21 OS-21 0.Sz 0.01 9.95 a.3 a.3 Ea Inlet #21 10 8.OS10 3J2 0.;I 5.95 16.0 t8.0 Ex Inlel #10 2t A.OS21 2.31 O.R BUI 0.24 13.6 13 a Ez IDIeI #21 3 OSJ 1 0.49 0.73 )e 9.95 3.6 36 Bi09Wale Ligew 12815 FC FLOW.zb O = peak discharge (cis) C = runoff Coefficient i = rainfall intensity, (irVhr) from City of Fort Collins IDF curve (4/16/99) A= drainage was (acres) i. 0ae021 p0. k1p1p16 RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (City of Fort Collins, 10-Yr Storm) LOCATION'. flarmany Callagcs PROJF.(T NO: 1255-029-00 COMPUTATIONS BY'. n DATE: 12AVM15 10 yr storm, Ct. 1.00 �.. rarasrsu:>_ Lil� . D -C,C.A 12216FCRA O- peak discharge (cfs) C - runoff coefficient C, - frequency adjustment factor i . rainfall intensity (Inlhr) from City of Fort Collins OF carve (N1 B/99) A. drainage area (acres) 1. 41 ar(10.t)°-1 Intemest Consulting Group Intemest Consulting Group RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (City of Fort Collins, 2-Yr Storm) IAWATIONIlatmoy C'M4. PROJECT NO: 1255-028-M COMPUTATIONS BY'. cs DATE: 12Jx2015 2 yr storm, Ct= 1,00 DRE07 RuMcfF CARRY CrAIR AL REMARKS N., Pont Ttwmy A IA: C a 1P IKM) 1 twirl C12) Icw Ban Pam 0f21 (ft 12Ka1 Iasi 1.77 055 1.7 a" 2a 2A WO Pond 0 B 2.05 0a6 14.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 Rain Garden to 06-10 ow oat &A 2.36 14 1.4 Ex Inlet a10 21 M21 0U 0.86 so 286 10 1.0 Ex Inlet 821 10 8.0.510 3.A O5/ 194 110 36 3.8 Ex Inlet#10 r A.C6-TI 231 0.57 6s in 1 3.o Ex Inlet A21 a C&3 0a 0.50 8.6 0.35 0] 0.1 1131oswale O -C, CIA O - peak discharge (cts) C - runoff welficlent C, - frequency adjustment tactor i - rental intensity (iNhr) trom City of Fan Collins OF curve (4116(99) A - drainage area (acres) 1. 2x.221 , (10. t)-- Interwest Consulting Group STANDARD FORM SF-2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION - 100 VR LOCATION: Hamwny Conages PROJECT NO: 1255-028-00 COMPUTATIONS BY: es DATE: 12/8/2015 100-yrsform Cf- 1.25 from Table RO-12 of City of Fort Collins Stomlwater Code. Volume I SUB -BASIN DATA NITNL MWRLAND (to TRAVEL TIME r GUTTER OR CHANNEL ROW to c CHECK (UREANQED BASIN) FINAL to REMARKS DESIGN PONR SUBBASIN(s) (1) Area laq 2 C 3 C-CI Length (III NI Slope (%) 5) tI (mm) (6) Length (m (7) Slope I%) (8) n Mann# rough. Vel. th) (9) It (min) (10) to. tl+n (11) Total (n) (12) tc.(0180),10 (min) (13) Imin) to a A I -Tr DSS 0.69 20 2.D 2.7 650 1,8 0,016 2.7 4.1 6.8 670 13.7 6.8 0 E 2.05 0.55 0.69 50 2.0 4.3 880 1.5 0.022 1.8 8.2 12.5 930 15,2 12.5 10 OS-10 0.94 0.62 D78 12 2.0 1+8 575 0.6 0.016 1A 6.2 LB 587 13.3 7.8 21 OS-21 0. 0.85 0.81 12 2.0 1.5 225 0.6 0.916 1.6 2.4 3.9 237 113 5.0 10 BIOS 10 3✓9 0.67 0.71 50 2.0 A.1 1455 1.1 0.020 1.5 13.8 17.9 1505 1B. 17.9 21 A+OS-21 2.31 0.57 0.72 20 2.0 2.51 8751 1.5 0.016 2.6 8.0 8.6 8951 15.0 8.6 3 1 053 1 DA91 0.5B I u.ni 20 2.0 2.51 600 1.6 0.022 2.0 5.1 78 620 13. 7.8 EQUATIONS: tc-ti+tt 11-j1.87(1.1-CCI)Los )/S In tt. Wel. Velocity from Manning's Equation with R.0.1 (corresponds to Figure 3-3 of City of Fort Collins Design Manual) final tc . minimum of ti +tt and urbanized basin check min. tc = 5 min. due to limits of IDF curves 12-8-15 FC FLOW.xIs Interwest Consulting Group STANDARD FORM SF-2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION - 2 and 10 YR LOCATION: Harmony Cottages PROJECT NO: 1255-028-00 COMPUTATIONS BY: es DATE: 12B/2015 2 and 10-yr storm C7= 1.00 ham Table RO.12 of City of Fan Collins Starmwaler Code, Volume I DATA TRAVEL TWE I GUTTER OR CHANNEL FLOW (e) N CHECK AMMED BASK b MARKS DE PONIT UB INtsl in beeLength lac)(t) (2)(4) Slope (%) (5) II (min) (6) Lengn in (7) Slope (%) (8) n Mending ro h. V.I. (Ws) (9) t (min) (10) M 1.t 111 ToW L (h) 12 trs(0180)✓10 (min) (13 (mm) 14 FD.55 e A 11 M 2.0 3.7 650 1.8 0.076 2.7 4.1 7.7 670 13.7 7.7 b B 2.85 50 2.0 5.8 880 1.5 0022 1.8 8.2 14D 930 15.2 14.0 10 OS-10 0. 12 2.0 2. 575 0.6 0.016 1.0 6.2 8.6 587 13.3 8.6 21 OS-21 0. 12 20 2.3 225 as 0.016 1.6 2.4 4.] 237 11.3 5.0 f0 8.OS10 3.7 0.57 50 20 5. 1455 1.1 0.020 1.8 13e 19.4 15115 18.4 18. 21 A.OB-21 2.81 0.57 10 2.0 3. B75 f.5 0.016 2.4 fiA 9.5 695 15.0 9.5 11 05-3 0.491 0.58 20 2.0 3.51 600 f.B 0.021 2.0 5.1 0.51 620 MAI B. EQUATIONS: is=li+tt ti=j1.87(1.1-CC,)0511$m n = Wel. Velocity from Manning's Equation With R.G.1 (corresponds to Figure 3.3 of City of Fart Collins Design Manual) final Ic . minimum of ti +R and urbanized basin check min. to . 