Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE GREENS AT COLLINDALE PUD - PRELIMINARY - 8-96 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSCenter For Mi r o cmpul"ars in Transportation Center For Microcomputers -1&ase In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized intersection ReIea=e X XYXX>.t1f.ZMR).<1.XF+I::R1ifi Xx 4X Y'<Y:MXX)RY:Y"XY>YXf 2.1 iY"Ff tf f.R Yi:c;Y1XY.YYYX.Xt Pager I IiC° Gncignt,'ized intErsection Re RY If Y.. _X: l: f'. Y:YTYXXYXXX YR:.Y.Rfi:Y YXYfY:CYYIYY tfiXXY:Y'R Pane l XFY:Y I'Y:kf.)XY'RYYYYY RY'f File Name ................ File Name ................ Streets: (N-S) lemay (E-W) north access Streets: (N-S) lemay (E-W) north access Major Street Direction.... NS Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... mid Analyst................... mid Date of Analysis......... 2/5/96 Other Information......... arr, pm 1996 short long Date of Analysis.......... 2/5/96 Other Information......... am pm 1996 short long Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R: L T R; L T R; L T ,---- R L T Ri L T _--_ _-__ ---- i---- ____ ---- R; L T i---- __-_ Ri ---- :---- L T ____ ---- R. ---- ____ ---- ,---- -_ No. Lanes 0 2< 01 0 0 ,---- ____ 0; 0 0 ---- -___ _--- 0; 0 0 1 No. Lanes 0 2< 01 0 0 0; G 0 0; 0 0 1 Stop/Yield N; N; Stop/Yield N� N; " Volumes 521 1; 4 Volumes 52, 2 PHF .9 .9; .9 PHF .9 .s'I 1 I .9 Grade 0 0 0 0 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC's (%) 0 0; 0 MC's (%) 0 0; 0 SU/RV's (%)1 0 0; 0 SU/RV's (%); 0 0; ; 0 CV's (%) 0 0; 0 CV's (%) 0 Oi 0 PCE's 1.1 1.1; _ _______________________________________________________________________ 1.1 PCE's 1.1 1.1; ________________________________________________________________________ 1-1 Adjustment Factors Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (if) Maneuver __________________________________________________________________ Gap (t9) Time (tf) _ _________________________________________________________________ Left Turn Major- Road 5.50 - 2.10 Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2-10 RightTurnMinor koad 5.50 2.60 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 " Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn -Minor Road 7.00 3.40 Left Turn Minor Road 7,00 _ 31.40 .. i WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection WorkSheet for TWSC intersection ________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________c_ Step 1: PT from Minor Street WE EE Step 1: RT from Minor Street . WE ,6 ________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 264" Conflicting Flows: (vph) 261 - Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1018 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1021 _ Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1018 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1021 - Prob. of Queue -free State: ',.Dopr ob. of Queue -free State: 1.00 - -------------------------------------------------------- - Intersection Performance Summary " intersection ferfor-mance Summary Flowkate MoveCap SharedCap _ Avg. Delay Flowkate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay -Total Movement -(pcph) C--pcph) Delay By App Movement '--pcph)- Cm(pcph) Csh------ph) Delay LOS--- By App ------ph) --- ________ ______ ______ ______ ____________ ___ _________ -WE k 2 1018 3.5 A WE, R 4 1021� 3 � A intersectionOelav = 0:1 Intersection Delay = 0.1 , r t Center For M'icroc omputers In It' anspa-t ation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection kelease 2.1 Page 1 #X#T'.##%:.K T:W v' C##W.x%:K#lWx l:x Kv:###:Yxx #.K T:# t:fiY %#}:a v: %.x T: T:x RX## ♦.#WY W%: x: x.T:%:f File Name ................ Streets: (N-S) lemay (E-W) south access Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... mid Date of Analysis.......... 2/5/96 Other information......... am pm 1996 short long Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R1 L T R1 L T R; L T R -_-_ ____ ---- :---- -__- ---- :---- ___----- :---- _-__ ---- No. Lanes 1 0 2< 0; 1 2 0; 0 0 0; 0> 0< 0 Strop/Yield ; N; N; Volumes 527 S 619 PHF .9 .9; -9 -9 .9 .9 Grade 0 I 0 0 0 MC's (%) 0 0: 0 0 i 0 0 SU/RV's (%)i 0 0; 0 0 0 0 PCE's , 1.1 1.1; 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 _____________________________________________________________________ Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) __________________________________________________________________ Left Turn Major Road 5-50 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 Center For Microcomputers in Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Fege YX. x'KK#f.##%WYT Yv Y#x:YY T: v.xx Y#T'\:Y W%KT #f: f:.R YX. T: Y. _:f:xxYx'.KxYYxA'Y:F K "M.xfiW WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection ----------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street WS EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 265 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1016 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1016 Prob. of Queue -free State: 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street SBNB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows (vph) 530 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 890 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 890 Prob- of Queue -free State: 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street WS EB ________________________________________________________ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1156 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 193 Major LT, Minor TH . Impedance Factor: 0.99 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.99 Movement Capacity: -------------------------------------------------------- (pcph) 191 Center For Microcomputer=. In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 W.x xxYixz.K#xXX#zT:x#zxxxxxT:W.x>.W:KZYxxzYxxzxxxzxx:KxxzxxXxxzxxxMxzx#z Intersection Performance Summary Flowkate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(peph) Delay LOS By Apo ________ ______ ______ ______ _-___- ----- ______ ______- WB L 2 191 > > > 372 9.8 B 9.8 WE, R 3 1016 > > > SB L 11 890 4.1 A 0 Intersection Delay = 0.2 Center For Microcomputers, In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.l Page 1 v vy'� vr.rxx vzxzxvrcx«xY'r�x.xn:�'x xzxn zx rv.cz:rexxxzx x.«x'x.xx•rx•�xxs :max r. File Name ................ Streets: (N-S) lemay (E-W) south access Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed._. 60 (min) Analyst .................... mjd Date of Analysis.......... 2/5/96 Other Information......... 0 pm 1996 short long Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection -------------------------- Northbound ; Southbound ; Eastbound Westbound L T R; L T R; L T R; L T R No. Lanes 0 2< 0; 1 2 0 0 0 0; 0> 0: 0 Stop/Yield N; N; Volumes SIB 1; 2 474 5 PHF 9 .9; .9 .9 .9 .9 Grade 0. 0 0 0 MC's (%) 0 0; 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (%)i 0 0: 0 0 0 0 CV's (%) 0 0; 0 0 0 0 PCE's 1.1 1.1; 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic; Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road - 7.00 3.40 Center For Mlcrocomputers In IrenSpOrtatlprr HCS: Unsignalized intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 Y:ACr..l.V::t': r:tl.. .V.x C:Cx�,*"R",:.r: ♦.t."l:l:l:l:xxf.x,.x.":Y'x't'xxx,.:*:xx...:s:.z.sa:v.'.z.T.x... WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 260 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1022 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1022 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street ---------------------------- SB NB ----------------------- Confi'ict'ing Flows: (vph) 519 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 903 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 903 Prob. of Queue -free State: 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street WBEB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 994 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 245 Major LT. Minor TH Impedance Factor: 1.00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 Capacity Adjustment Factor - due to Impeding Movements 1.00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) --------- ----------------------------------------- 244 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation - HCS: Unsignalized Intersection keiease.2.1 Page 3 zzzzzxxzxv:�:zxzxzzzzzzzxzxxxzxzzxa:xzzxzxx zzzzzzzzzxxzzzzxzxzxxzxr Intersection Performance Summary . Flo.Raie Mov"ap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS By App ________ ______ ______ ______ ------------ ------ -__---- WB L 7 244 > > > 394 9.5 B 9.5 WB R 7 1022 > > > SB L 903 4.0 A 0.0 Intersection Delay = 0.2 C Center' For Micr-ocomputers In lron" po tation HCS. Unslcnalized Intersection kelease 2.1 Paga 1 lKF'X XF XFFXFWXXFWWXWFXF M:XFXX Xy::Y.F FXXXWFF.R XWWKiWWWWV..ti 4t F.tWFT. I. A".fWWY.YW File Name ................ Streets: (N-S) lemay (E-W) harbor walk/ticonder Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... mjd Date of Analysis.......... 2/5/9§- Other Information......... an, pni 1996 short long Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection Northbound I Southbound ; Eastbound Westbound L T R; L T R; L T R; L T R , No. Lanes 1 2< 0; 1 2< 0; 0> 1< 0; 0> 1< 0 Stop/Yield N; N Volumes 21 493 2' 109 547 12'6 1 1; 10 5 54 PHF .9 9 .91 .9 .9 .9; .9 .9 .91 -9 .9 .9 Grade 0 0 . 0 0 MC's (%) 0 0 0� 0 0 0; 0 0 0: 0 0 0 SU/RV's (%); 0 0 0; 0 0 0: 0 0 0; 0 0 0 Cv's (%) 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0 PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1: 1.1 1.1 1.11 1.1 1.1 1.1; 1.1 1.1 1.1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------ -------------------- Left Turn Major Road 5.50 _ 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road- 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 Center ForMicro,: ..muter In iransp or tatiim HCS: Unsianaiized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 2 F<s.W.+»xxFxW�WW:.FWW'A mWWxWmXr.xxXxW_."R.X+x.cn-cr_c_a.a •F».F Xa.; r_r Xar.rr. c..�rW zv WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection ------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 248 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1037 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1037 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.94 ----------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street SB -------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 495 Potential Capacity: (prph) 930 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 930 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.86 -------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB -------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1183 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 222 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.83 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 185 Prob. of Oueue-free State: 0.96 -------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB -------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 1172 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 189 Major LT,' Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.83 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.81 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.67 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 164 ------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Movement -------- v(pcph) ------ Cm(pcph) ------ Csh(pcph) Delay EB L 8 - 146 > ------ ------------ > EB T 1 186 > 165 > 23.2 EB R. 1 999 > > WB L 12 164 > WB T 7 185 > 487 > 9.0 WB R 66 1037 > . NE L 25 859 4.3 1 SP. L 133 930 4.5 jintersection Delay = 1.1 EB 280 999 999 1.00 NB 559 859 859 0.97 _--EB 1178 223 0.83 186 0.99 EB 1178 187 0.80 0.85 0.79 148 Delay LOS By App --------------- > > D 23.2 > B 9.0 A 0.2 A 0.7 Ceriter For Micror.oniputer-; in Trencporta.: ion HCS: Unsignal ized 1r,ter-sectior, k�'ease -'.5 F;, ❑.= 1 X:R1:.K>}X,y YXXXXXK}XXZX A'XXYXXYXL!}}A.Y}}:YYX}A:XXXY}.}K);)KXYY Y.K KY}K 1.'R A.s File Name ................ Streets: (N-S) lemay (E-W) harbor walk/ticonder Major Street Direction.... NS . Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... mjd Date of Analysis .......... /96 Other Information......... am pm 1996 short long Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection -------------------------- --------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R; L T R; L T R; L T R - -- ---- ----1---- ---- ---- I ---- ---- --- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 2< 0; 1 2< 0; 0> 1< 0; 0> 1< 0 Stop/Yield 1 N1 N; Volumes 1 3 437 1; 37 452 4; 5 1 5 131 PHF i .9 9 .9; .9 .9 .9; .9 9 .- Grade 0 0 it 0 MC'5 (`n) 0 0 0; 0 0 0I 0 0 0', 0 0 0 SU/RV's (%); 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 01 .0 0 0 CV's M 0 0 0! 0 0 0: 0 0 0i 0 0 0 PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1; 1.1 1.1 1.11 1.1 1.1. 1.1! 1.1 1.1 1.1' ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver - Gap (tg) ---------------=----- Time (tf) ---- ------------- Left Turn Major ----------- Road --- ---- 5.50 - 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 Center For Mirrocnnipucer= 7n Transportation ) HC". Unsinnnliteo' Inte.rsact ion Release '2.1 Page WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 219 228 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1072 1061 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1072 1061 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.65 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street ------------------ SB ------- NB -------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 438 456 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 998 976 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 998 976 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.95 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB ES -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 934 932 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 310 311 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.95 0.95 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 295 296 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.99 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street WE; E6 ________________________________________________________ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 930 932 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 269 268 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.95 0.95 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.96 0.96 - Capacity Adjustment Factor ' due to.impeding Movements 0.96 0.81 Movement: Capacity: (pcph) -------------------------------------------------------- 258 218 .. intersection, Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total -Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) ------ ______ ______ Delay ------------ LOS .______ EB L 7 216 > .__---- EB T 1 296 > 268 > 14.0 ; C ES R 2 1061 > > > WB L 8 258 > WB- i 2 295 > 9,10 4.9 > A j WB R 161 1072 > I > > NB L 's 976 SB L 45 998 i 3.6 A Intersection Delay = i 0.9 Delay By App 14.0 4.9 0.0 0.3 APPENDIX E Center For Microcomputers. In Transportation HC'3: Unsionalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 YYY"KM.KKMA.Y.A::K%X4MA:XY.F%MM%%MXM X.<tXY'<:K 1:K.Y.X M.X %A A: f: %. A: 1.%KMMMXY' V YY%Y t:Y.Y i. center For Microcomputers In Transportation I i C'3: Unsigne;lized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 \.:� IMh%.V:Xf'..K.YXM%.:YXYSXY'I.C:K%X.V.kXXX.M%XY:i:M%M%"X".KMS A.'f %.X XX"t RFIX.Y X%: I:A VXM:Y I. File Name File Name ................ ................ Streets: (N-S) lemay (E-W) north access Streets: (N-S) lemay (E-W) north access Major Street Direction.... NS Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst.......---'--...... mjd Analyst ................... mjd Date of Analysis.......... 2/5/96 Date of Analysis.......... 2/5/96 Information......... am 1996 - short long Other Information......__. am pm 1996 short long Other Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection - Northbound Southbound ---------------------------- Eastbound Westbound ------------------------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound ; Westbound L T R; L T R; L T R; L T R L T R; L T ---- ___- R; ---- :---- L T ____ ---- R; :---- L T k ____ ---- ____ ____ ---- :---- -___ No. Lanes 0 2c 0; 0 0 ---- :---- 0; ___- ---- 0 0 i---- ____ ____ 0; 0 0 ____ ____ :---- 1 No. Lanes 0 2< 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 1 Stop/Yield N; N; Stop/Yield N; N; Volumes 412 1; 4 Volumes 403 2; =" PHF ; -9 -9; .9 PHF ; .9 .9; -9 Grade 0 0 ' 0 0 Grade 0 0 ; 0 0 MC's (%) ; 0 0; 0 i° MC's (%) 0 0; 0 SU/RV's (%); 0 0; 0 SU/RV's (%); 0 0; 0 CV's (%) 0 0; 0 CV s(%) 0 0; 0 PCE's .; 1.1 1.1; ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ; 1.1 PCE's 1.1 1.1; ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.1 Adjustment Factors Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver- Gap (tg) Time (tf) Maneuver Gap (t9) Time (tf) __________________________________________________________________ Left Turn Major- Road 5.50 2.10 __________________________________________________________________ Left Turn.Major Road 5.50 2-10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Through, Traffic Minor Road 6.50 Left Turn Minor Road 7.-00 3.40 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection ---- ___________________ __________________ Step 1: from Minor Street ___________ E8 . ________________________________________________________ Step 1: RT from Minor Street W8 EB -- _____________________________ Conflicting Flows: (vph) - -- .206 ! Conflicting Flows: (vph) 202 10.4 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1089 Potential Capacity: (Pcph) 1094 Movement Capacity:-(pcph) 100 Movement Capacity: (Pcph) i.00 Prob. of Queue -free State: 1.00 Prob. of Oueue-free State: Intersection Performance Summary Flowkate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement ' v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay LOS by APp -------- _______ ______ ______ ------------ ______--------- WB R 4 1089 2.3 A Intersection Delay = 0.1 Intersection Performance Summary ; Flowkate MoveCap SharedCap Avq.Total Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(peph) Delay ! ______ ______ ______ ____________ WB R 2 1094 3.3 ! Intersection Delay = 0.1 I Delay LOS__ _By_APP__ A p x � � �ou / �etFo,mi� / x:a:,00,inialue:*�^ussec����»m���Y��se»2��a"�p»/�aa«» nm� ops�nna�Ceoterized ^�o,,*�,�ocw�v��rsection ,�^z��a^aprr'a pa�� � � rav� � � File Name -------- Streets. (w-S) lemav � (c`w) svvm access ' x^jm, street Direction .... ws worxuheet for Twuc Intersection Length o/ Time Analyzed ... m (min) ----------------------------- A^al's� ................ ... mju Step 1: nr from minor Street wo sB Date of Analysis .......... Otherzorormativo.. .... ... 2/5/96 am 1996 C) lonn -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: («n^) mz Potential Capacity: woph) 1094 Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection *«"**e"t Capacity: (prnh) 1094 ~~~~~~~~~=~=~=~=~=======~~~~~~~~==~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~======= prob. of Queue -free State: 1.00 | Northbound southuounu Eastbound | Westbound -----`----`------`----`—`----- | L r n: L r x| L r o| L 7 o Step 2. o from major Street yu - wo __-__`______~---__-^_-_____--_-__- |__ __ ---- wv. Lanes | o 2' |---- __ ---- ;---- o| 1 1 o� __ ---- |---- o o o| __ __ o� o' o Conflicting rl^wu� (vp�) 405 ytop/ri+la | w| w| | Potential cap«cav: 'pcpm wso Volumes *oz �| � �o� | | � � wwvamn� Capacity: (p�p�) 103» pxp | �o .o: .o .: | | �o �» p'«b- of Queue -free S+ate. o.»9 Grade | o | o | o | o ----------------------`--`------_-_- mo'y (%) | o o| o o | | o o Step 4: LT from Minor Street wm ao uo/ev's 'z)' o o: o n o o ^-----`------------'---------`----_--____ ' cv'y (z) | o o\ o o o o oo°nuuoy Flows: (,ph) ow poE's | 1.1 1.1| 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 Potential Capacity: `,cph/ 284 -..`,.`----____------__--_--_--___-__---_-__-----__--_____ Major o. Minor rx Impedance Factor: ^ o» Adjusted Impedance Factor- 0.99 Capacity Adjustment Factor Adjustment Factors* due to Impeding Movements0.99 Movement Capacity: (pcph) m/ Vehicle Critical Follow-up -----`----`---------------_--___ Maneuver _______________________________________________ Gap (to) lime (o) Lcft Turn major xnau 5.50 1.10 xipm rv'o Minor Road Through Traffic Minor Road :.no 6.50 � oo 3.30 Center For Microcomputers In 7/ans � ti p»r a »» *cs: onyinnalizea intersection Left rum Minor Road r oo -�o � � �"^",^~�,~"""~"^��^."~�'age^3 ' intersection Performance Summary Flo -Rate w^"eCap uha,euoar Avn.rotal ue,a,°"°e~°^t ,w'pN c°w,m �h(vcph) Delay ma ^-�--- By ^pp_ ------------ ---- wo � � zm ` `--`-- ` � wa x nor r. 2 u : 1094 / 7.2 / ` � � »» L 103y 1.5 A 0-1 Intersection Delay ~ 0�2 Center F:,r Microcc.. ut:.-r In Iran pca-ratior. HC hnsignal:ze❑ intersection f_leasc 2.1 Paca 1 xY YY-Y Y. Y: Y:Y Y't FX Y.X MY'.#xYYY XY':I:X RY Z.r Y:ZXX Y.Y ZY#'.Y:xX xxYx YY#. t X:1:XX t.tY.x Y.x:1:.XY I File Name ................ Streets: (N-S) lemay (E-W) south access Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... mjd Date of Analysis......... 2/5/96 Other Information......... am pm 1996 short long Two-way Stoo-controlled Intersection - ------------------------------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R; L T R; L T R; L T R No. Lanes '0 2< 01 1 2 0; . 0 0 0', 0> 0< 0 Stop/Yield N; N Volumes 409 1; 2 356 i 5 5 PHF .9 .9 _9 ! .9 .9 Grade 0 0 ; 0 0 MC's (%) 0 0; 0 0 0 0 SU/RV's (%); 0 01 0 0 0 0 CV's (%) 0 0; 0 0 0 0 PCE's , 1.1 1.1; 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver __________________________________________________________________ - - Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10 Right Turn Minor- Road 5.50 2-60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 Center `or Mic comput r Ir. i-ansPartrT Ter HCS: Unsign,,l'. -d InlcrSeCt ifr- KE.1 Yagr . a; V:Y V xYY'.Y YYM1 Y.Y Y. Y: V. Z.ZY'X XY'Y YY: Y.Y xT. Y.X RI.xYYxYMx Y. V: Y.Z xKXXZYYXZ Y.X .1; Y't A'M 1'xf WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------- ______________________________ Step 1: RT from Minor Street WS EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 205 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1090 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1090 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.99 ----------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street Sb NB _____ _ _ _____________________________-________- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 410 Pot:entiai Capacity: (pcph) 1033 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1033 Prob. of Queue -free State: - 1.00 ---------- --- - ------------------- ________________ - Step 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB ------------ --------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) --- Potential Capacity: (pcph) 342 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 1.00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 Capacity Adjustment Factor - due to Impeding Movements 1.00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) ------------------------------------------------------- 34l Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsigna)ized Intersection Release 2-1 Page 3 :Y.X:KMM:I:Y:Y:MMM X.MM.{XXMYMYYXXYMStXMTMY.MY'MXMXM.tXMMYM Y][M Y.MY.MY.Y MM:R Y.MMMXY. Intersection Performance Summary Flowkate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) ----- Delay ---------- LOS By App --------------- ------ WB L ------ ------ 7 341 > > >- 519 7.1 B 7.1 WE, R 7 .1090 } SE. L 2- 1031, 3.5 A 0.0 IIntersection Delay = 0.2 Center For Micros Ompu tern In Tr a nspor tot ion f iCS: Unsign61izec intersection Release _-.1 Page 1 C .V:tC♦ '1xT'T:V:x YA xC xT.x T'Y:Y C.Y.x x.r.T:rC <:c r.A'K [t 1'T:t Y1 �:"�,A:r: Y:r `Y r T"rrYv.rC Y. T"T.Y T: T. File Name ................ Streets: (N-S) lemay - (E-W) harbor walk/ticonder Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... mjd Date of Analysis .......... 2/5/96 Other Information......... am (pm)1996 short long Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound I Westhound L T R; L T R; L T R; L T R No. Lanes 1 2< 0; 1 2< 0; 0> 1< 0; 0% 1< 0 Stopf`field N; N, Volume_= 21 366 - '10S 411 1'1. 1 1! 10 5 54 PHF .9 .9 .9; .9 .9' Q .9 Grade 0 0 0 ; 0 MC's (%) 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0 SU/RV's (%); 0 '0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0 CV's (%) 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0 PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1; 1.1 1.1 1.1; 1.1 1.1 1.1; 1.1 1.1 1.1 -------------------------------------------------------- --------------- Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 -1.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 5,40 -a,,ter For 1•ticrocomr-!rier e. in Transportation HCS: Unsionalized Intersection ne!&as- 2.1 Pao T:rrvxT:xT:V:/T:V:r.:>v".+vrv:Y:rxxxx>.xvv>rr+vvvz:T:.rr*r+:xv:x rr <v:x v:x.Yrrv: r: vxv WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 185 212 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 111E 1081 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1116 1081 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.94 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street SB Nb ________________________________________________________ Corflicting Flows: (vph) 370 423 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1085 1016 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1085 1016 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.88 0.98 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street WB ES -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) - 922 917 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 315 317 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.86 0.86 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 270 271 Prod- of Queue -free State: 0.97 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street WE EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 910 918 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 277 "- 274 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.85 0.83 Adjusted impedance Factor: 0.89 0.87 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movement=. .0.89 0.82 ' Movement. Capacity: (pcph) ________________________________________________________ 245 225 Intersection Performance Summary Flowkate MoveCap SharedCap Avg -Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcpl-r) ________ ______ ______ ______ Delay ------------ LOS 6y Apo EB - L 6 225 > > ------ , __-__-- EB T 1 271 > 249 > 15.1 > C 15.1 EB R 1 1081 > > > WE L 12 245 > > WB T 7 270 .> 634 > 6.6 > B 6.6 W8 R 66 1116 > > > NB L 25 701f, 3.6 A 0.2 Sf< L. 11085 3.8 A 0.8 Intersection Delay Center For Microcomputers In Tr-ansportat.or, HC:,- Unssignalized Intersection Raiease 2.1 F'age 1 !Y:.4:I:MV t}:Y:;\<>;.W.;;TfY:CF!-XX.Y.;Ktr;Y.Y }.Y. l; M; !'. 1.>.<Y.Y;;YY}}1.♦♦ ti! Y.fttYtf}V File Name ................ Streets: (N-S) lemay (E-W) harbor walk/ticonder Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst_ ................ mjd Date of Analysis........." 2/5/96 Other Information........ am pm 1996 short long Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection ----------------------------------- Northbound Southbound Eastbound i Westbound L T R! L T R; L T R; L T R i____ ---- ;---- ____---- :---- ____ ---- i---- ____ ---- No. Lanes 1 2< 0; 1 2< 0; 0> 1c 0; 0> l< 0 Stop 'Yield 1 Ni N; Volumes 3C28 1; 334 4; 5 1 2! 6 131 PHF .9 _9 .9; .9 .9 .9; .9 .9 .9; .9 .9 .9 Grade 0 0 0 i0 MC's (%) -0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0 SU/RV's (%); - 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0 CV's (%) 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0I 0 0 0 PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1; 1.1 1.1 1.1� 1.1 1.1 1.1� 1.1 1.1 1.1 ________________________________________________________________________ . Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 Center For Ill CI-CICOMPUter6- In i r-ansportation HC Uns inna Iized 1n ersec lor, Release 2.1 Page WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 164 169 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1143 1137 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1143 1137 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.86 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB ________________________________________________________ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 329 338 Potential Capacity: (peph) 1141 1129 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1141 ti29 Prob. of Queues -free State: 0.96 1"00 ------------------------------------ Step 3: TH from Minor Street ____________________ WB EB ----------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 706 705 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 421 422 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0"96 0.96 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 403 404 Prob. of Queue -free State: 1.00 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street WE E6 ________________________________________________________ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 703 704 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 376 376 Major LT. Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.96 0.95 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.97 0.96 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.96 0"83 Movement Capacity: (pcph) ------- ---------------------------------------------- 363 312 Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) --------- ______ ______ Csh(pcph) ______ Delay ------------ LOS By App EE L 7 2.12 > ------ ______- EB T 1 404 > 375 > 9.9 > B 9.9 EB R 2 1137 > > > WE; L 8 363 > > > WE, T 2 403 > 1019 > 4.2 > A 4.2 WB R 161 1143 > > > NB L - 1129 A 0..0 SE, L 45 1141 3.3 A 0.3 Intersection Delay = 0"9 APPENDIX D UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Intersection Total Delay = (Vehicle Total Delay x Volume) _ lVolurne Level -of -Service (Intersection) _ Level -of -Service Average Total Delay, sec/veh A <_5 $ >5and 510 c > 10 and <_ 20 D >20and 530 E > 30 and 5 45 p > 45 APPENDIX C Center Fccr Microcompur.ers in Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersect -ion Release -.1 Page 1 File Nan le ............ Streets: (N-S) lemay (E-W) harbor walk/ticonder Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... mjd Date of Analysis.......... 2/5/96 Other Information......... am pm 1996 .short long Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection Northbound ; Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R; L T R; L T R; L T R ________ _-__ _______- ____ ---- No. Lanes 1 1 2<0; 1 2< CI 0> 11 0; 0> 1< 0 Stop/Yield N; f.� Volumes 21 294 109 298 12 6 1 10 5 PHF .9 c .4; .9 9 .c; .9; .9 .9 .9 Grade 0. 