5 min. due to limits of OF curves 12-8-15 FC FLOW As Interest Consulting Group RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS & % IMPERVIOUS LOCATION: 1ya7111MY Canages PRO=NO: 1155-02&00 COMPUTATIONS BY: es DATE: 111g/_1015 Recommended Runoff Coefficients from Table RO-11 of City of Fort Collins Stormwater Code, Volume I Recommended % Impervious from Table RO-3 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume I Type B Sails Streets, parking lots (asphat). Sidewalks (concrete) Roars Gravel or Pavers Lawns, sandy soil (Flat <2%) Runoff % coefficient Impervious C 0.95 100 0.95 96 0.95 90 0.50 40 0.10 0 SUSBASIN DESIGNATION TOTAL AREA rAel TOTAL AREA faq.m ROOF AREA Isom PAVED AREA (m.t) PAVERS AREA (MA SIDEWALK AREA (ALM LANDSCAPE AREA ts4m RUNOFF COEFF. (C) % Impervious REMARKS A 1.TI 77.160 BASED ONOVERALL LOT CALCS 0.55 50 B 2.85 /24,007 0.55 50 OS-10 o.W 41.146 223 22,00 0 3,121 15,739 0.62 6f OS-21 0.54 23.355 3.3 L 9,154 0 2,593 a298 0.65 63 11 OS-3 0.49 21,503 BASED ON WOODRIDGE 4TN F9.ING 0.58 Eaustions - Calculated C coefficients & % Impervious are area weighted C=E(Ci Ai)/At Ci = runoff coefficient for specific area, Ai Ai = areas of surface wth runoff coefficient of Ci n . number o1 different surfaces to consider At = total area over Which C is applicable: the sum of all Airs 12-11,15 FC FLOW.RIs Imerwest Consulting Group RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS & %IMPERVIOUS LOCATION: harmony Cottages PROJECT NO: 1255-028-0f) COMPUTATIONSBY: es DATE: 12/82015 Recommended Runoff Coefficients from Table RO-11 of City of Fort Collins Stormwater Code, Volume I Recommended % Impervious from Table RO-3 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. Volume I Type B Soils Streets, parking lots (asphalt): Sidewalks (concrete): Roofs: Pavers: Lawns, sandy soil (Flat <2%) : Runoff % coefficient Impervious C 0.95 100 0.95 96 0.95 90 0.50 40 0.10 0 SUBBASIN DESIGNATION TOTAL AREA Iac.I TOTAL AREA (W n) ROOF AREA (W ) PAVED AREA ISQ.n) PAVERS AREA (W.nl CONCRETE AREA (s0 It) LANDSCAPE AREA (W.n) RUNOFF COEFF. (C) % IMWMIOUs REMARKS ExiStn Lot 4.45 193.839 0 0 0 0 193,839 0.10 0 Pre se0 Lot 4.45 193,839 46267 6.641 7,,427 47,000 86.504 0.55 50 1. 2A 1 6.54 BASED CN WOODRIDGE 4TH FILING GAS 89 5.90 BASED ON MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN 95 Equations - Calculated C coefficients 8 % Impervious are area weighted C=E(Cl All IAt Cl - runoff coefficient for specific area, Ai Ai - areas of surface with runoff coefficient of Cl n - number of different surfaces to consider At - total area over which C is applicable; the sum of all Ai's 12-8.15 FC FLOW.As APPENDIX B HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS s PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION I I I I I I I I l _J L _J LEGEND o.Qe �..r... 00®0®mmm _ oommmm®mm m�mmmmmmm m�mmmmmmmmr�,. amm0mmmmm0l=al r — —— ♦ '�� � 1\ cML -AM x01FI . anirzx or wLmnoo < pNp n Cm'o '10 a ( woz Rio Z 5 I w a Z Q D af�fl 40F5 I VICINITY MAP APPROX. 1 "=1000` APPENDIX A VICINITY MAP AND DRAINAGE PLAN 0 3. Ayers Associates, "Alternative Analysis for the Design of the Mason Street Outfall", dated November 2010. 4. RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants, "Preliminary/Master Drainage Study for Woodridge", dated December 2, 1991. 5. RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants, "Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for the Overlook at Woodridge Fourth Filing, Phase One", dated June 14, 1995. mi pass through a water quality feature but will flow directly to the street gutter and into the stormwater system. The majority of this area is landscaped with grass and plantings and only a small amount of impervious area from the sidewalk and roof is included. Since the source of the majority of pollutants in stormwater runoff comes from driveway and parking areas, this small amount of untreated runoff should have a negligible effect on the overall pollutant load. Several off -site areas will be conveyed through the site and treated on -site including the FCLWD parcel and the area adjacent to Taft Hill Road and this property. 