0 0 0 MC's (m) 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0 SU/RV's (%); 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0 CV's (A) 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0 PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1; 1.1 1.1 1.1; 1.1 1.1 1.1; 1.1 1.1 1.1 ________________________________________________________________________ Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver _ Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.50 2.10 Rioht Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Throuch Traffic Minor- Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 _Center For mioro,,omputers In iran_•portat'ion HCS: Un>icr�aliz'_ Intersection Re -lease 2.1 4 v'T. T'T;YA \Ax �. Y. ): fY'Y tY {);f xY':K i'YYYxXY-T'Y; f YYi.Yi K\'YY}KTT: T:#Y'T Y')• 1:4 Y. Y. y.Y 1'Y.K v' WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street WE EE ________________________________________________________ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 148 155 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1165 1156 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1165 1156 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.94 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street SBNE -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 296 310 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 118g 1169 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1169 1169 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.89 .. -------- ----------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street - ___0_98 E -_- - -- - - -------------------------- ___-_WES Conflicting Flows: (vph) __-_-_- 73` J 730 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 405 406 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.87 0.87 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 352 355" Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.98 1.00 . -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor- Street WE E6 ________________________________________________________ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 724 730 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 365 361 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.87 0.85 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.90 0.89 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.90 0.64 Movement Capacity: (pcph) ________________________________________________________ 327 302 Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay ' Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) ______ Delay ____________ LOS ______ by App _______ ________ ______ ______ - ER L 6 302 > > EE T 1 355 > 331 > 1 L 2 C 11 .2 E6 R 1 .1156 > > > WE L 12 327 > > > WE T 352 > 751 - 5.4 > E 5.4 WE, R 66 1165 NE L 25 i169 i:.l A 0.2 SR L 133 1189 3.4 A 0.9 Intersection Delay = 1 Center For Microcomputers Jr, Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 1 lK<.Y.KYxXlxxzY:z xxz<xzFZ K)KYLxJK.KtZxzxz Kxxa::CY.xxziXxzXYxxxzRl.!'x:Kxx x'I'xx File Name ................. Streets: (N-S) lemay (E-W) harbor walk/ticonder Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... mjd Date of Analysis.......... 2/5/96 Other- Information........ am pm 1956 short long Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection Northbound Southbcund Eastbound Westbound L T R; L T R� L 7 R; L T it No. Lanes I 1 2< 0; 1 2< 0; 0> 1< 0; 0> 1< 0 Stop/Yield N; N; Volumes 3 291 1; 37 26-1 4;, 5 1 2; 6 Z 131 PHF .S 9 .9; .9 .9 .9; .9 .9 .9; .9 .9 .9 Grade 0 0 0 0 MC's (%) 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0 SU/RV's (%); 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0 CV's (%) 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0 PCE's 1.1 1.1 1.1; 1.1 1.1 1.1; 1.1 1.1 .1.1; 1.1 1.1 1.1 ________________________________________________________________________ Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver ------------------------------------------------------ Gap (t9) T'1 me (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5.50 ----------- 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 7.00 3.40 (;=n'ier rFor 14i i.er-. Ire Tr�nspo;-i.atior� rif I.inc iigna1 i ze_. in terser i.,1 of i .ease 2 WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 146 134 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1168 1184 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1168 1184 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.86 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from MajorStreet _-.__________________________________ -_-_-Sft_------__-_NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 292 267 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1195 1232 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1195 1232 Pro-. of Queue free State 096 1.00 . St: p TH from Minor Street -________ WB EB ________________________________________________________ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 596 597 . Potential Capacity: (pcph) 487 488 Capacity Adjustment Factor ' due to Impeding Movements 0.96 0.96 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 468 468 Prob.- of Queue -free State: -------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 i.00 Step 4: LT from Minor Street ________________________________________________________ WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 595 596 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 441 440 Major LT. Minor- TH Impedance Factor-: - 0.96 0.96 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.97 0.97 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to impeding Movements G.97 0.83 Movement Capacity: (pcph) ------------------------------------------------ 426 367 - Intersect'iOn Performance Summary F1owRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(Pcph) Csh(pc:ph) -------- ------ ------------ Delay LOS By A pp EB L 7 367 > - ------------ > ------ ------- EB T 1 468 > 437 > 8.4 > B 6.4 EB R 2 1164 > > > WB L 8 426 > > WB T 2 468 > 1065 >4.0 > A 4.0 WB R 161 1166 > > > NB L 3 1232 2 9 A 0.0 SB L 45 i1S5 .;.1 A 0.4 intersection Delay = 1.0 APPENDIX B A M p m MA7THEtN J. DELICH, P.E. 3413 BANYAN AVENUE LOVELAND, CO ams TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Observer V l GK f(j KA10-cA) Date 1 03 9(oDay70E5bAq city FoeY 0—O(,(, Ii.)S R = Right turn S = Straight INTERSECTION OF CMta��J6�tJUC,— AND TCo�vo62oGA I/IAf�R,er? G�At.K L=Left tum TIME BEGINS LE,44AY N°rthL South �Co'uDeQoaA 14"-Ooe OAt.� from WEST TOTAL T� I from NORTH from SOUTH from EAST R I S I L I Total II R S I L I Total I R I S I L I Total II R I S I L I Total -730 II 3 1/o-ZI 11 - 4 II 0 1 IZ910 1 17,9 II Z4 3 11371 0 1 1 1 38 110 1 0 1 1 1 I 11 39 II 2 8Z -74:5 ilo 11z-7 1 C9 13311 I 137101153 11071 13(o1 1 13 1 40 11 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 11 42 11313 W0 110 19s I q I +o4ll Z. 110610 110811ZIZ. IIZ(DI 1 10 1 Z-7110 1 0 IZ 1 Z II Z9 IIZ4.1 tslS III 1)(-5-1131/Z911a 11131 1 1 1(4-IIZ43 1321 0 IZI 3411 1 1 o I1 1 Z 11 3G IIZ7 II i I II i I 11 I I I I II I I I II II 730- ill4 14 39 3 -714.8 0113 4?51 1 14811119 Cog 11 1] 2 1& 13911z 10 16-1 7 1146 II 111� II I I I II I I I II I I I II ( I I II II II I I it f I I II II I I I II I I I II II I II I I II I I II II I I I II I I I I I I I II I I I I I I II I II II II I i I II I I I II I I I I 11 I I i II it 11 I I II I II II I ► I II I I I I) it 430 II 4 1 117 1 Z.O 114► II Z losl 0 1 107 II Z 4 1 9 1 1 1 Z 1 12 II © 1 0 1 1 1 1 II 1 3 II Zia P 4451 31119 1 z51 14711? 1141 1 11Z3 11Z?0 11to 1 3 1 1 1 14 10 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 6' 11 ZSss so o II Z I I Z I I Z'3 I 4Co 11 fc;-" I I Z 91 0 113 4- II Z Ft 0 1119 1 0 I Z I Z I 110 1. 1 1 4- 1 S I Z Co II 3 o& 517 113 1►4041 1/8411(o 11¢ZI 1149 11333 11t#1 I IS IzZ 10 1 10 I o I Z211 35� II I I I II I I I II II I I I it I I i II 30-63011)?,4971107I( 1 8112114701Z Is13jj11 31 11se 5 Ito I& 9110 1 1 1& 17 117-(DIIIZ07 APPENDIX A AM/PM N N \ o HARBOR I WALK t 131/54 2/5 j'6/10_. r -c� LONG RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC A& N Figure 5 Table 3 Short Range Peak Hour Intersection Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM Lemay/South Access (stop sign) WB LT/RT B B SB LT A A Lemay/North Access (stop sign) WB RT A A Lemay/Harbor Walk/Ticonderoga (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT B C WB LT/T/RT A B NB LT A A SB LT A A Table 4 Long Range Peak Hour Intersection Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM Lemay/South Access (stop sign) WB LT/RT B B SB LT A A Lemay/North Access (stop sign) WB RT A A Lemay/Harbor Walk/Ticonderoga (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT C D WB LT/T/RT A B NB LT A A SB LT A A AM / PM cV HARBOR WALK / 5/6 -1 0/1- 2/0 W7777/ 4/Z Np Ac Rr Site ,, r sus ly sue? S'S LLL/1/1LLLL/1L/1LLL/1L/� 131/54 2/5 ,�- 6/10__ N SHORT RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 4 Table 1 1996 Intersection Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM Lemay/Harbor Walk/Ticonderoga (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT B C WB LT/T/RT A B NB LT A A SB LT A A Land Use The Greens @ Collindale 38 Patio Home D.U. Table 2 Trip Generation Daily A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips in out in out 225 3 14 14 7 1996 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 A& N NO SCALE SITE PLAN Figure 2 Mel- 7, I c v .4 lie U bi I ct cqr,� LIKE U-1-wo, ROAD c towd -OWTHE GREENS AT COLLINDALE- vw ..... .n pl— lu _j Z I!, HARM NY R0 L 6 am mIEI '�.''� '•,�•.re k'.4 i\. M,.'N' t,✓ `�•ra0 �� o L f // Ir Fe .r0.! 1 40 NO SCALE SITE LOCATION Figure 1 consideration the overstatement of level of service. The modification entailed multiplying the through traffic by 1.2 and then dividing it in half. This allows for unequal distribution in the two travel lanes. With the existing control and geometrics, the operation at this intersection is at level of service C or better. This is considered to be acceptable. Acceptable operation i's defined as level of service D or better. A description of level of service at unsignalized intersections is provided in Appendix C. Using Trip Generation, 5th Edition, ITE, The Greens @ Collindale is expected to generate approximately 225 vehicle trip ends on a typical weekday at full build out: The daily and peak hour trip generation is shown in Table 2. The trip distribution used in the assignment process is shown below: North on Lemay - 65% South on Lemay - 35% Figure 4 shows the short range (1997) peak hour traffic plus The Greens @ Collindale generated traffic. The background traffic on Lemay Avenue was obtained from the "Safeway/Harmony Village Center Traffic Impact Study," January 1996. Using these traffic projections, the key intersections will operate at level of service C or better during both peak hours as shown in Table 3. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix D. The operation is considered to be acceptable. During the peak hours, The Greens @ Collindale will increase the traffic on Lemay Avenue by less than 1%. Figure 5 shows the long range (2015) peak hour traffic plus The Greens @ Collindale generated traffic. Background traffic was obtained from the cited study. Table 4 shows the long range peak hour operation at the key intersections. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix E. All of the analyzed intersections operate acceptably. It is concluded that the Greens @ Collindale will not cause significant impact on the existing street facilities in the area. The key intersections will operate acceptably. f W x w_ J W O t1 W x F- d :o 0 N T 10 �o 9 0 z R W W z CD z _J U iZ 0 cc Q 0 n. n z cc U M LL a Cr MEMORANDUM To: William Watson, LandSource, LLC Bob Sutter, Architectural Horizons Eric Bracke, Fort Collins Transportation Division Fort Collins Planning Department From: Matt Delich Date: February 12, 1996 Subject: Traffic analysis for The Greens @ Collindale (File: 9605MEM1) This memorandum documents the analysis conducted with regard to the traffic operation at the Lemay/Access intersections to The Greens @ Collindale in Fort Collins, Colorado. The site location is shown. in Figure 1. The scope of this study was discussed with Transportation Division staff. The Greens @ Collindale is a residential development, consisting of 38 patio home dwelling units. Figure 2 shows a site plan of The Greens @ Collindale. From available plans, The Greens @ Collindale would access the east side of Lemay Avenue via, two private driveways north of the Lemay/ Harbor Walk/Ticonderoga intersection. The area to the south is an established neighborhood in Fort Collins. The Greens @ Collindale.is considered to be an infill development. Land uses in the area are primarily residential and recreational (Warren Park and Collindale Municipal Golf Course). Lemay Avenue is a four lane arterial street. Most local streets intersecting Lemay Avenue have stop sign control. The nearest signals' are at Horsetooth Road to the north and Harmony Road to the south. Peak hour turning movements were obtained in January 1996 at the Lemay/Harbor Walk/Ticonderoga intersection. These counts are shown in Figure 3. Raw peak hour traffic data is provided in Appendix A. Table 1 shows the peak hour operation at the Lemay/Harbor Walk/Ticonderoga intersection. Calcula- tion forms are provided in Appendix B. The key intersection along Lemay Avenue was analyzed using the unsignalized analysis technique as published in the "Highway Capacity Manual," Special Report 209, TRB, 1994. Recent research indicates that the unsignalized analysis technique overstates the level of service at intersections on four lane major streets. This technique is being revised by TRB. Following review of the available research and conversations with the Chairman of the TRB Committee on Highway Capacity and Quality of Service, this technique was modified to take into C: oc;.�da: Nam 2. A Z`, Ycs I Yo I i esi So' OLU v //I z Uu J ` v-t Al J a� �aoo Tc o� l /�! Ns &04ka-ga cuGc ! v�Tirr�r'? looa�r ��' ✓ ✓' I i Q: Are these prices (in the neighborhood of $300,000) reasonable along Lemay?. A: Well, just across the street, on the Warren Lake dam, people are buying those . homes for $500,000. So, .we think our prices are reasonable: Q: Who will maintain these homes and the grounds? A: There will be a Homeowners' Association and restrictive private covenants . the sale price of these homes will likely make renting of these properties prohibitive. . In other words, they'll be too expensive to rent. However, even if someone were to rent out one of theseunits, the rules of the Homeowners' Association and the restrictive covenants would still apply. Q: Will the Bockman's home be taken out? A: Yes. There will also be bermingalong the west and north property lines. Q: How about berming along the south property line? A: There's really not enough room for berms in that area. However, we did say we'd see what we can do to increase these setbacks. and to improve that area. At this point, the discussion turned toward the Harbor Walk development across the street, and the meeting was adjourned. I Q:: Will the homes along the- golf course (east property line_) all be two -stories? Because this where our views are. . A: Any units labeled as "F".or "G" would have a two-story option. We anticipate the two-story units would be those along the golf course-- - - yes, but not necessarily all of them. Q: Will there be any school crossings provided? A: Ticonderoga will provide the crossing for this. project. We're marketing these homes toward "empty -nesters," so there really shouldn't be many children, if any at all, living here anyway. Q: What are the drainage patterns for this site like? And what do you plan to do to/with them? A: The site currently drains from the northwest toward the southeast. We will have on - site detention designed to the capacity of the 100=year storm with release not exceeding the two-year historic rate. Fill is necessary to make the streets work and to provide for proper drainage of the site. Q: Won't fill. exacerbate the existing drainage problems? A: No, the fill will facilitate drainage to the detention area where the detained water will be released at no greater than the -two-year historic rate, thus, :the detention will alleviate some of the current problems. Q: How close to the drainage easement can you build? And what kind of setbacks from the existing homes will result? A: We can build up to the fifteen foot (16) easement. So, with this fifteen feet plus the three foot drainage way, the resulting setback from your rear property lines would be eighteen (18') feet. Landscaping in this area will include trees of at least three (3") in caliper (diameter at breast height - - - dbh). . Q: . -The three units along the. south property line, setback 18' from our property lines, are too close to allow for privacy and adequate buffering. A: We will heavily landscape this area with good sized trees (as noted above), and we . will see what we can do to increase these setbacks. We'll work on it. Q: Will the tree nursery remain? A: - Yes. 1 PROJECT: The Greens at Collindale P.U.D. MEETING DATE: February 15, 1996 APPLICANT: Architectural Horizons - - - Bob Sutter STAFF: Mitch Haas, Project Planner Q: Will there be any landscaping/buffering along the south property line to mitigate impacts on the existing neighbors in the Golden Meadows. subdivision? Uniform fencing, perhaps? A: .We'll consider buffering needs in our design of the project. Uniform fencing is something we've been considering, but the type has not yet been decided on. Q; Can you restrict the development to ranch homes only/exclusively? A: We're conducting a -forum/market analysis so that we can provide whatever the market demands - - - we expect that the development will likely end up being almost all ranch homes, but we. have to allow for the possibility of split-levels - - - but we anticipate few, if any, two-story homes. We do not want to confine ourselves to ranch homes only if people will want split levels. Q: Will our views of the foothills be obstructed? A: We don't think that two-story homes would obstruct your views of the foothills; the houses on the, lake (Warren Lake) are at least ten feet (10') higher than this site. We could conduct a view analysis to verify this though. Q: Will any grading of the site be necessary? A: On average, we will have to raise the site by approximately three feet (3'); most of the grading will occur along the Lemay frontage. Q: Why not restrict yourself to ranches only? Can half of a duplex be ranch style and the other half be split-level? That is, if someone wants a split-level does that mean the other half of that duplex will automatically be built to two -stories, resulting in a large two-story structure? A: .There's no reason why one side can't be built as a ranch while the other side is built as a split-level ... as long as the aesthetics can be worked out. 9 LEGAL The Gree DESCRIPTION ns at Collindale PUD KNOW ALL M£N By "THESE PRESENTS, THAT THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING THE OWNERS AND PROPR/£TORS 9 OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND, TO WIT A tract of land situate in the Northwest Quarter of Section 31, T7N, R68W of the 6th P.M., City of Ft. Collins, Lorimer County Colorado. More particularly described as follows. - Considering the North line of the NorthWest Ouarter of said Section 31 as bearing N 90'00100" E as determined by monuments found at the Northwest Comer and at the North Ouarter Comer of said Section 31 and with o// bearings contained herein relative thereto. Commencing at the Northwest Comer of said Section 31; thence S 4X4545" E 1830.92 feet; thence S 21'00'40" W 212.05 feet; thence S 60'19'00" E 85.94 feet to a point on the Easterly Right -of -Way line of Lemay Avenue said point being the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING,• Thence S 60'19'O6r E 124.05 feet thence S 00'00'00" E 1018.08 feet to a point on the North Line of Golden Meadows Subdivision Second Filing according to the Plat recorded in Bk. 1951, Pg. 776-778 in the records of the Lorimer County Clerk and Recorder,- thence along said line N 89'44'11" W 504.96 feet to a point on the Easterly Right -of -Way line of Lemoy Avenue; thence along said line N 323544" E 195.87 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the Northwest having a central angle of 18'40'44" and a radius of 1250.00 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 407.51 feet; thence N 13'55'0O' E 482.28 feet to the beginning of a curve concave to the West having a central angle of 03'20 45" and a radius of 1250.00 feet; thence along the arc of said curve 72.99 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. the above described tract contains 6.42 Acres *, and is subject to any and a// conditions, Easements and Rights -of -Way which may exist or be of record. Mitch Haas March 18, 1996 Page Three Ownership of Common Spaces: Although a significant portion of open space in the subdivision will be privately owned, all landscaped areas and the exterior of the homes will be maintained by the Property Owner's Association (POA). The POA will also own and maintain the streets. Remaining Common Open Space will be owned and maintained by the POA. Development Schedule: It is anticipated the development and construction of the project will begin in the fall of 1996. Depending on market conditions it is anticipated that the subdivision will be built out within a two year time frame. ds It is hoped that this letter and the other accompanying submittals and data will bring favorable consideration to this project. Please let me know if I can answer any further questions or provide any additional information. Cordially, Robert Sutter Principal RAS/rs Enc: CC: LandSource L.L.C. Mitch Hass March 18, 1996 Page Two Living units have been carefully designed to minimize direct looks into adjacent units. This is accomplished by paying attention to widow orientation and the careful placement of exterior landscape elements. Landscaping is also used to provide visual separation between units and enhance privacy and scale of the project. Earth berms are provided along LeMay Avenue to enhance privacy and reduce noise. A Masonry and Rod -Iron Fence are also provided along LeMay to enhance privacy of the subdivision. Interior streets will be minimum twenty feet wide with additional eight foot wide parallel parking pockets to provide additional controlled parking in the subdivision. Additionally, some eighteen feet deep perpindicular parking pockets have been provided to further enhance parking needs within the project. In response to neighborhood comments units at the south property limits have been moved back to the north considerably to reduce impact to the existing homes located there. Additionally, landscaping has been intensified along the southern limits of the project. Drainage issue along the south property line of the project will be carefully addressed in the final engineering documents developed for the project at a latter submittal stage. Garages have been designed in two of the units to be significantly set back from the internal private street or to have side entries. This will reduce the impact of garage doors on the, streetscape of the project considerably which was the goal. Additionally entry approaches to garage areas are intensely landscaped to further reduce garage door and driveway impact to the development. Street lighting will be designed to a pedestrian scale with lamps of lower profile and intensity and closer spacing being located along the streetscape. This will also considerably mitigate glares within and without the property by these systems. Storm water control for the project is accomplished in a system of over lot detention areas that will be directed for release at the southeast corner of the site into the existing stormwater system located there. Since views to the mountains are restricted by Warren Lake Dam and the housing that is proposed to be located there, most living spaces of the proposed units have been oriented to interior views and the Collindale Golf Course located adjacent east and north to the project. This orientation also mitigates the impacts of Lemay Avenue on the site. The few homes that do back onto Lemay have increased set -backs and landscaping to reduce the impact of Lemay. City Land Use Policies Addressed: This is an infill project. The density of the project exceeds 5 units per acre. The project is located on a bus route and is near major shopping and business centers. It is surrounded by active recreation centers in Warren Park and Collindale Golf Course. It is near schooling. It is located on a Bike access route. The project is compatible with existing residential development within proximity to and adjacent to the project. The project complies with all engineering requirements and goals of the city and will use energy efficient materials and systems in its construction. P. O. Box 271217 Fort Collins, Colorado 80527 March 18, 1995 Mr. Mitch Haas, City Planner City of Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO. 80522-0580 RE: Written Documentation for the Greens at Collindale Planned Unit Development (PUD). Dear Mitch; This letter fulfills the requirement of the "Land Development Guidance System" (LDGS) for written documents supporting our'application for Planned Unit Development (PUD) review of the Greens at Collindale PUD submitted herewith. The form of the letter will follow somewhat the form of the requirements as described in the LDGS Manual. The application form , filing fee of $2,165.00, Legal Description, and list of property owners with in 500 feet of the project are attached. PLANNING OBJECTIVES: Obiectives: The Project is configured as a single lot family subdivision composed of thirty four "zero" lot line homes on 6.42 acres. Homes have common walls on the "zero" lot line joined at garages and/or Master Bedroom Suites to maximize privacy between units. The market being targeted for the project is empty nesters. Homes will be mostly single level with some two-story units mixed in as market pressure dictates. All Units will have basements and attached two car garages. Master suites are provided on the ground floor. Building on the lots will be restricted to within building limit lines to be more stringently defined in the final plan stage of the project. Building will not be allowed of any kind outside of the building limit lines. Court yard entries will be provided to enhance privacy and feelings of security to the main entries of the home. Private patios and/or decks will be provided within the building limits. Interior spaces will have ten foot ceilings. Exterior roof lines will be "low slope" (4/12 maximum) to enhance scale of the project to its human occupants. Exterior materials will be stucco and/or masonry. Other elements such as eaves, soffits, and facia systems will be of maintenance free materials. Window units will be of double paine glass. Ceilings will have R26 insulation and walls will be R19 plus. Phone / Fax (970) 225-2704 ARCHITECTURAL HORIZONS 2405 Rollingwood Drive, Ft. Collins, CO. 80525 P. O: Sox 271217 Fort Collins, Colorado 80527. March 18, 1996 Mr, Mitch Haas, City Planner City of Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO. 80522-0580 RE: Solar Variance Request for the Greens at Collindale PUD. Dear Mitch; This letter is a request for variance from Criterion A1.1.1, "Solar Orientation" for the Community Wide Criteria on the All Development Criteria Chart of the "Land Development Guidance System" (LDGS) for the subject project. The request is made due to hardship imposed by the configuration of the Property/Project Boundaries, making it impossible to orient 65% of the residential lots of the project for solar access. The long axis of the project site configuration is oriented north/south and the site is extremely narrow in the east/west direction. It is therefore not possible to orient internal circulation in the east/west direction that is required to provide the solar access orientation called for in this Criterion of the LDGS. As many lots as possible ( ) have been oriented for solar access (approximately N/0). I�t W/O We respectfully ask that you favorably consider our request on these hardship grounds. The project is not possible without this variance as a single lot family subdivision as proposed. Cordially, Robert Sutter Principal RAS/rs CC: LandSource, L.L.C. Phone / Fax (970) 225-2704 ARCHITECTURAL HORIZONS 2405 Rollingwood Drive, Ft. Collins, CO. 80525 Earned Criterion Credit 1 If it can be d®mvarmed that the project will reduce nonwenewable energy usage either through the application of atternafive energy systems or through committed energy oonow m ion measures beyond those normally required by City Code, a 5% bonus may be eamod for every 5% reduction in energy user. Calculate a I % bows for every 50 acres included in the project M n Cakd. the percentage of the total aces in the project that are devoted to reavtienal use. &der'A of that percentage as a bo sus. O If the applicant commits to preserving pumanent off -site open span that meets the City's minimum requiremeata, calculate the percentage of this open apace acreage to the total development acreage and enter this percentage as a bows. p if part of the total development budget is to be sped on neighborhood public transit facilities which are not required by City Code, ender a 2%bows for every $100 per dwelling unit imvested. B r1 `i If pert oftbe total devemndaor oprt budo is to be spent on neighborhood facilities aservices which are not otherwise required by City dwelling Code, enter a I%bona for every $100 per unit invested. ® If the project contains dwelling unsta set aside for individuals earning 90% or less of the median income of City rmdats, as adjusted ! !� I, for family size, and paying Inn than 30Y. of their gross income for housing, including utilities ("Affordable Dwelling Units"), olaniaae the percentage of Affordable Dwelling Units to the total number of dwelling units in the project and ender that peroemage as a boram up to a mamnsmm of 15% (Ifibe project is proposed to be constructed in multiple phases, the Affordable Dwelling Units mist be cahmucted as a part ofthe phase for which approval is sought) In order to insure that the Affordable Dwelling Units remain �7 �I affordable for a period of not leas than 25 yeara, the developer shall record such protective covenants as may be required by the City under Sec. 29-526(J)(4} If a commitment is being made to develop a specified percentage of the total number of dwelling units for Type "A" and Type "B" handicapped housing as defined by the City of Fort Collins, calculate the bonus as follows: 7 S Type "A" .5 x Type "A" Units U Total Units Its no case shall the combined boons be greeter than 30% Type "B" 1.0 x Type "B" Units Total Units SIf the site or adjacent property contains a historic building or place, a bona may be earned for the following: t 3% For preventing or mitigating outside influences adverse to its preservation (e.g. environmer"L land use, aesthetic, economic and social factors}. 3% For assuring that new sa utures will be in keeping with the character of the building or place, while avoiding total units, 3% For proposing adaptive use of the building or place that will lead to its oentumanco, preservation and improvement t in an appropriate manna' Ifa portion or all ofthe required perking in the multiple family project is provided underground, within the building or in an elevated u parking structure as an accessory use to the primary structure, a bonus may be earned as follows: 9% For providing 75% or more of the puking in a slnuenve; 6% For providing 50 - 74% of the parking in a structure; 3% For providing 25 - 49% of the parking in a dru cti m V IN commitment is being made to provide approved --or st c fire extinguishing systems for the dwelling units, mart a bonus of 10% W Ifthe applicant coo. to providing adequate, safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle connections between the project and any of the destination points described below, calculate the bonus as follows: 5% For connecting to the newest cAsting City sidewalk and bicycle patlyune, 5% For connecting to any existing public school, park and transit stop within the eli-d as defined in this Density Chart; 5% For connecting to an existing City bicycle trail which is acqaccra to or traverses the project. TOTAL 83% '45 BASE POI►JI-.