5. CONCLUSIONS 5.1 Compliance with Standards All computations that have been completed within this report are in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual. 5.2 Drainage Concept The proposed drainage concepts presented in this report and on the construction plans adequately provides for stormwater quantity and quality treatment of proposed impervious areas. Conveyance elements have been designed to pass required flows and to minimize future maintenance. If, at the time of construction, groundwater is encountered, a Colorado Department of Health Construction Dewatering Permit will be required. 6. REFERENCES 1. City of Fort Collins, "Fort Collins Stormwater Criteria Manual Amendments to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Criteria Manual", adopted December 2011. 2. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual", Volumes 1 and 2, dated June 2001, and Volume 3 dated November 2015. 9 site will be directed to an LID facility. Therefore, no water quality capture volume is required for this site. The first water quality enhancement measure is the rain garden in the east corner of the site which is referred to as rain garden A. The rain garden is a depressed landscape area designed to capture and infiltrate the water quality capture volume. This area has an average depth of 12", has a flat bottom and will include landscape plantings in 12" depth of a sand media mixture. Water will be held in the depressed area and slowly drain through the sand media and then hit a 4" perforated pipe in gravel bedding which will discharge ultimately to the existing storm system in Harmony Road. This rain garden will treat 0.02 ac-ft of the water quality capture volume. The second water quality enhancement measure is the rain garden adjacent to Harmony and the main driveway which is referred to as rain garden B. The rain garden is a depressed landscape area designed to capture and infiltrate the water quality capture volume. This area has an average depth of 12", has a flat bottom and will include landscape plantings in 12" depth of a sand media mixture. Water will be held in the depressed area and slowly drain through the sand media and then hit a 4" perforated pipe in gravel bedding which will discharge ultimately to the existing storm system in Harmony Road. This rain garden will treat 0.04 ac-ft of the water quality capture volume. The third water quality enhancement measure is the grass swale located along the south property line. The swale has been designed to have a low longitudinal slope in order to convey flow in a slow and shallow manner promoting sedimentation and filtration and limiting erosion. The bottom of the swale is not concrete lined in order to further enhance pollutant removal. The swale will be constructed with a `soft pan' bottom consisting of a sand/topsoil mix or will be constructed with an underdrain in order to minimize standing water in the swale. The fourth water quality enhancement measure is the porous pavement systems located throughout the pavement area. These systems allow the movement of water into the layers below the pavement surface where treatment and slow release occurs. These systems also reduce the effective imperviousness of the site. There is a small portion of the site immediately adjacent to Harmony Road which will not 8 Basin OS-3 is 0.32 acres and includes the north half of the roofs of 5 lots from the Overlook at Woodridge, P.U.D. Fourth Filing adjacent to basin A. This basin sheet flows to the southern grass swale. Basin OS-10 is 0.94 acres and includes the south half of the roadway of Harmony Road adjacent to basin B and a small portion of the site adjacent to Harmony Road. This off - site basin will be further divided showing on -site and off -site areas during final compliance. This basin is conveyed via gutter flow to the existing 15' Type R inlet #10 in Harmony Road. Basin OS-21 is 0.54 acres and includes the south half of the roadway of Harmony Road adjacent to basin A and a small portion of the site adjacent to Harmony Road. This off - site basin will be further divided showing on -site and off -site areas during final compliance. This basin is conveyed via gutter flow to the existing 15' Type R inlet #21 in Harmony