-, CTIVITY: .asidential Uses EFINITION: E All residential uses. Uses would include single family attached dwellings, townhomes, duplexes, mobile homes, and multiple family dwellings; group homes; boarding and rooming houses; fraternity and sorority houses; nursing homes; public and private schools; public and non-profit quasi -public recreational uses as a principal use; uses providing meeting places and places for public assembly with incidental office space; and child care centers. CRITERIA: The following applicable criteria must be answered "yes" and implemented within the development plan. Yet No N/A 1. DOES THE PROJECT EARN THE MINIMUM PERCENTAGE POINTS AS CALCULATED ON THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART H" FOR THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT? The required earned credit for a residential project shall be based on the following: 60 percentage points = 6 or fewer dwelling units per acre 60 - 70 percentage points = 6-7 dwelling units per acre 70 - 80 percentage points = 7-8 dwelling units per acre 80 - 90 percentage points = 8-9 dwelling units per acre 90 -100 percentage points = 9-10 dwelling units per acre 100 or more percentage points = 10 or more dwelling units per acre DOES THE PROJECT EARN AT LEAST 40 YY No N/A PERCENTAGE POINTS AS CALCULATED ON THE -FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART H" FROM BASE POINTS? (J$) Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments. The City of Fort Collins, Colorado. Revised as per Ordinance No. 2, 1996. C-�R�s �Co�.�►�r� fR£l�Mh�ItR`l F�10, Activifi5-96 � A.: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ALL CR1TE=IA, CRI T ==ICN al. CCMN1UN17!-'0/IOE CR1 =?w:A. i.t Sclar Cner,: ;cn I.2 ^ ereC C� nCr�. ;ve Plan 1.3 Wiiciife _�i;at 1.4 I'Aner =. iti sve Are- 1.6 ! =^cs ct 1.? Air Quaiity � �fti _•9f �� I APFLICASL_ CRITE=1A CNLY ,`.e t enon I Will the c;.rion) acoiicacte7 be satisfiec7 I s >I Yes INo I If no, please excIain 1.12 EeS'dfntiai =rsihi j i 2 2 ''Jc .acr CSC=S;'afl. �GIKe =�SC:C -,i;Cn I i � I t NC _ _ _ _ __ I ✓I -- ._ticn c .0 I I 2.0 =.,.e V=ram .=.cuss .✓' I I f I 2 - irC - =rC VjeWS 2.G Sr,2c;r,c I ✓I I 2. 1 C c..uar ,-ccas_ I I I I 2.12 S�.�a�:<s I ✓I i ?—' .--_rsce 4.SlcI✓I I I 1 2.15 Site _:f r ilnc I I I I 2.16 Ncis= =_nc V;tr- :cn I I ( I 2.17 Glare cr Hea I I I 2.18 Ha__. -=us materals 3. ENGINES LING CRITERIA 3.1 Utiiiv/ Cacac:ty 3.2 Desicn Stancar; s 3.3 Water Ha 2rts .`..4 GecicCic Hazarzs Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments i ne City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised , 1994 _ -61 - l . USI FRONT BULDNG MVATION STUDY -'S' UNIT. FRONT BUILDING ELEVATION STUDY - 'F' UNIT FRONT BUILDING ELEVATION STUDY - 'G' UNIT FRONT BUILDING ELEVATION STUDY - 'F' UNIT (Two Story Option) ZONE PLANT NOTES PLANT KEY I ALL RMR I'Y1PW.•NYIll N.i@'T. 6W4>WMYN 11 nNPl O14ClN Y•i XO NMf IGG1vN MT! 0A04Jii!!Il NISrW WA. 'YN qI•W O�NIVRCNMIGI�®RNIE ..�. J.ALL TR MIJI•WllIY•l�i®W1111M W1ONi1L LTPiW AO41 di1rIM1 ID OYLIRA! ♦ EMWW�.! '�,% rarvQrwwnp •nrR �aa•Ilr vn,.r+reoueororaw ncoiu•nv 1MllWKM T•IOiNYL.6 RVOl®NO ♦TNl.ID }O III.YQQ• �.1{LIMNYf10 MMl NW1ID Qr C1R4 WN !NFJLi,RIl QOC1f.I�A. YID OOO. [• �y •!M RMOrT'•YM1otClYN,glirlA lIDMIMni N.N pA,I♦flp IOEd �MNlN�QMv41YtQIQM eYi•YL•}iATorwu QlanwcmQ (yi [RWfI1K lIE rCY Q amrw mv� l loon �u YoeawrYo umnl nuc•ro oryam� mvwe. iaws Qarwrtnu! YNLLMOLMMNOIIMi1WRdYYT Yl1R G LYEfI'Wp MNCYL lOD 011lrillW TYT•CYI p MI�lMYR MIOV➢!l M1pl+W!' Q iWIfY®RM1Q6•!!•Aem�1Q4 �� MTVL.R'( racnp� N� M�•� �na wnwua +�iciwin l'�mrQlwlia� t .unerol uuv iew+e+m. o°Rir+�m+s,m ir'piwr�u®w�a+.�ii J. r�Nooxlivue Yniwrsr» p\RID MR.wrllwiWND rINv tM m •laVw+l vwM Qr. Ail�ruwlo.TM •onu,owTvwl! t orrllu�aNr ao Nwl ene NYusuu. n•v+r c¢m r�wrt uNz olio To'w N�o. YM Oniw•r W11 NY•M{tM WPf1r• 0. •eowr rolrvnm •ru �iwoe rso. rn iao��irn�a nMcr ��s�vr�iNR �4n arYlCl uTNs .M Mnlcr.•Ya•wNNf� tlR O]MY••OYOY MpIW"11p tl6L! onw�Ds�iior n•o�Y_rr� YOiW11MlOMLRMYI•MIII•pll! /IOMIId pa! •d GMi!• 1MN ®� IN® YD NTIO,B n M M CT'w NJNr wuNa per RCM nN.. IMM" Id �J ►~ R ZME ♦ f • w u5 ♦ , i I a - I, nNm i x[tiigN vontt wvd!•n ra! mrranuor loon xmsirlr re! :+vn ut �nmuwav uw RLf' ZONE COLLINDALE GOLF COURSE i The Greens at Collindale, AWIffOnary LandwApa Plan I - Ft. Collins, Colorado the GREENS at COLLINDALE 11 - 40, 07/03/GE a PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - Preliminary Site Plan CL J rV Cr } A r F Q SP Q P Cl 0 W ccy` z Sp w , wo ¢r 0 cr r --�- e RLP ZONE Legal Description: GENERAL NOTES - LP ZONE B.. Aww ba PbX wi Ur pe.tmr Al pF bbo .. Wb aa.ab. LAND USE Sm.."" Lr AI..F. Oil NO W"i W W o .A .c.w. lai.q a -ft atr«b .Iw wm Not 9ben m 1b. PW. em Wooy eRlgmat m M 1.wWYY 1 AREA Sp, s`RIR.LM x. A• im.tr a are Pbl. D Roe• Aoo.ee W aelpbie w M apub ae °....10WA b to b ha.l RMM DriYw owy, i. Train ColooW .i M 0 b/.NWI alb D� � a CYoomm DPWIya A00 A, nO00, ROW DY orm Tr..de A Dcteo Aa...l. pp y Wq a .rAY by . opwa✓i M.oc a A6e0 w. 9e v Y 0004 or otwOtto, b R.AIO R gpapbb .Wilde w a mT Aow..M +0. v le p. ba aU OOVFAAOE .. Spro ere to COO, rlp CXY alp Ooa wiea oO "tw .IIA co,OIYItR LOOY�M IL\ 9FN Oft 6. Com u'cown h wh V mti' . Eopl F.l IiW Y. AF6uIXPlo11 Docvvmoi a M bhwa pi LAIC"»' - A C Wa .pwp. p ro"Oli , x Y. a 1 a FFW B ibq Foot PWit wry RIY tra - I �FNU� AIDE - - DAB r rb o opshwl.a 1Mm W. m P,.IxIw.rY Rr h RepwtY lil.. im.n m Rr.b W Pla .M PAflINa wM .w W i. eOieli w IYI.1.r Ol to W. .am.0 euisq..Wsi mA 1 � 10.bY to, IMllry Eaamenli. A,\ is .ia G Weil Fool Bit." amp Wl atDC bf. nG 06(MHD WAG 9 Ti ... .. Rr1G A" MYR mD M'M1M•. .. .. r.r rr.ere.e r.<xamMb a .e. rya --A mr RMNNIM Gn ev J�.....pFerY6 CERTIFICATES I OwIY :ma5v.m mm.y M I.4 � � 0 MCMS 191 II�L-I II R m � n• -� !mx ma aw a _ ao. � e .. �.. �r'.cnim a/ ••r0 Np. K GfMFA[ xvMlM yYm• _I.•/f d.r M. aroa•WR TTBTDD ./-al. M./-.. FaaY ZOO Lot Liw Will N tlwb TOO rrm. - W, alA Bade e • P.ib. TLM0- rJ. V.0 S W. g Mq ti W ap • CtIYa. a4070 ./atntt i H- Lwepp. Area..1 W.A. ."w •1- .1. 6L64 Y../- TOTAL VP •I- al. MIX) %./- tb atre a OW.ab Pie n m avast 5bb - Y6 Qa.te "7 0eiiq vooa Pw Deeiq W-1 Ibte O t O wlam 0rlein p WO AaommoEate AmaWe, betorGYm., Am! ftyce Pokh, x St.. IX Di tL SET as A11.wbY Are. a6 e/- b Ra O aw aeoA. Ara At PM.t. mom W It. F. CIIb lift, as W. At 90. ftw, MM1 Pl.n At EW RoprtY 4 X. `. hadt, Fwftll Wb wr.n ROOM VICINITY MAP 04/08/96 #8-96 the Greens at Collindale PUD " Preliminary 1"= 600' 1111�. T I, I1111 11111 f:S:I:lffiiTM- . RK.IIr TMMUND Greens at Collindale PUD - Preliminary, #8-96 August 26, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 7 E. The project is feasible from a traffic engineering perspective and promotes City transportation policies. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of: 1) a variance from the solar orientation requirement (All Development Criterion A-1.1) of the LDGS; and, 2) The Greens at Collindale Preliminary P.U.D., #8-96. Greens at Collindale PUD - Preliminary, #8-96 August 26, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 6 The Greens at Collindale would access the east side of Lemay Avenue via two (2) private driveways north of the Lemay/Harbor Walk/Ticonderoga intersection. Lemay Avenue is a four lane arterial street. Most local streets intersecting Lemay Avenue have stop sign control. The nearest signals are at Horsetooth Road to the north and Harmony Road to the south. The traffic impact study submitted for this proposal (Delich, February 12, 1996) used ITE Trip Generation, 5th Edition, to conclude that the Greens at Collindale is expected to generate approximately 225 vehicle trip ends on a typical weekday at full build out. It should be noted that this study was based on 38 dwelling units; the proposal now includes only 33 units. In the above cite traffic study, it is stated that "the background traffic on Lemay Avenue was obtained from the `Safeway/Harmony Village Center Traffic Impact Study,' January 1996." The Greens at Collindale traffic study went on to state that, using the Safeway/Harmony Village traffic projections, "the key intersections will operate at level of service C or better during both peak hours ... The operation is considered to be acceptable. During the peak hours, the Greens at Collindale will increase the traffic on Lemay Avenue by less than 1 %." The traffic impact study "concluded that the Greens at Collindale will not cause significant impact on the existing street facilities in the area. The key intersections will operate acceptably." (Delich, February 12, 1996) As mentioned, pedestrian circulation is provided by connecting sidewalks from within the development to Lemay Avenue. Similarly, the Lemay Avenue sidewalk will be connected with the sidewalks along Ticonderoga Drive. In total, the Greens at Collindale Preliminary P.U.D., therefore, is feasible from a transportation standpoint. 6. Findings of Fact/Conclusions: A. The Greens at Collindale Preliminary P.U.D. satisfies all of the applicable All Development Criteria of the LDGS, with the exception of the solar orientation requirement (A-1.1). B. Staff recommends that a variance from the solar orientation requirement is justified under the Variance Procedures outlined in Section K of the LDGS; C. The request is supported by its performance on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. by achieving a score of 83. Of the 83 total points, 78 come from base criteria and 5 from bonus criteria; D. The proposed land use and design is considered to be compatible with the surrounding area; and, Greens at Collindale PUD - Preliminary, #8-96 August 26, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 5 Since views of the mountains from the existing residences to the south as well as from the proposed dwellings are significantly restricted by Warren Lake Dam and the two-story housing that is proposed to be located there (on the dam), most living spaces of the proposed units have been oriented toward interior views and views of the adjacent Collindale Golf Course; this orientation also attempts to mitigate the affects of Lemay Avenue on the site. As the proposed layout is somewhat confined, staff felt it would be possible that site conditions determined during construction would have the potential to require adjustments to the approved landscape plan. Consequently, staff has taken the precaution of requiring the following notes on the landscape plan: And, Any changes in species and plant locations required by site conditions during construction will be prohibited unless such changes have been reviewed and approved by the City of Fort Collins. The developer shall ensure that the landscape plan is fully coordinated with the plans done by other consultants so that the proposed grading, storm drainage, irrigation system, structures, utilities or other construction does not preclude installation and maintenance of the landscape elements on this plan. In summary, the P.U.D. will continue the existing, formally spaced row of street trees along the Lemay Avenue frontage. In addition, sidewalk connections would be made from this development to the sidewalks along Lemay Avenue. The site is designed with sensitivity to the topography, mountain views, visibility from adjacent neighborhoods, and the adjacent arterial roadway. Also, given the foregoing notes, the landscape plan will provide for such functional needs as spatial definition, visual screening, and creation of privacy while enhancing the aesthetic appearance of the site and the neighborhood. 