Road. 4.3 Stormwater Detention Developed commercial flows from this site were accounted for in the design of the storm drainage detention pond for the Overlook at Woodridge Fourth Filing (1995). Since the time that the Final Drainage Study for the Overlook was completed, the City of Fort Collins (CFC) has modified their stormwater design criteria to include stormwater quality enhancement requirements and the use of a larger design storm based on a 1998 precipitation study. The peak discharge using the old rainfall data for the site only (4.45 acres) and a C 100-year value of 1.00 was calculated to be 40.1-cfs. The required detention volume under the new rainfall conditions with a release rate set to the peak discharge under the old rainfall conditions and a developed C 100-year value of 0.70 was calculated. The result was a detention requirement of -0.04 ac-ft with a storm duration of 5 minutes. Therefore, adequate stormwater detention is being provided and additional detention is not required based on the increase in the design rainfall rates. 4.4 Water Quality Treatment Water quality enhancement is being provided for fully developed conditions. Four water quality enhancement measures will be used on this site. 95% of the impervious area on 7 3.6 Floodplain Regulations Compliance The project is not within any FEMA or City of Fort Collins mapped floodway; therefore, Floodplain Regulations Compliance is not required. 3.7 Modifications of Criteria There are no Modifications of Criteria at this time. 4. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN 4.1 General Concept The proposed site generally follows the existing drainage patterns and is divided into two major drainage basins. The site will be further divided into more sub -basins during final compliance. 4.2 Specific Details A summary of the drainage patterns within each basin is provided in the following paragraphs. Please refer to Appendix A for the drainage plan. Basin A is 1.77 acres and includes the southern portion of the proposed site and a small off -site area adjacent to Taft Hill Road. Stormwater is conveyed via overland flow to the proposed grass swale that runs west to east along the southern property boundary. This south Swale discharges into the proposed rain garden in the southeast comer of the property located at design point a. The outlet pipe for the rain garden discharges to the existing storm drain inlet #21 located on the south side of Harmony Road. Basin B is 2.85 acres and includes the northern portion of the site and offsite area from the FCLWD parcel and area adjacent to Taft Hill Road. This basin is conveyed via overland flow to the porous paver systems and rain garden located at the southwest corner of the intersection of the driveway and Harmony Road. The outlet pipe for the rain garden discharges to the existing 15' Type R inlet #10 located on the south side of Harmony Road. 6 Runoff reduction practices (LID techniques) are also required. No less than fifty percent of any newly added impervious area must be treated using one or a combination of LID techniques. The project adds 110,940 sf of new impervious area. Using the porous paver and rain garden LID techniques, 163,604 sf of new impervious area (147%) will be treated which exceeds the 50% requirement. In anticipation of the new LID code which will require 75% of newly added impervious area to be treated by an LID technique, the rain gardens have been sized to treat the entire site with the assumption that the porous pavers are removed. Using the rain garden LID technique, 105,796 sf of new impervious area (95%) will be treated which exceed the 75% requirement. No less than twenty five percent of any newly added pavement areas must be treated using a permeable pavement technology. The project adds 27,679 sf of new pavement area. This project will incorporate 7,427 sf of porous pavers which is 27% of the newly added pavement which exceeds the required 25%. As previously mentioned, this project is set up to provide the option of removing the porous pavers during final design with the assumption that the newly proposed LID code is implemented by the City. Please refer to Appendix E for LID calculations and information. 3.4 Hydrologic Criteria Runoff computations were prepared for the 2- and 10-year minor and 100-year major storm frequency utilizing the rational method. All hydrologic calculations associated with the basins are included in Appendix B of this report. Standard Form 8 (SF-8) provides time of concentration calculations for all sub - basins. Standard Form 9 (SF-9) provides a summary of the design flows for all Sub - basins and Design Points associated with this site. 3.5 Hydraulic Criteria All hydraulic calculations will be presented in the final drainage report and prepared in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria. 5 Step 3: Stabilize Drainageways Natural Drainageways are subject to bed and bank erosion due to increases in frequency, duration, rate and volume of runoff during and following development. Because the site will drain to an existing storm system, bank stabilization is unnecessary with this project. Step 4: Implement Site Specific and Other Source Control BMPs Proactively controlling pollutants at their source by preventing pollution rather than removing contaminants once they have entered the stormwater system or receiving waters is important when protecting storm systems and receiving waters. This can be accomplished through site specific needs such as construction site runoff control, post - construction runoff control and pollution prevention / good housekeeping. It will be the responsibility of the contractor to develop a procedural best management practice for the site. 3.3 Development Criteria Reference and Constraints The runoff from this site has been routed to conform to the requirements of the City Stormwater Department and the Mail Creek Basin Master Drainage Plan. Water quality capture volume will be provided on site. The impervious area for the site was assumed to be 95% in the master plan. The proposed weighted average impervious area for the proposed site is 50% which is less than the master plan. Fully developed commercial flows from this site were considered in the stormwater system plan design for the Overlook at Woodridge. The correlating basins 1 and 2A were considered to be neighborhood commercial sites with a C-value of 0.85. The proposed weighted average C-value of the proposed site is 0.55 which is less than the original design and therefore, downstream stormwater system will have capacity. Please refer to supporting documentation in Appendix F. Correlating Basin ID %I C-value Master Plan 89 95 - Woodridge 4u' 1, 2A - 0.85 Site A, B 50 0.55 4 3. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA 3.1 Regulations This report was prepared to meet or exceed the "City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual" specifications. Where applicable, the criteria established in the "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual" (UDFCD), developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments, has been used. 3.2 Directly Connected Impervious Area (DCIA) Discussion Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) recommends a Four Step Process for receiving water protection that focuses on reducing runoff volumes, treating the water quality capture volume (WQCV), stabilizing drainageways and implementing long-term source controls. The Four Step Process applies to the management of smaller, frequently occurring events. Step I: Employ Runoff Reduction Practices To reduce runoff peaks, volumes, and pollutant loads from urbanizing areas, implement Low Impact Development (LID) strategies, including Minimizing Directly Connected Impervious Areas (MDCIA). Runoff for the northern portion of the site will be routed through porous pavement systems and a rain garden reducing runoff from impervious surfaces over permeable areas to slow runoff and increase the time of concentration and promote infiltration. Runoff from the southern portion of the site will be routed through porous pavement systems, a grass Swale, and a second rain garden thereby slowing runoff and also promoting infiltration. Step 2: Implement BMPs that Provide a Water Quality Capture Volume with Slow Release 95% of the proposed impervious area will be routed through an LID facility; therefore, no additional water quality capture volume is proposed with these improvements. 3