5. Transportation. - The Greens at Collindale PUD is an infill project. Land uses in the area are primarily residential and recreational. The project is located on a bus route and is near major shopping and business centers. It is surrounded by active recreation centers in Warren Park and Collindale Golf Course, and it is near schooling. The project is located on a bike access route to which connections will be made. Greens at Collindale PUD - Preliminary, #8-96 August 26, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 4 Other concerns raised included views and the height of the new structures, and stormwater management. The views of the mountains will not be fully accessible to those living in the Golden Meadows subdivision regardless of the proposed Greens at Collindale Preliminary PUD because the top of the Warren Lake Dam is approximately ten (10') feet above the finished grade of the proposed project, and the approved Harbor Walk PUD contains two- story houses that will sit directly on top of this dam. Consequently, there will be a 35'45' tall, semi -continuous obstruction of the mountain views with or without the Greens at Collindale. With respect to the stormwater management concerns, the City's Stormwater Utility has reviewed the drainage plans for this project and found that the proposed detention pond will adequately address any concerns; in fact, the site grading and construction of the detention pond should enhance current drainage conditions. The proposed density and the single family dwellings are considered to be compatible with the surrounding area, which includes additional single family homes, a public golf course and park, and other planned residential developments. 4. Design: The project is configured as a single family subdivision composed of thirty-two (32) "zero" lot -line homes (16 duplexes) and one (1) standard single family home on 6.42 acres. Homes have common walls on the "zero" lot -line side and a minimum separation distance of twelve (12') feet from the adjacent home on the opposite side. All units will have basements and attached two -car garages. Courtyard entries are being provided to enhance privacy, and private patios and/or decks will be provided within the defined building envelopes. Exterior roof lines will be "low slope" (no more than 4:12), and exterior materials will be stucco and/or masonry. Living units have been designed to minimize direct visibility into adjacent units. This is accomplished by careful consideration of window orientation and placement of exterior landscape elements. Planting of evergreens and other landscape elements, as well as a masonry and wrought -iron fence, are used to enhance privacy and reduce noise along Lemay Avenue. Also, a minimum setback of thirty-five (35') feet has been established from the Lemay Avenue curbline. Interior streets will be a minimum of twenty (20') feet wide with additional eight (8') foot wide parallel parking spaces. These parallel parking spaces, along with additional eighteen (18') foot deep perpendicular parking stalls, have been provided to address overflow parking needs within the proposed development. In two of the three unit types, garages have been designed to be significantly set back from the street or to have side entries, thereby minimizing the potential for a garage -dominated streetscape. In addition, entry approaches to garage areas are landscaped to further reduce the visual impact of garage doors and driveways. Greens at Collindale PUD - Preliminary, #8-96 August 26, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 3 Consequently, the applicant has requested a variance from the solar orientation requirement of the LDGS (All Development Criterion A-1.1), and staff feels that it would be appropriate to support this request. The long axis of the site configuration is oriented in a north/south direction, and the site is exceptionally narrow in the east/west direction. It is, therefore, not desirable or even possible to orient internal circulation in the east/west direction that is required to provide the solar access orientation called for in this criterion of the LDGS. Given the above described situation, staff feels that the variance request is justified on either/both of the two following grounds, as stipulated in Section K of the LDGS: 1) That by reason of exceptional conditions or difficulties with regard to solar orientation or access, undue hardship would be caused to a subdivider by the strict application of any provisions of this section [provision A-1.1 ]; or, 2) That the plan submitted is equal to or better than such plan incorporating the provision for which a variance is requested. Residential Uses Point Chart On the Residential Uses Point Chart (Point Chart H), this Preliminary P.U.D. achieves a score of 83. Of the 83 total points, 78 come from base criteria and 5 from bonus criteria. Points are earned for proximity to a community/regional shopping center (Harmony Market), a neighborhood/community park (Warren Park), an existing school (Kruse Elementary), and a major employment center (Oakridge Business Park). Points were also awarded for contiguity to existing urban development. In addition, bonus points were awarded for connection to the nearest existing City sidewalk and bicycle path/lane. The required minimum score on the Residential Uses Point Chart is sixty (60) points, at least forty (40) of which must come from base points. Therefore, the Greens at Collindale Preliminary P.U.D. exceeds the minimum score required by the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S. 3. Neighborhood Compatibility: A neighborhood meeting was held on February 15, 1996. Concerns raised centered on treatment of the south property line, in terms of visual mitigation and buffering between the existing residences of the Golden Meadows subdivision and the proposed dwellings. In response to these concerns, the developer has provided a minimum rear yard setback of twenty (20') feet along the south property line of the proposed development and agreed to intensified landscaping with trees having a minimum caliper of three (Y) inches. Greens at Collindale PUD - Preliminary, #8-96 August 26, 1996 P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS: Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: RLP; Collindale Public Golf Course S: RLP; Single family residential (Golden Meadows subdivision) E: RLP; Collindale Public Golf Course W: RMP; Single family residential (Harbor Walk PUD) and Warren Dam/Lake The subject property was annexed into the City as part of the Warren Lake Annexation. The total annexation was 188.47 acres, which included all of Warren Lake, the subject property (known then as the Bockman Property), and the intervening section of Lemay Avenue. The official date of annexation was April 21, 1987 (Ordinance #39, 1987). 2. Land Use: This is a request for Preliminary P.U.D. approval for 33 single family lots (16 duplexes and 1 detached home) on 6.42 acres located west of and adjacent to the Collindale Golf Course. The gross density is 5.14 dwelling units per acre. • All Development Criteria All Development Criteria A-1.12 of the L.D.G.S. calls for an average residential density of at least three (3) dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the Greens at Collindale Preliminary P.U.D. complies with the density requirements of the L.D.G.S. It is staffs feeling that all applicable All Development Criteria of the LDGS are being satisfied, with the exception of the solar orientation requirement (A-1.1). The applicant has requested a variance from this requirement, and staff feels that it would be appropriate to support this request. See the following subsection (Solar Orientation) for further explanation. • Solar Orientation All Development Criteria A-1.1 calls for a minimum of 65% of the lots to meet the definition of a solar oriented lot; this would mean that at least 22 of the 33 proposed lots would have to meet the definition of a solar oriented lot. As many lots as could practically be oriented for solar access have been arranged to do so (14 out of 33, or 42%). ITEM NO. 5 MEETING DATE 8/26/96 STAFF Mitch Haas PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: The Greens at Collindale Preliminary P.U.D., #8-96 APPLICANT: Architectural Horizons % Mr. Bob Sutter P.O. Box 271217 Fort Collins, CO 80527-1217 OWNER: LandSource, L.L.C. % Gene Little 1331 Stonehenge Drive Fort Collins, CO 80525 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for Preliminary P.U.D. approval for 33 single family lots (16 duplexes and 1 detached home) on 6.42 acres located west of and adjacent to the Collindale Golf Course, immediately north of the Golden Meadows Subdivision, and on the east side of South Lemay Avenue, across from the Warren Lake Dam. The property is zoned rlp, Low - Density Planned Residential with a PUD condition. RECOMMENDATION: Approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Greens at Collindale Preliminary P.U.D.: ► Satisfies all of the applicable All Development Criteria of the LDGS, with the exception of the solar orientation requirement (A-1.1); ► Staff is recommending approval of the requested variance from the solar orientation requirement of the LDGS, as the request meets the requirements of the Variance Procedures outlined in Section K of the LDGS; ► The request is supported by its performance on the Residential Uses Point Chart of the L.D.G.S.; ► The land use is found to be compatible with the surrounding area; and, ► The project is feasible from a traffic engineering standpoint and promotes City transportation policies. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT