The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHEARTHFIRE PUD, 2ND FILING - FINAL ..... SECOND P & Z BOARD HEARING (CONTINUED FROM 9/19/2002) - 31-95E - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSTrip Generation Trip generation is important in considering the impact of a development such as this upon the existing and proposed street system. A compilation of trip generation information was prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and is presented in Trip Generation, 5th Edition. This document was used to estimate the daily and peak hour vehicle trips generated by Hearthfire. The land use code from Trip Generation, 5th Edition was Single -Family Detached Housing (210). Table 2 shows the daily and peak hour traffic from Hearthfire. A vehicle trip is defined as a one-way vehicle movement from a point of origin to a point of destination. Trip Distribution Directional distributions were determined for the land uses considered in this study. This distribution considered trip attractions in the Fort Collins area, and existing travel patterns in the area. The trip distribution used in subsequent analyses is shown in Figure 6. Background Traffic Background traffic is defined as the traffic that is and/or will be on the area streets that is not related to the proposed development. Future analysis years were 2000 (short range) and 2015 (long range). This is a developing area of Fort Collins and, as such, the traffic increases are largely dependent upon land development. Background traffic was increased incrementally by 1.5 percent per year to estimate short and long range background traffic. This growth rate is consistent with the CDOT 20 year factor for SH 1 and the estimated increases in housing and employment for traffic zones in this area as noted in the "North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan." In order to present a conservative analysis, site related traffic was considered supplemental to the increase in background traffic. Trip Assignment Trip assignment is how the generated and distributed trips are expected to be loaded on the street system. The assigned trips are the resultant of the trip distribution process. Figures 7 and 8 show the assignment of the generated trips from the residential land use considered in this study. The Figure 7 assignment assumes the existing street system. Figure 8 assumes implementation of the Richard Lake development and additional access to Hearthfire through this adjacent development. This will allow site traffic to not be required to use Douglas Road to travel south. Additionally, some of the site traffic turning south onto Terry 3 APPENDIX A i 09/23/2002 16:55 9702261F;35 i i COUNTY CLUB RD. PINECREST ul 4 W PAGE 06 N SITE J v NOTE: IN 111E LONG RANCti, A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THESE TRIPS ARE EXPECTED TO USE THE RICHARD LAKE ROAO STREET MTEM TO COUNT( ROAD II. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 6 SO 'd ! eLE81FEW 'ON RV3 TN3 3d0 WV S£:80 NOW ZOOZ-EZ-d3S -a- 4402 13/44 83l72 -}" 9/33 -� v Q, - 2/2 N .a. — 20/29 �131i4 �i f 514 - - 38/31 - - 67147 ---� Cj r d U I AMlPM YEAR 2003 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC WITH FULL. DEVELOPMENT OF THE HEARTHFIRE PUD �. 03 N Figure 1 TL'Tf4. F.03 TABLE 4 2015 Peak Hour Operation Level of Service Intersection AN PM Terry Lake/Douglas (stop sign) EB LT/T B D EB RT A A WB LT/T/RT C C NB LT A A SB LT A A CR 13/Douglas (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT A A WB LT A A Abbotsford/Gregory (stop sign) SB LT/T/RT. A A EB LT A A Country Club/Lemay (all way stop) EB B B WB A A NB A C SB A A Douglas/Site Access (stop sign) NB LT A A NB RT A A WB LT A A P,L 52 1996 DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) Figure 4 5. Transportation: A-7-A(Aft)[�T The Developer proposes to take access for this development from Douglas Road, approximately 1,200 feet east of the intersection of Douglas Road and County Road 13. The Developer also proposes to construct a secondary emergency access approximately 1,300 feet south of Douglas Road on County Road 13, where County Road 13 curves to the west and becomes Inverness Drive. The emergency access is proposed to remain in place until another primary public street connection can tie in on the east side of the Het thfire PUD, through the proposed Richard's Lake development, east to County Road 11. The City Transportation staff supports the access locations as proposed. However, the Engineering staff recommends that the proposed street and lot layout on the west edge of the Hearthfire PUD development be modified to include a provision for right-of-way for a future local street connection to County Road 13. That way, a local street connection could Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary, #31-95A September 23, 1996 Page 13 be constructed in the future when traffic volumes and surrounding development make it 7 necessary to provide neighborhood connectivity. The Hearthfire PUD is required to construct off -site street improvements to Douglas Road ,. in accordance with City Code requirements. The Code requires that Douglas Road be improved to a 36 foot wide pavement section (at arterial street pavement depth) from the proposed access point on Douglas Road west to Colorado State Highway 1. In addition, ?L the roadway must be designed to include gravel shoulders a minimum of 2 feet in width and sufficient to support the pavement section. The final design of all off -site improvements including theconfiguration of the gravel shoulders and drainage ditches must be submitted with the final PUD utility plans. County Road 13 is required to be improved adjoining the west side of the Hearthfire PUD from the intersection with Douglas Road south to the southern property line of the PUD The road is currently a gravel road and the right-of-way is in the Urban Growth Area. Larimer County has recommended that the roadway remain gravel at this time and that some widening be done to the shoulders in addition to collecting funds from the Developer to be used for future paving. However, because County Road 13 is in the Urban Growth Area, City Transportation staff is requiring that the portion of the roadway described above be paved to at least 24 feet in width and that curb, gutter, and sidewalk be constructed on the east side of the road which adjoins the PUD, as is typically required with developments adjacent to unimproved City streets in accordance with City Code. No curb and gutter is being required on the west side of County Road 13 at this time since the ultimate roadway width required will depend on surrounding future development. Since County Road 13 will eventually be annexed into the City, the Transportation staff believes it is important to require that the portion of the road adjoining the property be improved to City standards at the time of development of the Hearthfire PUD. Staff is recommending the following condition of preliminary PUD approval: The Developer shall submit plans for all off -site improvements and the improvements required to County Road 13 with the final PUD utility plans. The Developer is proposing a roundabout within the project. A detailed design of the roundabout must be included in the final PUD plans. Modifications to lot sizes and/or the shape of lots in the area adjacent to the roundabout may be required to match the final design required for the roundabout. ___ 1,. _ J:: /IAA. .:-J Lnnr\ __ •L- Jam.. -.I..- J _�� • • � •L Center For Microcomputers In Transportation F,y ije i UhSia�ih ite.] Int.-,-seCtion (<v _- .... ................... •a....a. a ...a.......•usa .•a........• It Name ................ ruets: (N-5) site road jor Street Direction.... EW !ngth of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) ialyst................... njd ate of Analysis.......... 7/14/96 .her Information......... 1996 2000 (E-W) douglas 2015 am pm ro-way Stop -controlled Intersection = Northbound i SouthbOund Eastbound { Westbound T R; L T k L T R; L T R; L ---- ----1---- ---0 ---- �. Lanes 0_--1 11 0% 1 0; 0 0 top/Yield ; 71 66; 30 74 N' ' 43 >lumes .95 1 •95 .16: iF .95 0 .95: .95 0 i 0 0 -ado 0 0! 0 0 0 0: :'s (i) J/RV's M 1 00 i 1 0 O1 01 V's (i) 01 0 0 1.1 CE's i 1.1 _____________________________ 1.1: 1.1 ----'-,-------'-'- Adjustment Factors Critical ehic le Gap (tg) an euvrr aft Turn Major- Road 5.00 5.50 ight Turn Minor Road 6.00 hrough Traffic Minor Road 6.50 eft Turn Minor Road Follow-up Time (if) -------io__- 2.60 3.30 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2 1 page 2 .fi..Y.i.'i.Y......i....a....s.a...... ♦.4..... a•aa.............a. Work Sheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Stop 1: RT from Minor Street Nh 56 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 71 1275 potential Capacity: (Pcph) Movement Capacity: (PcPh) 1275 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT fi-om Major Street Wb Eb ------------------------------------ Conflicting Flows (vph) 159 Potential Capacity: (PcPh) 1440 Movement Capacity: (Pc PIS) 1440 Prob, of Queue -free State: 0.96 TH Saturation Flow kate: (PCPhPI) 1700 Major LT Shared lane Prob. 0.97 of Queue -free State. -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: L"T from Minor Street NIS 56 ----------------------------- Conflicting Flows (vPh) 175 175 838 Potential Capacity: (pcph) Major LT. Minor TH 0.97 Impedance Factor: 0.97 Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.97 Movement Capacity: (PcPh) -------------------------------------------------------- 617 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Page 3 HCS: Unsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 9 iiitD.{>fiiif>iXffi.YYfi iiYii3YY41i1Y YYi tYilYitYlii.liiYYlYiliilii.i Intersection Performance Summary Flowkate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.lotal Delay Movement v(Pcph) Cm(pcph) Csh(pcph) Delay L05 by APP ________ ______ ______ ------ ------------ --------- NB L 50 817 4.7 _A___ 4.5 NB k 19 1275 2.9 A WB L 35 1440 2.6 A 0.7 Intersection Delay = 1.1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation 1_page 1 �i._ - alize(I Inter>rC[1L'. 1,:.�. .............w..................... .... ....... ............ ..a.. ile Name....... ......... tr6et5: (N-5) site road ajor Street Direction.... EW Nt9th of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) na'ryst................... njd ate of Analysis.......... 7/14/96 trier Information......... 1996 2000 (E-W) douglas 2015 ani pm wo-way Stop -controlled Intersection ____________________cvc=acc.c====a=cccco=c_ccc=cc.ccccc=cccccc=accccc Northbound : Southbound Eastbound ; Westbound T R L T R; L T R; L T R; L _--- i ---- ---- ----i ---- ---- ---- o. Lanes 0 1 1; 0> 1 0; 1 0 1; 0 0 0 top/Yield N, N' 66 261: ; plumes 61 25: 9 44 .95 I .95r.d .95, 11F .95 0 .95; .95 0 0 0 IC'se(1) 0 0; 0 0 0 01 .U/RV's (i); 0 0; 0 0 ; 0 0 0; 0: :V 6 (%) 0 Di 0 0 i ----- 1.1 --- -- Adjustment Factors /eh is le Critical Follow-up Gap (tg) Time (tf) ioneuver ___________________________ .eft Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 2.60 iight Turn Minor Road 5.50 3.30 Ihruugh traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.40 -eft Turn Minor Road 6.50 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Unsignalizad Intersection R.Iuas, 2.1 P149V 2 ....................(R Riw.R............ R R R I . . r R. R... r. r w R.... R... WorkSneet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- step l: kT from Minor Street NF S6 Conflicting Flows: (vph) 61 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1290 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1290 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.96 Stop 2,: LT from Major Street - _____________ W0Eb ___________ _- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 66 Potential Capacity: (PCPh) 1560 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1560 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.99 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (PCPhPI) 1700 Major- LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -free State:---------0_99 ------------- -------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB 56 _____________________________________________________ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 114 Potential Capacity: (Pcph) 910 Major LT. Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.99 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to 11"Peding Muvaments 0.99 Movement Capacity: (pcph) -------------------------------------------------------- 904 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: Onsignalized Intersection Release 2.1 Page 3 .1I11......................................... ...I ............ ..• Intersection Performance Summary Flowkate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Utley Movement v(pcph) Cn,(P�PI'1) Csil(PLph) Delay LOS By APp ________ ______ ______ ______ ____________ ______ _________ N5 L 76 904 4.3 A 4.5 N6 k 30 1290 2.9 A WB L 10 1560 2.3 A 0.3 Int.ersactiun HcB: Unsignalized Intersection■ Release 2.1c Page RCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c Page 1 .s...os.......uu...............a...............................••... .......................................................00.. 0.......... Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida University of Florida 512 Weil Ball 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Gainesville, PL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ...........................s..aue..a......................ou......e. uv.......u.......................................................... Streetas (N-S) LEMAY (E-W) COUNTRY CLUB Streets (N-S) LEMAY (E-W) COUNTRY CLUB Analyst MD Analyst................... MD ................... Date of Analysis.......... 714/96 2000 20 PM Date of Analysis.......... 7/4/96 Other Information......... 1996 2000 2015 AN PN Other Information......... 1996 All -way Stop -controlled Intersection All -way Stop -controlled Intersection ....................................................................... ....................................................................... Sastbound Westbound Northbound I Southbound Eastbound Westbound Northbound eouthbouad L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R L T R .0 L T R' No. Lase• 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 3 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 > 1 < 0 Volumes 6 52 96 138 56 4 44 73 46 17 153 5 i Volumes 6 87 55 86 73 25 82 166 160 9 e8 2 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 PHF .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 PEP .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 "'---"'------------ -------------------------------------------------- Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis Worksheet _______________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB _________-_-_-_______________________-______________-_____-_______---.-_ EB WB NB BB _______________________________________________________________________ LT Plow Rate 6 145 46 is _______-______-_______-_____-_-_______________--____________________-_- LT Flow Rate 6 91 86 9 RT Plow Rate 101 4 48 5 ! RT Plow Rate 58 26 168 2 Approach Flow Rate 162 208 171 184 Approach Flow Rate 156 194 429 104 Proportion LT 0.04 0.70 0.27 0.10 Proportion LT 0.04 0.47 0.20 0.09 Proportion RT 0.62 0.02 0.28 0.03 Proportion RT 0.37 0.13 0.39 0.02 Opposing Approach Plow Rate 208 162 184 171 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 194 156 104 429 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 355 355 370 370 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 533 533 350 350 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.22 0.29 0.24 0.25 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.16 0.22 0.49 0.12 Proportion, Opposing Approach Plow Rate 0.29 0.22 0.25 0.24 Proportion, Opposing Approach Plow Rate 0.22 0.18 0.12 0.49 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 1 1 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 1 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 1 1 1 1 ! Lanes on Opposing Approach 1 1 1 1 LT, Opposing Approach 145 6 18 46 LT, Opposing Approach 91 6 9 66 RT, Opposing Approach 4 101 5 48 RT, Opposing Approach 26 58 2 168 LT, Conflicting Approaches 64 64 151 151 LT, Conflicting Approaches 95 95 97 97 RT, Conflicting Approaches 53 53 105 105 RT, Conflicting Approaches 170 170 64 84 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.70 0.04 0.10 0.27 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.47 0.04 0.09 0.20 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.02 0.62 0.03 0.28 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.13 0.37 0.02 0.) Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0.18 0.16 0.41 0.41 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0.10 0.18 0.28 0.i Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0.15 0.15 0.28 0.28 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0.32 0.32 0.24 0.24 Approach Capacity 310 648 _______________________________________________________________________ 452 457 Approach Capacity 359 -------- -------------------------------------------------------------- 548 635 565 Intersection Performance Summary Intersection Performance Summary pp Approach Average 9 Approach A V/C Approach Approach V/C Average Movement Plow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay ----------- LOS ---- � Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS ---------- ---------- --"''--- ------- EB 162 310 0.52 7.3 B ---------- ---------- --------- ------- EB 156 359 0.43 ----------- 5.2 .... B WB 208 648 0.32 3.4 A WB 194 548 0.35 3.8 A NB 171 452 0.38 4.2 A NB 429 635 0.68 13.0 C SB 184 457 0.40 4.6 A SB 104 565 0.18 2.0 A Intersection Delay . 4.8 Intersection Delay . 6.3 Level of Service (Intersection) . A Level of Service (Intersection) . B HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c Page ....................................................................... Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0376 .aao... o..uo.................u...uso. (E-W) •GREGORY Q .00s S CresCe: (N-S) ABBOTSFORD Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... MD Date of Analysis.......... 7/4/96 Other Information......... 1996 2000 201 AM PM Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection ...................... ...................................0............. 8astbound Naetbound Northbound Southbouad L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R No. Lance 10 > 1 0 10 1 < 0 0 0 0 10 > 1 < 0 Stop/Yield volume& PHF Grade MC'a (t) SU/Rv-e laI CV'e (i) PCE's N 1 59 .95 .95 0 1.10 --------------- N 114 12 .95 .95 0 ----------------------------- Adjustment Factors 13 0 1 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 --------------- Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ----------------------------------------------------------- Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 2.60 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 3.30 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.40 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 HCS: Unsignalized Intersection• Release 2.1c Page 2 ....................................................................... Worksheet for TWBC Intersection ---------------------------------------..__...__ Step it RT from Minor Street --------------D------------- ----"- ----- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 126 1195 Potential Capacity: (pcpb) 1195 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1.00 Prob. of Queue -Free State: - ^'--__._'_' ----------------------'----------'- from Major Street WB Ell Step 2: LT -----'----------- ----- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 133 1462 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1462 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1.00 Prob. of Queue -Free States Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 TH Saturation Flow (pcphpl) RT Saturation Flow Rate: Major LT Shared Lane Prob. 1.00 of Queue -Free State: -'----'-^ __- --------------------------------- US Step 3: TH from Minor Street 8_ Conflicting Flower (vph) 190 667 Potential Capacity' (pcph) Capacity Adjustment Factor 1.00 due to Impeding Movements 866 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1.00 Prob. of Queue -Free States -"__-_--"-------------- - ----------------- Step 4s LT from Minor StreetME -""---"-"-8B -------------------------------- Conflicting Flown; (vph) 190 822 Potential Capacity, (pcph) Major LT, Minor TH 1.00 Impedance Factor: 1.00 Adjusted Impedance Factors Capacity Adjustment Factor 1.00 due to Impeding Movements 621 Movement Capacity: (pcph) ---------------------------------------------------' __._ Intersection Performance Su®ary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) ------ ------ -------------' "---_ (asso/vah) --------- -------- ------ SB L 15 821 > SB T 0 866 > 637 4.4 0.0 A 4.4 SB R 1 1195 > EB L 1 1482 2.4 0.0 A 0.0 Intersection Delay . 0.3 sac/veh HCSs Dnsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c Page . ... .... ............ ............. ................... .......... Center For Microcomputers In Tranaporcation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Phi (904) 392-0378 ....................................................................... 9 treater (N-S) ABBOTSPORD (H-W) GREGORY �- Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... MD Date of Analyein.......... 7/4/96 Other Information......... 1996 2000 O15 PH Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection ....................................................................... Eastbound Westbound Northbound Sorthbound L T R I L T R I L T R L T R No. Lanes 1 0 > 1 0 0 1 < 0 10 0 0 10 > 1 c 0 Stop/Yield volumes PHF Grade MC'a (t) SO/RV's (t) CV'■ (t) PCE's N N 0 64 42 3 .95 .95 .95 .95 0 0 1.10 ------------------------------ Adjustment Factors 13 0 0 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c Page 2 ....................................................................... Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flower (vph) 46 Potential Capacityi (pcpb) 1312 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1312 Prob. of Queue-Free-States 1.00 --------------------------------------------- Step 2: IT from Major Street------------WB ------------- EB ---------------------------'- Conflicting Plowai (vph) 47 Potential Capacityi (pcph) 1626 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1628 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street MB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flowas (vpb) 134 Potential Capacityi (pcpb) 928 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1.00 Movement Capacityi (pcph) 928 Prob. of Queue -Free States 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Stop 4; LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Plows: (vph) 134 Potential Capacityi (pcph) 886 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 1.00 Adjusted Impedance Factors 1.00 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1.00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) -------------------------------------------------------- 886 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ (vah) (sea/vsh) ------- SB L 15 886 > ------- ----- --------- SB T 0 928 > 886 4.1 0.0 A 4.1 SB R 0 1312 > EB L 0 1620 2.2 0.0 A 0.0 Intersection Delay . 0.4 sac/vah Center For MiCrYKCni,PuterS In Transportation Mi. Vns i9ne)izeu Inte:'s e: tion kcleast :.1 page 1 r•ll!•l1111.1l1.r11l11111••{1!!lllll!!lllll!!1!!l♦l.11f>tf!!!il>. F. tr Name ................ Streets: (N-S) crl3 Major Street Direction.... EW L,ngth of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... njd Date of Analysis.......... 7114/96 Outer Information......... 1996 2000 (E-W) douglas 2U15 - an, pn, Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound i Southbound L T R; L T k; L T R; L T k ------t---- ---- ----1---- ---- -- -- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0> 1< 0; 0_• 1< 0; 0> 1< 0; 0> l< 0 Stop/Yield NI N: i Volumes 16 147 4: 7 117 71 7 7 8{ 4 4 9 PHF .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95: .95 .95 .95 Graoe 0 0 0 ' 0 MC's (X) 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0 SU/kV's M: 0 0 0; 0 0 OI 0 0 01 0 0 0 CV's (i) i 0 0 01 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 koad 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: (lnsignolized Intersection keleasc i 1 peps 2 llllil......i!!1!!lllli/l l l.l•.................... WorPSheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB DB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 149 120 Potential Capacity: (pcph) llb4 1"2(14 Movement Capacity: (pcPh) 1164 1204 Grob. of Queue -free State: .0.99 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WBEb --------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 151 124 Potential Capacity: (pcPh) 1453 1496 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1453 1496 Pr'oU. Of Ouuur-free State: 0.99 U.99 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphPl) 1700 170U kT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphPl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane prob. of Queue -tree State: 0.99 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH front Mir,or Street tlb 56 ----=--------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 296 294 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 763 765 Capacity.Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.96 0.96 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 748 750 Pr-ob. of Queue -free State: 0.99 0.99 ------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NE Sb -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 299 300 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 711 710 Major LT. Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.97 0.97 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.96 0.9a Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.97 (1.97 Movement Capacity: (pcPh) 691 68a -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary F luwkate MoveCap SharedCap Avg. Total (inlay Movement v(Pcph) Cm(PcPh) Csh(pcph) --------- ------ ------ ------ Ue lay ------------ L05 by App NB L 6 691 ------ --------- NB T 8 748 - 633 4.5 A 4.5 NB R 9 1164 SB L 4 688 > > Sb T 4 750 925 4.0 A 4.0 SP. k 10 1204 EB L 19 1496 2.4 A 0,2 WB 1. 8 1453 2.5 A 0.1 Intersection Delav 0.7 Center- For Microcomputers In Transportation tics: l•ncinnFli_ L-te 'i i0�. :li-n .. .. t Page 1 ••i)•..i•.••i)))) i.1A)).A).......... ......)):{A.))Ai.)il File Name ....... ........ Streets: (N-S) cr13 Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed.-. 60 (min) Analyst... ... ... _ ...... njd Date of Analysis.......... 7/14/96 Uther Information......... 1996 2000 Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection (E-W) douglas 2p15 am pm Eastbound ; Westbound Northbound 1 Southbound L T R1 L T R; L T R; L T k ' ____---- t---- ____ -----I ---- _-__ ____ No. Lanes 0> 1< 0; 0> 1< 0; 0> 1< 0; 0> 1< 0 Stop/Yield N; N; i ' 5 61 1; 6 110 1; 4 3 1; 4 3 12 P tiFVolumes F•fiF .95 .95 .95; .95 .95 .95; .95 .95 .95; .95 .95 .95 Tirade 0 0 ; 0 0 MC'S (%) 0 0 0; 0 0 01 0 0 01 0 0 0 SU/kv's 0 0 0i 0 0 0; U 0 0; 0 0 U CV's (X) 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 ________________________________________________________________________ Vehicle Maneuver -------------- _______ Left Turu Major koad Rignl Turn Minor Road T nr.... 91. Traffic Minor Left Tun. Minor Road Adjustment Factors Critical Follow-up (Tap (tg) Time (tf) ____________________________________________ 5.00 "2.10 5.50 2.60 Road 6.00 3.30 6.50 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportatior. HCS: tln igr.a'li:ad Inter.etticcn kele0se 2.1 F'. 9e A ilir{fltlrAl.�rr�)AA.)r)i....)) i.ii.I.• i..'..Ilr.r... 0...r•rrr Work Sheat for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SP. Coflicting Flows: (vph) n B2 I10 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1256 1216 Muvament Capacity: (pcph) 1256 111L Prob. of Queue -free State: I'OU 0.99 --------------------------- ---------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street A---- E6 ---_----- ---------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 82 111 poi:ential capacity: (pcph) 1567 1516 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1567 151b Prob. Of (lueue-free State: 0.99 1.00 lH �>btur-ation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 170U 1706 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane prob. Inf Queue -free Siata: 0.99 1'00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street Nb 5b _____..___-_-__--.._______________________________________ Conflicting Flown: (vph) 206 206 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 851 851 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 842 642 Grob. of Queue -free State: 1.00 1.00 -------------------------- ______________________________ Step 4: LT fruit, Minor:itreet Nb ob ________________________________________________________ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 212 -20 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 798 803 Major LT. Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 6.99 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.98 U.99 Movement: Capacity: (pcph) 760 794 ________________________________________________________ ' Intersectior. Perfor11.01-ce ':u u.ri.bry Flc.wkate MoveCap SharedCap Avg. Total Uclay Movement v(pcph) Cm(peph) Csl.(pcph) ______ ______ Delay ------------ LO1 ------ by App ---------- ________ ______ N5 L 4 760 > ' NB T 3 642 , 843 4.k• > A 4.3 NB R 11258 SB L 4 794 S6 T 3 642 1045 s.F, A SO R 14 1218 > EB L 6 1516 2.4 A U.1 Wb L 9 15672.3 A U.2 Intersection Delay 0.6 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation fit: 5. lin: ign.-.l ♦..1...\.......... \............ F..F1................ 1•FFFIFi\\FF♦ F i I c ti a me ................ Streets+ (N-$) sh1 Major' Street Direction.... NS Length cf Time Analyzed... 60 (mrn) Analyst ................... njd Date of Analysis.......... 7/14/96 Other Information......... 1996 2000 (E-W) douglas 2015 am poll, Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection ___--r:s===sssssess c ooac==sa=a=aa=ececesa=c=aoc=Faa=ac=_e==ceave=veca� eL_____ I Northbound Southbound Eastbound I Westbound L T R; L T R; L T R; L T R __-_ ___-____ ___- ___-____ ____ ----i___- __-_ ____ No. Lanes 1 lc OI t 1 1; 0> 1 1' 0> lc 0 Stop/licld ; N; N; ; Vo lurmes 116 356 114; 19 183 60; 73 39 58; 57 70 15 PHF I .95 .95 .95; .95 .95 .95; .95 .95 .95; .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 ; 0 0 ; 0 MC's (X) 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0 SO/kV's (t); 0 0 OI 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0 CV (E) 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 Maneuver Gap (tg) ------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 Right Turn Mirror Road 5.50 T hr-ou gh, Traffic Minor koad 6.00 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 Follow-up Time (tf) 2.60 3.30 3.40 Canter For Microcomputers In L-anspoetation HCS: (lnsignnli.ed Intersection Releas.: 2 1 poua l F1YFF!!F\YIF!'l•.Y.l FFFIiFFFFFFFII FF I.FFrFlll......... F........... Work Sheet for TWSC Intersection ________________________________________________________ $tap I: RT from Minor Street Wb Eb Conflicting Flows: (vph) - 413 183 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 855 1116 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 855 I118 Prob. of Queue -frees State: 0.96 6.94 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT front Major Street SBN6 __________________________________ Conflicting Flows: (vph) -_----- ___-_------ 470 243 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1024 13Is Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1024 1313 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.96 6.90 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: Till from Minor Street ------- __EB ---------------------------- -_'__-___-__Wb_- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 791 788 potential Capacity: (pcph) 419 421 Capacity Adjustment Factor due .to Impeding Movements 0.88 0.88 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 366 370 Prob. of Queue-frae State: 0.76 U.68 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street Wb Eb -------------`------------------------------------------ Conflicting Flows; (vph) 780 604 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 374 362 Major LT. Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.77 0.69 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.82 0.76 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impedi„cr Mvvements 0.77 U.74 Mnvament Capacity: (pcph) ________________________________________________________ 290 266 Intersection Performance Summary Flowkata MoveCap 5haredCaP Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cm(pcph) CS),(PL pill Oelay L05 by App ________ ______ ______ ______ ------------ ------ --------- Eb L 65 268 > 296 21.6 U ER T 45 370 16.0 Eb R 67 1116 3.4 A W0 L 6E 290 Wb T bl 366 352 19.2 C 19.2 148 R 18 855 , NR L 134 1313 ?. 1 A 0.6 Se,, L Y[ 1U24 3.6 A 0.1 Int.ersaction Oclay s 5.1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation iC°,: 0.�: -: -E :r: Into S, tIol', kcicoSr -.1 page I ...i...........iiisiiti.....i..ia........-s..........iiiiiiiitiY• 'Ile Name .............. >traets: (N-S) sh1 Major Street Direction.... NS -ength of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) >nalyst................... njd )ate of Analysis.......... 7/14/96 )vrer Information......... 1996 2000 (E-W) douglas 2015 am pm Iwo -way Stop -controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound ; Westbound L T R; L T R; L T R; L T R r---- ---- ----i ---- --------i ---- --------i---- ---- ---- io. Lenas 1 1. 0; 1 ) l; 0> 1 l; 0> lc 0 flop/l ield N: N: iolun.es 30 101 37: 18 325 56: 36 60 94: 101 30 7 >HF .95 .95 .95: .95 .95 .951 .95 .95 .95: .95 .95 .95 3rade 0 1 0 0 ' 0 tic's (%) 0 0 0! 0 0 0; 0 0 01 0 0 0 >u/kv's (i); 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0 :V•s (;) 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0 ________________________________________________________________________ Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Maneuver bap (tq) ---------------------------------------------- .eft Turn Major Road 5.00 tight Turn Minor Road 5.50 Througn traffic Minor Road 6.60 _eft Turn Minor Road 6.50 Follow-up Time (tf) --___-----__ 2.60 3.30 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS: unsionalized Intersactir.r, kclrasr pagb 2 Yii.•��.aa......................i•.............rrr.rr....r..... r.. WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step t: kT from Minor Street Wh Eb Conflicting Flows: (vph) 120 "i25 Fotential Capacity: (pcph) 1204 946 Mnvement Capacity: (pcph) 1204 948 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.99 0.89 --------------------------- "--------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street -- Nb ------------ __________________� -------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) -----__-_-SE, 136 351 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1473 1129 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1473 1129 Prob. of Queue -free State: 0.99 0.97 ------------ ------------------------------------------- Si,ep 3: TI1 from Mirror- Street ----_-_---- Wtr_______---_Eb ----------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 546 511 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 563 586 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.96 0.96 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 536 562 Prot. of Queue -free State: 0.93 0.88 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street Wb Eb ________________________________________________________ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 570 53S Potential Capacity: (pcph) 495 516 Major LT. llinor TM Impedance Factor: 0.84 0.89 Adjusted Impedance Factor; 0.86 0.92 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.77 0.91 Movement Capacity: (Pcph) ________________________________________________________ 384 471 Intersection Performance Summary F1owRate MoveCap SharedCaP Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pc ph) C11,t PO Ph) ________ ______ ______ Chi- (pc ph) ______ belay LUS by Aps, Eb L 42 471 524 ____________ 5.7 ______ t. --------- EH T 69 562 > 6,7 Ee. R 109 948 4.3 A j Wtl I_ 117 384 , ' Wb T 35 536 425 13.6 C 13.6 W8 R 0 1204 > , Nb L 35 1129 A 6.6 Sb L 21 1473 2.5 A G 1 Intersection I Delay = >.7 APPENDIX D RCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c Page ................................................................... Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2003 Phi (904) 392-0378 ....................................................................... Streets& (N-S) SITE ROAD (E-W) DOUGLAS Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... NO Date of Analysis.......... 7 96 Other Information........ 0.0 2015 AM Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection ....................................................................... Raetbouad Weetbound Northbound Southbound L T R I L T R I L T R L T R No. Lanes 1 0 1 1 10 > 1 0 11 0 1 10 0 0 Stop/Yield volumes PHF Grade MC'e (l) SU/RV'e (t) CV'e li) PCE'e Y 55 72 .95 .95 0 --------------- 39 it .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 -___ Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) _______________________________________.__--__________________-____ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 RCS: Unelgnalized Intersections Release 2.1c .............................................. Workshest for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Stop 1: RT from Minor Street NS BB Conflicting Flows& (vph) 56 Potential Capacity& (pcph) 1294 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1294 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: IT from Major Street WB RD -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flowa: (vph) 58 Potential Capacity& (pcph) 1609 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1609 Prob. of Queue -Free States 0.99 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -Free States 0.98 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 41 IT from Minor Street NB BB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 141 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 677 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.90 Adjusted Impedance Factors 0.98 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.98 Movement Capacity: (pcph) ------------------------------------------------ 663 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOB Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) ------- ----- (sec/veh) --------- -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- NB L 45 863 4.4 0.0 A 4.1 NB R 13 1294 2.8 0.0 A WB L 24 1609 2.3 0.0 A 0.6 Intersection Delay . 1.0 sec/veh Page 2 ECSs Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c Page ....................................................................... Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Univarsity of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ...................................................................... Streets: (N-S) SITE ROAD (E-W) DOUGLAS Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst.. MD Date of Analysis........ `JjJg6 Other Information........ Q10 V 2015 (2g) PM Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection .............o.. 8as...................................................... tbound I Westbound I Northbcuad I Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R No. Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 0 > 1 0 11 0 1 10 0 0 Stop/Yield Volumes PEP Grade MC•a (t) SU/RV-s (t) CvIa (t) PCE'e Y 46 21 .95 .95 0 -------------- N 6 36 .95 .95 0 1.10 --------------- Adjustment Factors vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 HCSs Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c Pago 2 .........................s.....................a........................ Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Stop is RT from Minor Street NB on Conflicting Plows: (Vph) 46 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1309 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1309 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.96 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2s LT from Major Street WB BB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Plowas (vph) 46 Potential capacity: (pcph) 1626 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1626 Prob. of Queue -Free States 1.00 TR Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -Free States 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street N8 68 -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Plows: (vph) 92 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 937 Major LT, Minor TH impedance Factors 1.00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1.00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) -------------------------------------------------------- 933 Intersectlon Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(asc/veh) (veh) ------- ----- (sac/veh) --------- -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- NB L 70 933 4.2 0.2 A 3.9 NB R 21 1309 2.6 0.0 A WB L 7 2626 2.2 0.0 A 0.3 Intersection Delay . 1.7 sec/veh Center For Microcomputers In Transportation HCS- (insignalized Intersection kelease 2.1 page 1 ... I.......................... .................... i.I;• Fit Name ................ >rrca t (N-ti) lemay (E-W) country club ..�o1 yt t................... mjo .•r .n:.lys is. ....... 7; i4: Pi iRhe• Inf<'•r matioi.......... 199C ZObU 2015 mu pm All -way Stop -controlled Intersection Eastbound I Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R; L 7 R; L T R; L T k ---- --- -- --------1---- ---- -- -- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0> 1. 0; U> l< 0; 0> l< 0; 0> 1< 0 Volumes 77 42 5; 104 42 4; 33 64 35: 17 138 5 PhF .95 .95 .95; .95 .95 .95; .95 .95 .95; .95 .95 .95 tirade 0 0 0 0 MC's (%) 0 0 0; 0 0 0' 0 0 0; 0 0 0 Sll/kV's (S); 0 0 0, 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0 CV's (Y) 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet _______________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB ----------------------------------------------------------------------- LT Flow Rate 81 109 35 18 k7 Flow Rate 5 4 37 5 Approach Flow Rate 130 157 139 168 Proportion LT 0.62 0.69 0.25 0.11 proportion RT 0.04 0.03 0.27 0.03 opposing Approach Flow Rate 157 130 168 139 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 307 307 287 287 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.22 0.26 0.23 0.28 Pr-oporti,,n. opposing Approach Flow Rate 0.26 0.22 0.26 0.23 Laneb on P.uhject Approach I t I 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 1 1 1 1 LT, Upposing Approach 109 B1 16 35 RT, Opposing Approach 4 5 5 37 Li, Conflicting Approaches 53 53 190 190 kT, conflicting Approaches 42 42 9 9 Pr op,w Lion LT, Opposing Approach 0.69 0.62 0.11 0.25 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.27 Proportion LT, Conflictinq Approaches 0.17 0.17 U.66 0.66 Prnportion RT, Conflictinn Approaches 0.14 0.14 11.03 0.03 Appr"C1. i..pec it, 290 326 31? 335 Intcrsection Performance Summary SCSI Unslgnaliaed Intersection• Release 2.1c Page .... uo................................... a......................... Center For Microcomputers in Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2063 Pht (904) 392-0378 ..................................................................... Streets: (N-S) LEMAY (E-W) COUNTRY CLUB Analyst ................... NO Date of Analysis.......... 7/4/96 Other Information...:.....1996 000 2015 AM PM All -way Stop -controlled Intereect ....................................................................... LEastToundA I LWestboundA I LHorthbounR I LSouthboundd No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Volumes 8 70 44 72 55 23 62 148 129 9 Bo PHF 1 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Volume Summary and Capacity Analysis WorkShest ______________________________________.__-__---___._-.______-___ RB WB HB 8B LT Flow Rate 8 76 65 9 RT Flow Rate 46 24 136 3 Approach Flow Rate 120 158 357 96 Proportion LT 0.06 0.40 0.18 0.09 Proportion RT 0.36 0.15 0.38 0.03 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 158 126 96 357 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 453 453 286 286 Proportion, Subject Approach Flow Rate 0.17 0.21 0.48 0.13 Proportion, Opposing Approach Flow Rate ,0.21 0.17 0.13 0.46 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 1 1 Lanes on Opposing Approach 1 1 1 1 LT, Opposing Approach 76 8 9 65 RT, Opposing Approach 24 46 3 136 LT, Conflicting Approaches 74 74 64 84 RT, Conflicting Approaches 139 139 70 70 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.48 0.06 0.09 0.18 Proportion RT, Opposing Approach 0.15 0.36 0.03 0.38 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0.16 0.16 0.29 0._1 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0.31 0.31 0.24 0 Approach Capacity ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 352 531 637 _ Intersection Performance Summary Approach Approach Me, M Flow Rate Capacity Ratio ken Total TotalAverage delay Approach Approach V/C Average --- Movement Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS EB 130 290 0,45 5.5 B ---------- ---------- --------- ....... __-___---_- .._ WE, 157 326 0.46 6.2 5 EB 128 352 0.36 4.0 A NB 139 317 0.44 5.3 B WB 158 531 0.30 3.1 A SE. 168 335 0.50 6.7 B NB 357 637 0.56 8.4 B SB 96 575 0.17 2.9 A Intersertion 0clay = 5.98 Level of Servi,c (Intersection) = B Intersection Delay . 5.7 Level of Service (Intersection) . B HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c Page ............... :............... ....................................... Center For Microcomputer& In 'Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, PL 32611-2003 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ....................................................................... Streets: (N-S) ABBOTSFORD (E-W) GREGORY 4010L Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... MD Date of Analysis.......... 7/4/96 Other Information......... 1996 2000 2015 AM PM Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection ..........a............................................................ Eastbound westbound Northbound Southbound L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R No. Lanes 1 0 > 1 0 1 0 1 < 0 1 0 0 0' 0 > 1< 0 Stop/Yield Volumes PEP Grade mc,a M SU/RV'a (t) Cv - a (1) PCE - a N 1 45 .95 .95 0 1.10 .------------- N 92 30 .95 .95 0 --------------- Adjustment Factors 22 0 1 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 --------------- Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c Page 2 .......o.c.....e....................................................... Workshest for TWSC Intersection ..--.--••-------------------------------•.-------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB BB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 113 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1214 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1214 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 ---------------------------------------------------- Stop 2: LT from Major Street WB --------------- EB ---------------------------------------- conflicting Flows: (vph) 129 Potential Capacity' (pcph) 1468 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1486 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 ------------------------ ------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB -------- ----------------------------------------------- Conflicting Plows: (vph) 161 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 898 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1.00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 897 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SS ----------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 161 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 854 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) -------------------------------------------------------- 853 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (vah) (sac/veh) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- SB L 25 853 > ------- ----- --------- SB T 0 897 > 863 4.3 0.0 A - 4.3 SS R 1 1214 > EB L 1 1488 2.4 0.0 A 0.1 Intersection Delay . 0.5 seo/veh NcS: Unsignalized Intersectiona Release 2.1c Page ..................................... r ................................. Center For Microcomputers Iu 'irausportation University of Florida 512 Wail Nall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ....................................................................... Streets: (N-S) ABBOTSFORD (E-W) GREGORY U16. Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst.. .......... HD Date of Analysis.......... 7/4/96 Other Information ......... 1996 000 2015 PM wo T-way Stop -controlled Intersect ....................................................................... Eastbound Weetbound Northbound Southbound L T R I L T R I L I L T R No. Lanes 1 0 > 1 0 1 0 1 < 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 > 1 < 0 Stop/Yield Volumes PNF Grade MC's (t) SU/RV's (t) CV-5 M PCE's N 0 64 .95 .95 0 1.10 -------------- N 34 8 .95 .95 0 -------------- Adjustment Factors 29 0 0 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 -------------- Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 NCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c .............................................. Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street MS SB Page 2 ........... Conflicting Flows: (vph) 40 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1321 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1321 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2s LT from Major Street ---_-----___NB EB -------------------------------------------------------- conflicting Flows: (vph) 44 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1633 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1633 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 TB Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcpbpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -Free States 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TN from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Plows: (vph) 107 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 959 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1.00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) - .959 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB BB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 107 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 918 Major LT, Minor TB Impedance Factor: 1.00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 1.00 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1.00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) -------------------------____-__________________-______- 918 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(asc/veh) (vah) -------- ------ ------ (sec/vah) ------------- SB L 34 918 > ------- ----- --------- SB T 0 959 > 916 4.1 0.0 A 4.1 SB R 0 1321 > EB L 0 1633 2.2 0.0 A 0.0 Intersection Delay . 0.9 sec/veh Center Fo' Mirroc.:n,puters lu Transportat iOn t117 l i]ve In ter>c"t 10'. Fc Ie1Sc c.1 Pa4e 1 ................................. I..r. I......r..x.a..w..•♦....as F.}. Name ........ Streets: (N-S) cr•13 Major- Street Direction.... Length of Time Analyzed... Analyst ................... Date of Analysis.......... 0tl.er Information......... (E-W) douolas EW 60 (nlir.) njd 7/14/9' 1996 20011 2015 am pm Two -Nay Stop -controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbuund ; Northbound ; 5outhbound L T R; L T k; L T k; L T k ---- ----i---- ---- ----1---- ---- ----I---- ---- ---- No. Lanes ; 0> 1, 0; 0> 1, 0; ll> 1� 0; 0> 1': 0 Stop/Yield N; N; Volumes 13 97 3; 16 76 5; 5 5 ."7; 3 3 7 PtIF .95 .95 .95; .95 .95 .95; .95 .95 .95; .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 ; 0 ; 0 i 0 MC's (Y1 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 01 0 0 0 SU/RV's (:>; 0 0 01 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0 Cv's (Y) ; 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 5.06 .10 Right Turn Minor koad 5.50 111.60 Trirough Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Center For Microcumputvr'5 Ifs lr'arlapvr-tat iun HCS: Intersection Release 2 I retie . wwsa w.avr...a..a........w.....t....... I.......... I........ r..... Work Sheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street N6 SL Conflicting Flows: (vph) 98 78 potential Capacity: (pcph) 1235 1204 Movement Capacity: (pcpll) 1235 1264 Prob. of Quoue-free State: 0.97 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street Wb E6 -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) lU0 81 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1536 1569 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1516 1569 Prob. Of Queue -free State: 0.99 0 99 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 170U 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. Of QUeUe-free State: 0.99 0.99 -------------------------- ----------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street Nb Sb --------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 208 206 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 646 648 Capacity Adjustment Facto' due to Impeding Movements 0.96 0.96 Movement Capacity: (PcPh) 62a 628 Prob. of Queue -free Slate: 6.99 1.00 -------------------------- ----------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street. fib 56 _______________________________________________________ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 211 ..r Potential Capacity: (pcph) 799 788 Major- Ll. Minor TH impedance Factor: 0.97 0.97 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.96 0.98 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to hnpediny Muvvrnents 0.97 0.95 Movement. I; opac ity: (pcph) 776 75 r1 --------------------------------- _____________ Intersection Performance Summary FlowRate MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Total Delay Movement v(pcph) Cn.(pcph) Csh(pcph) --------- ______ ______ ______ Gclay ____________ I.(1S 6y App NE. L 6 778 , ______ , --------- NP T 6 826 1073 .... A 5.5 NE. R 31 1235 - SR L 3 790 Sh T 626 1001 3.6 A _.6 S0 R 0 1264 , EB L 15 1569 A O.i W6 L 19 1536 2.4 A 0.4 Tr.tersec'tion Delay = 0.9 HCS: Unaignalized Intersections Release 2.1c Page .............................. I........................................ Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ...........................a.................................a......... Streets: (N-S) CR 13 (E-W) DOUGLAS Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... MD Data of Analysis.......... 7/4/96 �, other Information......... 1996 2015 00 l� PM Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection ..........................a............................................ Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R I L T R I L T R L T R No. Lanes 10 > 1 c 0 10 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 c 0 10 > 1 c 0 Stop/Yield volumes PHF Grade MC'a W SU/RV's (t) Cv's (t) PCE's N 4 56 0 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 --------------- N 24 72 1 3 2 7 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 0 0 1.10 11.10 1.10 1.10 ----------------------------- Adjustment Factors 4 2 9 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 --------------- Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuvar Gap (tg) Time (tf) __________________________________________________________________ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c Page 2 ....................................................................... Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step is RT from Minor Street MB SB Conflicting Flows: (vpb) 59 76 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1293 1267 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1293 1267 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.99 0.99 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB ---------- EB -------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flower (vph) 59 77 potential Capacity: (pcph) 1607 1575 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1607 1575 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.98 1.00 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.98 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- stop 3: TH from Minor Street MR BB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 265 164 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 894 095 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 675 876 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street NB SB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 170 169 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 044 845 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.98 0.98 Adjusted Impedance Factors 0.98 0.98 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.97 0.98 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 823 825 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length L08 Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/vah) -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- NB L 3 823 > ------- ----- --------- NB T 2 675 > 1073 3.4 0.0 A 3.4 NB R 8 1293 > SB L 4 825 > SB T 2 876 > 1065 3.4 0.0 A 3.4 SB R 10 1267 > EB L 4 IS75 2.3 0.0 A 0.2 WB L 28 1607 2.3 0.0 A 0.6 Intersection Delay . 0.6 sea/vah C,..,. ter For M i erv�pn,p,r t er s. In I anapor tat Ion Ml>: Vns ig,ib)tZeil Inler aei tiro ke lodse .1 Page 1 •lltt 111>to Rs{1}I}!}!)>1>t}}RIr!}t>}RslYi,tltllll111!lllli>tl Rl• File Name ................ Streets: (N-5) shl Major street Direction.... Length of lime Analyzed... Analyst ................... Date of Analysis.......... Other lntormation......... (E-W)douglas N1; 60 (min) n id 7,14/46 1996 2000 2015 am pm Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection . sect=ea.e=oe=eat===ea=aaa_=aa_aaa..e===c_=,:==ea--se.e=e=ev==c==e==es.ea Northbound Sou thLound Eastbound Westbound L T k; L T k; L T RL T k No. Lanes 1 1: Ol 1 1 1; 0> 1 1; U> 1: 0 Stop/Yield N: Ni Volumes 93 285 691 6 146 4E' 58 27 47; 44 5S 11 PHF .95 .95 .95; .95 .95 .95; .95 .95 .95; .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 0 0 0 11,1: 's (Y) O 0 O; O O 0; 0 0 0; 0 O O 5U/kv's (%); 0 0 0; 0 0 (1; 0 0 0; 0 0 0 PCE 's 1.1 i.l 1.1: 1.1 1.1 1.1; 1.1 1.1 1.11 1.1 1.1 1.1 ________________________________________________________________________ Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ___-________._____________________________._______-__-_-----_-___-__ Lcft Tur„ Mojo, koad 5.00 2.10 Fight Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor kc.ad 6.00 5.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Center For Microcomputers In Tranaportat ir.,, Hr.. S; IIf. inns Iisad Int.-r sect lr.n F.., Iro Sv 2 1 (on.; r AA t#r,IrrrrrrrrAA#!#......#r1#I#Ar#IIt1###Irrlltlr r#II.r 111r A#r WorlSheet for TWSC Inter>ectior, -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: kT from, Minor Street Wb Ft. Conflicting Flows: (vph) i36 146 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 94; 1166 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 942 1168 i'rob. 01 Queue-fl'ee State: 0.99 (1.95 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2; LT frou, Major Street $E NE. -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 374 194 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1137 1386 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 11i7 1366 Prot. of Queue -tree State: 6.G9 G.9: -------------------------------------------------------- .;top 3: Th from Minor Street ________________________________________________________ Wb Et. Conflicting Flows: (vph) 62.4 621 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 51; 515 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements U.91 U.91 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 469 471 Prob. of Queue -free State: ------------------------------------------------------- 0.66 0.91 Step 4: LT from Minor Street W8 Eb ________________________________________________________ Conflicting Flow: (vph) 614 634 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 467 455 Major L1, Minor TH Impadance Factor: 0.85 0.74 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.64 6. is Capacity Adjustment Factor - due to Impeding Movement> 0.85 6.6: Movement Capacity: (pcph) _______________________________________________________. 96 i76 Intersection F'crfor-mance Sunamary Flowkate MoveCap :ihar•edC-ep Avg.Total Gelay Movement v(pcph) CGm(pcph) Cal,,(pcpli) Ualay 1, C,5 by A pp - EB L 67 j76 402 i1.L C Eli T ;:1 471 9.0 Eft k 54 1166 3.2 A Wf( 1. 51 396 Wb T 64 469 459 10.4 C 10 9 Wb R 1- 942 > Nb L 106 1386 2.6 a 6.6 51.1 L 9 1137 ".2 a 0.1 Intersection Delay = 2 9 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation Intcrsec tlon 4elea>c ..1 Page I r..s.aaaa..awY�..arYra.a..aatsar.a..slarrlrxea wwarw aaaaaaaaa sa aw• File Name ............ streets: (N-S) shl (E-W) doug)as Melor Street tllrection.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 6(1 tmin) Analyst ................... rid Crate of Analysis.......... 7r1c; 9� Other Information......... 1996 2015 am pm r0G0 Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection Northbound 5outhtcund Eastbound Westbound L T k; L 1 R; L T R; L T k ------- --- ----; ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 1 1< 0; 1 1 1; 0% 1 1; 01 1< 0 stop/)ield N; N; ; volumes 23 61 30; 1: 260 451, 29 46 75; 16 21 4 P11F .95 .95 .95; .95 .95 .95; .95 .95 .95; .95 .95 .95 Ur a de 0 U 0 0 MC's (%) 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 01 0 0 0 Su/RV's (%); 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0; 0 0 0 Cv's (Y) 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 Adjui.tma,nt Factors V.hic le Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) __________________________________________________________________ Left Turn 1`1001- Road 5.00 2.10 kiont Turn Minr. koad 5.50 2.60 Througf. iratfi; Minor koad 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor koad U.50 "..40 Center For Microcomputers In It at.sp-:rtbtiol. 11C Onsipnalized Inlet SeCLipn Releas.- 2.1 .,s.....r.s........... r... r....... ♦w.r a r.... I ..... .t.............. Worl:Sheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street Wt.. Eb Conflicting Flows: (vph) 96 260 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1236 1022 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 12i0 1022 Prob. of Queue -fray State: 1.00 0.91 ---------------------------"'------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street $b NE ________________________________________________________ Conflicting Flows: (vph) I11 305 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1516 11.27 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1516 1227 Prob. of Queue -free State: 6.99 0.98 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: Ttl from Minor Street we, --Eb ---------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) -------- 436 406 Potential Capacity: (pcph) G44 o68 Capacity Adjustment Factor duc to Impeding Movements 0.97 0.97 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 625 648 Prob. of Queue -free state: 0.9GU-91 ____________________________________ Step 4: LT from Minor street --- --------- Wb Eh ________________________________________________________ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 452 426 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 580 600 Major LT. Minor TM Impedance Factor: 0.89 0.93 Ad.iusted Impedance Factor: 6.91 0.95 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to lmpedin4 Movements 0.63 0.95 Movement Capacity: (pcph) ________________________________________________________ 464 567 Intersection Performance Summary F1owftatc MoveCap SharedCap Avg.Tc.tal Uc lay Movement v(pcph) Cm(Pcph) Csh(pcph) ______ Uelby LQ: f" App ________ ______ ______ Eh L :.4 567 G15 ------------ G.9 ------ f. -------- El; T .1 648 EO R 67 1022 1.9 A WI: L 90 484 - WP, T 24 625 518 9.6 Y. 9.0 Wh R 4 1136 , Nb L 2G 1127 `:.0 A 0.5 `;P. L 14 1518 2.4 A 0.1 1 nt rrSVCtivn (le laY - r..6 APPENDIX C HCSt Unsignalised Intersections Release 2.1c Page Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Wail Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph, (904) 392-0376 ...........0........................................................... Streets: (N-S) LEMAY I (S-W) COUNTRY CLUB Analyst MD ................... Date of Analysis.......... 7 96 C1296 2000 2015 ® PM Other Information........ All -way Stop -controlled Intersection ................................................................. ••Saotbound Westbound Northbound I Southbound L T R L T R L ______ T__ R__ L T __ ____ R ____ No. Lanes ____ ____ ____ 0 > 1 < 0 ____ ____ ____ 0 > 1 < 0 ____ 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Volumes 4 39 72 97 39 3 31 55 32 13 116 4 PHP .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 ----------------------------- __________________________________________ volume Sulamary and Capacity Analysis WorkSheet _______________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB -^""""""--""-"""""""""-""______________________________"__________-_-" LT Flow Rate 4 102 33 14 RT Flow Rate 76 121 3 146 34 125 4 140 Approach Flow Rate Proportion LT 0.03 0.70 0.26 0.10 Proportion RT 0.63 0.02 0.27 0.03 Opposing Approach Flow Rate 146 121 140 125 Conflicting Approaches Flow Rate 265 265 267 267 Proportion, Subject Approach Plow Rate 0.23 0.27 0.23 0,26 Proportion, opposing Approach Plow Rate 0.27 0.23 0.26 0.23 Lanes on Subject Approach 1 1 1 1 Lamas on opposing Approach 1 1 1 1 LT, opposing Approach 102 4 14 33 RT, opposing Approach 3 76 4 34 LT, conflicting Approaches 47 47 106 106 RT, Conflicting Approaches 38 38 79 79 Proportion LT, Opposing Approach 0.70 0.03 0.10 0.26 Proportion RT, opposing Approach 0.02 0.63 0.03 0.27 Proportion LT, Conflicting Approaches 0.18 0.18 0.40 0.40 Proportion RT, Conflicting Approaches 0.14 0.14 0.30 0.30 Approach Capacity "-___"---___---"___""-________"""---"--"________"_______________""""""- 304 639 465 472 Canter For Microcomputers It, \ran>portaf$on HC3' hns'igne•5.zed lour.ion .... a111<IAIaA,. i1 Al111i.1.. A.i111111111ia111111r\1,\ Fi L; wamq .............. tr.ets: (N-S) lemay (i-W) c,%wn tr y r. lob Analyst ................... 116d U6t, of Analysis........ . 7/14/96 r--� Other InformatiUn........ 199b ?000 2015 au, ri-, 1 All -way _Stop -controlled -Intrruect3Ln.===ii=.i__:=._A_.:AiA_.�iA=__sA...i_ Eastbound Westbuund Nortld.ound ; SUurhb,.0 nJ L T R; L T k; L T h; L T k `--- --- ---- ----'---- ---- -___ ____ --- No. Lanes 0, 1c 0; U% l< U; 01 1� U; 0, J. U Volumes 4 65 41: 67 51 17; F,,7 1"76 121: 7 t,7 P fIF 1 .95 .95 .95: .95 .95 .95: .95 .9. .95; 95 .95 .ri` C+rade ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; n MC, •a (%) 0 0 0; U G 0; U (1 G; U U U j_U/RV's (%); li 0 0; 0 U fl; 0 0 c V's (%) U G 0; 0 0 G; 0 ---'----------------------'-------______-___--_-__-____________________. ---------------- Vollame Summary and Capacity Analysis Worl.bhr,.!t -------------------"___ _____________-- EO Wb Nb 5t. -------------------------`-----------"" LT Flow Rate 4 71 60 7 RT Flow kite 43 18 177 l Approach Flow kate 115 143 320 dU Proportion LT 0.03 0 50 0.19 0.0b Proportioni RT 0.:7 0 li (t 40 6.03 Uppc,sinq Approach Flow trot,, 143 11,, 60 3l0 Conflicting Appr,,cCht:'. Flow Rot,, 460 a00 1'S6 266 Pr oR or't ion, bobV J e,L Ap Pr oath FIw I,. tr U.17 (7.:( 0411 U I!' Pr oport iofi, Upp„siny Approach Flow Fiat.. 0.22 0.17 0.1; 0 49 Lures on :>ubJect Approach 1 I 1 1 (.ones on Opposing Approarh 1 1 I 1 IT. Upposmg Approach 71 4 7 LO RT, Opp„siny Approach 16 4'l .. li7 t.T, ,ollf l is t ing Appr Uacl,e5 07 L7 7' 71, F'T , i,nnf I i. t: in9 Appro!,ch,s 1I9 114 "I L 1 PI-c'I±01 i'i,in L1, Opposing r Appoo,h 0.50 f1. ri 0. 0:, 0 1`. Proportion Rf, Opposing Approach 0. 1:, U S7 1, 0. 11 •lit Pr,JPc,rt ion L. -I 1;,,,il is t ioq APP,*uar' -es 0.17 b 17 O.: Q 6 (report i,,i (.'1, C..•ni lict,nU APf.r ua!I, e•- G, fr. , (I.�a •1 Apfn'oa,. li l.aPe: ii. .50 i(,I f. '•b I n ter Sect io„ i',1,(<.r n,a r,,. r Sumw.,ry Intersection Performance Summary Approaih Appr Uach V/C Avrr age Approach Approach V/C Average Movement. Flow fiat, 1:apor. ily kot to iotol Golay IU-1 Movement- Flow Rate Capacity Ratio Total Delay LOS ----------- __________ _________ _______ ----------- ---- """"-_ __________ _________ _______ ___________ ___- Et' 11., .�`0 U �> > A E8 121 304 0.40 4.5 A WB 14. ,i G 7 A WB 146 639 0.23 2.4 A ''0 b`.a 6 U.5r,1i t;U . 6 h NB 125 465 0.27 2.8 A `•E` F+G `., i,', U, is i,7 A SB 140 472 0.30 3.1 A Int'crsectir.n Delay = 4.71 Intersection Delay . 3.2 Le•+ri .;i Jr, vlce ( Intar :rC l ri,1,) _ Level of Service (Intersection) . A Center For Microcomputers Jr. Transportation r Ct: V�,s �:; rioli_etl Intersect),,,. ke iease 2.1 Page 1 {YAfY{1!\RIIt3\RaFiAi<RA.<'11<11\{A\,,..11#{ Ar\A t1At.. A.**.......AKIY File Name ................ Streets: (N-5) abbotsford (E-W) gregory Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Anb)yst................... mid bate of Analysts.......... " 4;90 Other Information......... 1996 2000 Z015 am pm Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound ; Sou thbound L 1 k; L T k; L T R; L T k -_ _-__ ______-- _-_--_______ ____ ____ ____ ____ ---- No- Lanes O> 1 0; 0 J� 0; 0 0 0; U> 0< 0 _Lop/yield N; N; Volumes 1 42 66 9; 16 1 PHF .95 .95 .95 .95' .95 .95 Grace 0 0 0 0 MC's (Y1 0 0 0 0; 0 0 SU/k V's 1%); 0 0 U 0; O 0 CV (i) 0 0 ; 0 0; 0 0 F'CE's 1.1 1.1 , 1.1 1.1; , 1.1 1.1 ________________________________________________________________________ Adjustment Factor's Vehicle Critical Maneuver Gap (tg) ------------------------------------------------- Lett lu'n Major koad 5.UO kith( Tu.n Minor Road 5.50 Tnrouyl, lr. 1 r i( Minor f vod 6.00 Let!. Turn Minor kJdd 6.50 Center For Micrucomputers In tot)0n Hr.S: Unsignali�ed Intersection Release :.1 Pege .YYY<{rR{\\A-A RARt1<{FYA<RI.AAIA\\\A RIrRr\Y IYYRRI\<\lYlrrY4!•rrrrrr WorkSheet for TWSC Intersection ________________________________________________________ .Aep 1: FT from Minor Street NF. Sp, Conflicting Flows: (vph) 90 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1247 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1247 Prob. of Queue -free State: __________________________________________________ Step :: LT from Major Street Wb ________________________________________________________ --1_f10 Et. Corlflictinq Flows: (vph) 95 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1545 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1'145 prob. of Queue -trey State: 1.00 1H Saturatiol. Flu" Rate: (pcphpl) 1706 RT Sa Luration Flo" kate: (pcphpl) Major- LT Shared Lane Prob. Of Queue -free State: ________________________________________________________ 1.00 Sttep 4: LT iron, Minor Street NB Sb ________________________________________________________ Confllct.inq Fluws. (vph) 1'''4 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 666 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 1 06 Adjus Led Impedance Factor: 1 00 Capacity Ad.iustment Factor Clue to Impeding Movements I,UO Movem,nt. Capacity: (pcph) -------------------------------------------- ____________ abr; I-Aer'sect'ioo, Per'formmi.cc Sul um ary F10-Rate M(,e!.ap "haredCap Avq.Totol Movement vlp('p1,) bntpcph) CsA.lkCph) Delay -------- ---`- ---- -`---------- Sb L 1" 861 905 4 0 S6 k 1 1247 EF L 1 1545 i. Intersect ior. D., lay - 0. RCS: Uaeigaalised Intersections Release 2.1c Page .. .. . O .Y Y . O .......x ..................................... ........ Y Y • Y. Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ......a.....................a......-.......... YE-W)oY.YY GYM u.as Streets: (N-S) ABBOTSFORD (E-W) GREGORY Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 6600 (min) Analyst.., ............... Date of Analysis........../96 Other Information 996 2000 2015 � PM Two-way stop controlled In section ................Y..... .... ......... .. Eaetbouad westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- _-__ ____ ____ No. Lanes 0 > 1 0 0 1 < 0 0 0 0 0 > 1 0 < Stop/Yield N 10 0 0 volumes 0 60 ,10 .90 .90 PH? '95 .95 0 Grade 0 MC'e (t) SU/RV's (i) CV-8 (t) 1.10 1.10 1.10 PCE's 1.10 Adjustment Factors Critical Follow-up vehicle Gap (tg) Time (tf) Maneuver --'-" -'-------'__'_- _____________________________________________ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 5.50 2.10 2.60 Right Turn Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.50 3.40 Left Turn Minor Road HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c Page 2 ..Y................Y................................................... Worksheet for TWSC Intersection --____-^ --'-'-'- ------------------------'__-_.._._- Step_1:_ RT from - Minor Street -----� __-_____. _____________ as _ _ conflicting Flows: (vph) 19 1354 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1. Movement Capacity: (pcph) 00 100 Prob. of Queue -Free State: -------------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB ---'____________________________________________________ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 36 1640 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1646 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1.00 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1700 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. 1.00 of Queue -Free State: -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street MB--------.--BB -------------------------------""'-'_" Conflicting Flows: (vph) 02 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 908 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1.00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 900 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Stop 4: LT from Minor Street Na _________________ so --------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 62 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 949 Major LT, Minor TH 1.00 Impedance Factor: 1.00 Adjusted Impedance Factor: capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 1.00 Movement Capacity: (pcph) ----------------------------- _________--___________--'__ 949 Intersection Pertormance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/vah) (vah) (aec/veh) ______ ______ ______ _______ _______ _____ --------- SB L 12 949 > SB T 0 988 > 949 3.8 0.0 A 3.8 SB R 0 1354 > EB L 0 1648 2.2 0.0 A 0.0 Intersection Delay Y 0.4 sec/veh N 2 32 .95 .95 0 HCS: Unsignaliaed Intersections Release 2.1c Page az.....a. For Microcomputers In Center University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2063 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ............ a. a........... a........ a. a...... a...... o s..... as a v.... a.. v Streets: (N-S) CR 13 (E-W) DOUGLAS Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed.'.. 60 (min) Analyst ................... NO Date of Analysis.......... 7LV96 Other Information........ Q!_9_6J 2000 2015 AM ®M Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection ........... uaova.sass mv.caysu a.vaaa uaa uaavu evv v.a.vsa..va Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R I L T R I L T R I L T R No. Lanes 1 0 >1 c 0 1 0 >1 1,0 1 0 > 1 < 0 1 0 > 1 < 0 Stop/Yield Volumee PHP Grade MCI (i) SU/RVIB (t) CVaa M PCE'a 7A 12 42 3 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 .-------------- N 5 45 5 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 ------ 5 5 6 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 --------------- Adjustment Factors 3 3 7 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 - Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 HCS: Uneignalized intersections Release 2.1c Peg* 2 ....................................................................... Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 46 50 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1312 1306 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1312 1306 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.99 - 0.99 - - Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 47 52 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1626 1619 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1628 1619 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 0.99 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 2700 Major LT Shared Lana Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 0.99 -------- ----------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street MB BB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flown: (vph) 116 214 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 940 951 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 936 939 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.99 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: IT from Minor Street NB BB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 118 lie Potential Capacity: (pcph) 905 905 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.98 0.96 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.98 0.98 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 889 887 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) ------- ----- (sec/veh) --------- -------- ------ ------ ------ ------- NB L 6 889 > NB T 6 936 > 1027 3.6 0.0 A 3.6 NB R 7 1312 > SB L 3 887 > SB T 3 939 > 1102 3.3 0.0 A 3.3 SB R 8 1306 > EB L 14 1619 2.2 0.0 A 0.5 WB L 6 1628 2.2 0.0 A 0.2 Intersection Delay a 1.0 sec/vah HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c Page ................................................................... Center For Microcomputers In 'I'rautll,ortation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 ......................... .............................................. .............................................IE•W) DOUGLAS Streets+ (N-S) CR 13 Major Street Direction.... EW Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... MD Date of Analysis.......... 7 96 ® pM Other Information...... . 199 2000 2015 Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection ........................................... .......... Eastbound Westbound Northbound ••Sorthbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 0 > 1 < 0 Stop/Yield 4 2 9 volumes .95 .95 .95 PEP 0 Grade MC`s (t) SU/RV'e M cv's (t) 1.10 1.10 1.10 ---- PCE'e Adjustment Factors vehicle Critical Follow-up Gap (tg) Time (tf) Maneuver ........................................................... Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 2.60 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 3.30 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersection■ Release 2.1c Page 2 ....................................................................... Workaheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB SB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 40 28 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1321 1340 Movement capacity: (pcph) 1321 1340 Prob. of Queue -Free State, 1.00---- ---0.99 --------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street WB EB ------------------------------------------------------ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 40 28 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1641 1662 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1641 1662 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 1.00 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street NB SB --------- - --------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 78 78 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 993 993 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 986 986 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 1.00 -------------------------------------------------------- Step 4: LT from Minor Street N8 BB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 63 79 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 948 953 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.99 0.99 Adjusted Impedance Factors 0.99 0.99 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.99 0.99 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 935 946 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) ------- ------- (sac/veh) ----- --------- -------- ------ ----- ------ NB L_ 3 935 > NB T 2 986 > 1001 3.6 0.0 A 3.6 NB R 1 1321 > SB L 4 946 > SB T 2 986 > 1166 3.1 0.0 A 3.1 SB R 10 1340 > EB L 4 1662 2.2 0.0 A 0.2 WB L 7 1641 2.2 0.0 A 0.4 Intersection Delay . 0.9 sec/veh N W 4 38 0 6 26 1 3 2 1 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 0 0 0 1.10 1.101.10 1.30 1.10 -------------------------- _- ----------- HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c Page .........................-__....... c. w............................ Center For Microcomputersin ¢ Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2063 Pb: (904) 392-0378 oa......................ao.................. ...........S _........... Streets: (N-S) SH 1 Major Street Direction.... NS Lengtb of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ..... :............ . MD Date of Analysis.......... 7 96 . other Information........ 99 2000 2015 AM Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection .............................................. Southbound L Eastbound Westbound ............ u.aaa.uuT R T R I L I L T R L T R Northbound 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 c 0 0 > 1 < 0 No. Lanes 0 > 1 < 0 Stop/Yield N Volumes 51 235 36 16 37 8 PHP .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 .95 Grade 0 0 MC'a (t) SU/Rv'e (t) CV'e (t) 1.10 1.10 1.10 PCE'e 2.10 '1.10 IB 18 26 .95 .95 .95 0 1 .10 1.10 1.10 Adjustment Factors Critical Follow-up vehicle Gap (tg) Time (tf) Maneuver _____________________ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 2.60 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 3.30 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.40 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1e Page 2 ....................................................................... Worksheet for TWSC Intersection -------------------------------------------------------- Step I: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flown: (vph) 266 148 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1015 1165 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1015 1165 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.99 0_ 97 --------------------------------------------------- Step 2: LT from Major Street SD NB ------- ------------------------------------------------ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 285 167 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1254 1427 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1254 1427 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 1.00 0.96 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-FreeState: 1.00 0.95 - ----------------------'_--- Step 3: TH from Minor Street -----------------------------.__ WB YB ------------------------ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 490 490 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 603 603 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.95 0.95 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 572 572 Prob. of Queue -Free State: 0.92 0.96 -------------------------------------------------------- Stop 4: LT from Minor Street WB EB -------------------------------------------------------- Conflicting Flown: (vph) 494 494 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 546 548 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0.91 0.80 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.93 0.91 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.92 0.90 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 498 492 -------------------------------------------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Movement EB L EB T EH R WB L WB T WB R Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/vah) (vah) ------ ------ ------ -------------- ----- 56 492 > 21 572 > 607 7.2 0.7 B 30 1165 > 19 498 > 43 572 > 581 7.1 9 1015 > NB L 59 1427 2.6 SB L 3 1254 2.9 Intersection Delay . 0.4 B 0.0 A 0.0 A 1.9 sec/vah Approach Delay (sec/vah) 1.2 7.1 0.4 0.1 N 3 122 37 .95 .95 .95 0 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c Page 1 ....................................................................... Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Phi (904) 392-0376 ............................................ay......................a. Streets: (N-S) SH 1 (E-W) DOUGLAS. Major Street Direction.... NS Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min) Analyst ................... NO Date of Analysis.......... 7/4/96 Other Information....... <9 y> 2000 2015 ® PM Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection ..0 us...0...................................a...................... Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R I L T R I L T R L T R No. Lanes 1 0 >1 <0 1 0 >1 <0 1 0 >1 <0 I 0 >1 <0 Stop/Yield volumes PH? Grade Mc's (t) SD/Rv•e (tI Cv'a (t) PCE's N 12 62 14 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 --------------- N 8 218 38 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 --------------- 21 33 40 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 -------------- Adjustment Factors 33 15 0 .95 .95 .95 0 1.10 1.10 1.10 --------------- vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) __________________________________________________________________ Left Turn Major Road 5.00 2.10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2.60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3.30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3.40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1c Page 2 ....................................................................... Workshest for TWSC Intersection _________-_'------------'_______________________________ Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB BB _________________________________________________ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 72 1273 249 1036 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1273 1036 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1.00 0.96 Prob. of Queue -Free State: '-------------------------------------'"------- Step 2: LT from Major Street SB NB '----------------------------- Conflicting Flows: (vph) 80 269 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1570 1276 1276 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1570 0.99 0.99 Prob. of Queue -Free State: TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1700 1700 Major LT Shared Lane Prob. 0.99 0.99 of Queue -Free State: -------------------------------------------------------- Step 3: TH from Minor Street WH BB ------------------------------ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 362 350 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 704 715 Capacity Adjustment Factor 0.98 0.98 due to Impeding Movements 691 78 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 0.97 0.94 Prob. of Queue -Free State: -----------------------------------------------' Step 4: IT from Minor Street WH EB ____________________________________________ Conflicting Flows: (vph) 301 350 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 637 664 Major LT, Minor TH 0.93 0.96 Impedance Factor: 0.94 0.97 Adjusted Impedance Factor: Capacity Adjustment Factor 0.97 due to Impeding Movements 0.90 642 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 575 -----------------'_____--- Intersection Performance Su®ary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) ------ ------- ------- (sec/veh) ----- --------- -------- ------ ------ EB L 24 642 > EB T 39 702 > 794 5.3 0.5 B 5.3 EB R 46 1036 > WB L 39 575 > WB T 16 691 > 607 6.5 0.3 B 6.5 WB R 0 1273 > NB L 14 1276 2.9 0.0 A 0.4 SB L 9 1570 2.3 0.0 A 0.1 Intersection Delay . 1.7 sec/veh APPENDIX B MATTHEtN J. DELICH, P.E. 3413 BANYAN AVENUE LOVELAND, CO 80538 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VE-�ICLE COUNTS (�.� Observer � G-?-A 1 e� Date 3 9� Day )CA bA y City � A #2 /�� TJ R = Right turn G�� n S = Straigm INTERSECTION OF A pao-"5 AND t Y � y L = Lett tum TIME BEGINS 9reR6-M )95k from NORTH TNorthL South G ��Ga1� Y G LG o TOTAL Ean West TALL from SOUTH from EAST from WEST R S L Total R S L Total R S L I I Total I R S II I L Total I ?3011a 746-1101 kvo II FslC5 110 $301101 845 II I o I I I 4- 1 3 2 1 1 I I 31 4 II 311 1 2 1 1 I 1 4II 1 II I I i I I I I I 11 4- 110I5- II 3 II( II 2 II 110 II 1 II I 1 1 111 1 -7 I IZI 8 1 I I It21 1 sl r 2 I -7 110 1 13 1310 It II 1 14- II I 4-1 11 1 101 II I1�10I 1311 o 1 19 11 I0 1 1 4. 12 61 14-11 1 1 it II !(�i 18 i zZ Z911 32- co 11 Z$ 1 II 2-2 Z( II Z2 ztll 33 I I I I I I it II I I I II I I i II II 730-g3o11 0 l 16 1 to II ( I I II (D II Z I3z i 134 II IUD 1 0 1 III 9 411 o I I I I II i I I II II I I I I I I I II II roll II ► I I I I II II i I II I I I II 1 4 1 3$ I I Z II I s 4 II I I I I I 1 1 6-11 I 71 o s I ii I I II I I II I I I I II I I I II I I it I I II I I I I II i I I I I 4301101 1 4-1 II 1 1 1 II 4- 4- I Z o 1 I z II I S 101 5 z 9 II � 3 4-45101 Old s`r SII I I I 2 Z 2 2 I Z 1 3 II II Il I II Z I I II Z I I II 3 �12�1 12�11 1� I Iz-7 1 1 31 11 Ito II ► I 3 1 1 1 4- 11 1 jo 0 1 7 1 I I z( 10 1/ 0 33 11 3s 15 , II 5 -4 11 2-4- 11 z II I I I II I I I II I I I I I I i I II 1 ) 0 1 11 11�l 1 11 14 Z 1 1 1 4 3 ((3 8 11 14 9 MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 3413 BANYAN AVENUE LOVELAND, CO 80538 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS Observer "O L Date 3 g Q Day FAt QA `e Clty LAR I M bPrf 00(,),f/-ry R = Right turn �% S = Straight INTERSECTION OF �'Re!;o�V LG-M N�% AND (-01-4 12 L91-VL = Lon turn TIME BEGINS TOTAL North North South eau i) T 2 y l C tlP, LoO,� rg ecub TOTAL East West TALC ALL from NORTH from SOUTH rom EAST from WEST R I S L Total I R S I L I Total R I S I L Total 1 R 1 S L I Total I 730 112 134- 4 4o lilt 7 19 1 Z7 II 67 11 1 10 13o 40 17 1Z to I Zq I l09 II 13Co 745 11 1 133 3 1 3-716 111 15-1 2-1 11 s8 llc5 1 10 z21 32 12o Ss 11 I z9II CDI II II 9 ,�oc> II I I T7 3 3oill a 16 1 3112 15 130 41 II1SI1( 10I 29 11 7o II 13r� �15' IIO 123I 3I 2(,,,117 )(o II( 1 3411 ( D 11 1 1 101151 z!o 11171 a 13 1 4 8.30111 IZZ z l zs'I 9 9 Is I Z311 48 1 1 14-11-71 3Z 1,s1 S I I I z1 11 6-311101 'a4SIIZ.Iz� � 2 13 11zo 13 1101 43 11 7S 110 113 1171 30 11271 11 1 i 1 39 11 69 II 144 730-`S 3011 4 1 1 1 (D 1 31 1 3 313 Z 1 s 5131 1 11 S IR S 1 11 3 1 3 q 19 71 13 9 11 7 ZI 3 91 41 11 511 2 5 411 S G 5 Soo -goo 114 19 (01 131 11 31145 1 9 13 21 13 611 z.4 11 4- 14 (o 17 91 1 Z 9 11 1 351 S I I I 711 Z4 ( 11 4. ` 5 II I I I I) I I I II I I I I I I I I II II 3av3 Ilo 17 1 1 I S II1Z ►Z11Z1 3 it 4-4 I4 I IZ1171 3311 91151 ► s-'a II /oZ -3 110 1Zs I I 2 8 119 1 20 1/3 1 s7 11 1� 11 4 1 9 119 1 3'7 II 141 4 I o l z 8 I �o II r¢ �- 330 11 1 115 1 Z 1 )S/ (IZ$133IZ3I$4 11 !oZ 1141 ro12z13&11141121 31 29 11 6tr 11/(07 345 ilo Iz1 I I 12Z 11)9 11 3 1 4 1 71 1 4- II 15'1 `6 I Z I Zs 11 3 9 11 11 3�-awll3 I(P81 1 7 (o 17 517 3 16 41Z3 5-1I3 1 1 111513SI(o'i1! .511s214 91 ( Ilo 711ZZ z1153 3 4a0 111 II I of 1(0 13o 1 3( I14 7511 91 ZI 14.1/7133 Thzi)41 1 1a7 11 6 11 1s/ 44," 110 11b 1 Z 1 1 1134 z81r21 7 11 9L II (,1 13 119 1 37 1111 1 1`' 1 1 1 3 o II ro7 11 15-9 tx-o IIo 1 1 & I 3 i 19 IIz31 4-312Z1 `6 6 11 / 0 7 11 3 1 rn 11t5- 1 Z8 11 1sI )81 I I Z7 11 S II 1C�Z 5!s 11 1 1 Zo I Z I 23 11341 2-4-1 11 67 11 9 o 11 (v 114 11 7 1 37 1110 15 1 1 I ZCv 11& 3 I1 1� 3 4,7,9-53o12 I G? 17 17 6 I1Z J I Z &o 6s713o 4113 2; 0 111716-116 7 13 -5- 114 1165-14111 of z4. 6-11 Z e 11 APPENDIX A V. CONCLUSIONS This study assessed the traffic impacts of the development of Hearthfire on the short range (year 2000) and long range (year 2015) street system in the vicinity of the proposed development. As a result of this analysis, the following is concluded: - Hearthfire is a residential development; comprised of Z42 dwelling units. This facility is expected to genera approximately 1415 daily vehicle trip ends, 109 morning peak hour trip ends, and 150 afternoon peak hour trip ends. Based upon current traffic volumes and existing geometry/control, all key intersections operate acceptably. In the short range with Hearthfire fully developed, all intersections are expected to continue operating acceptably. This assumes implementation of the planned improvements at the Terry Lake/Douglas intersection and an eastbound right turn deceleration lane on Douglas Road at the entry roadway to Hearthfire. This lane should be 375 feet of deceleration distance and 180 feet of taper based upon the existing 45 mph speed limit. Roadway paving may or may not occur depending on policy decisions by the involved agencies. From an intersections operations perspective, the findings of this study will not be affected under either pavement scenario. Approximately 30 vehicles per peak hour are expected to use CR 13 and the connecting street system to travel south in the short range. These vehicles are expected to use the roadway system provided by the Richard Lake development in the long range future. Since no direct access to CR 13 is planned, the Richard Lake roadway system will provide the shortest, most efficient travel path. Accordingly, diversion of site traffic to nearby neighborhoods to the southwest will likely be temporary. In the long range future, all area roadways and intersections are expected to operate acceptably. Given the anticipated traffic forecasts, acceptable operations can be expected for the foreseeable future.. 5 TABLE 3 2000 Peak Hour Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PH Terry Lake/Douglas (stop sign) EB LT/T B C EB RT A A WB LT/T/RT B C NB LT A A SB LT A A CR 13/Douglas (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT A A WB LT A A Abbotsford/Gregory (stop sign) SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT A A Country Club/Lemay (all way stop) EB B A WB B A NB B B SB B A Douglas/Site Access (stop sign) NB LT A A NB RT A A WB LT A A I 0 om r `c+ o U co 7/15 �to�5 DOUGLAS RD. 36/73 —� + I 5/16 —f 60/39 - ,o 81/147 — 94/58 �\� 0/4 n f- O m m �n cc 9 co ¢ 90 COUNTY CLUB RD. \- to -110/117 r— 44 4 /-- 8/7 sr3o CO. D. 1 �25/88 ~ I CZ-1� o N cr SITE J U m �� \— 4/25 ') f 56/73 +--138/86 6/6 52/87 — c-j to cD 96/55 te 1-1 a^to w < w J AM / PM N TOTAL LONG RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 10 to d 4/11 N 21 /55 /-78/44 DOUGLAS RD. 29/58 -*4f � r 48/27 - 75/47 -� CD co \o N , n co COUNTY CLUB RD. 0 m 0 U Q"" — 72/76 -+- 36/58 24/16 - 6/21 �46/55 - ) 56 97— / �n^ 21/72 I 0/3 U _7 r � � SITE 0 nm� 4/23 42/55 /--104/72 8 � t r I 42 70 N 77/44 --,, to n� cc n w i w J AM / PM ci m U 4 N 54 TOTAL SHORT RANGE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 9 Lake Road is also expected to divert to alternate roadways in the long range future. Figure 9 shows total morning and afternoon peak hour traffic in the year 2000 short range future with full development of Hearthfire. Figure 10 shows total morning and afternoon peak hour traffic in the long range future (2015). IV. TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND ANALYSIS Signal Warrants As a matter of policy, traffic signals are not installed at any location unless warrants are met according to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Based upon the forecasted traffic volumes, it appears that the key intersections will not meet peak hour signal warrants. operation Analysis Capacity analyses were performed on the key intersections in the vicinity of Hearthfire for both short range (year 2000) future and long range (year 2015) future traffic conditions. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 9, the key intersections operate in the short range future, with Hearthfire., as indicated in Table 3. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix C. These analyses assumed implementation of an eastbound right turn lane at the site access roadway along Douglas Road. Per Larimer County Access Policy criteria, this lane appears to be warranted. The planned widening at the Terry Lake/Douglas intersection (addition of a southbound right -turn lane, northbound and southbound left -turn lanes, and an eastbound right -turn lane) was assumed to be implemented in the short range future. No other improvements were assumed. All traffic movements and intersections are expected to operate acceptably. It should be noted that unpaved portions of roadways within the study area were assumed to remain unpaved. Whether or not this assumption is correct is a policy decision and beyond the scope of this study. Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 10, the key Intersections operate in the long range future (year 2015) as indicated in Table. 4. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix D. No additional roadway improvements were assumed in place in the long range future, except for the road connections through the Richard Lake development. Long range operating conditions are expected to remain acceptable with all traffic movements operating at level of service C or better. 4 ii�lr 4/3 + NOM. /r— 32/ 21 DOUGLAS RD. NOW Lo r •� Y G',Q �yo� = J FC D,QJ 1Y a IW 0 cr U + 36/24 r— NOM. 6/21 CO. D. 15/5115/51 —� I I Z �� C SITE o :imimi 000 zlzz _COUNTY CLUB RD. 1 NOM. NOM. —f } 0 z N 54 Ul } AM / PM LLI J LONG RANGE SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC Figure 8 N 2 \--- 4/3 NOM. "/25 DOUGLAS RD. NOM. r M a m 0 U. m 0 m m a 0 0 U 43/28 r-18/11 /-6/21 CO. D. 15/51 21/72 —� I I UZI- C m cr. SITE1 J c w J cq� 0 `� } 091- ¢ qo co COUNTY CLUB RD. �-1/4 1/4 / } ui a } AM / PM a i w SHORT RANGE SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC Figure 7 1 1` NOMINAL_ DOUGLAS RD. 50%6-60:_ A Ln tP 0 IL 0 cc w Y =J cc W COUNTY CLUB RD. CO. SITE J 25% T T m U N NOTE: IN THE LONG RANGE, A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THESE TRIPS ARE EXPECTED TO USE THE RICHARD LAKE ROAD STREET SYSTEM TO COUNTY ROAD 11. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 6 TABLE 2 Trip Generation Daily A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Land Use Trips Trips Trips Trips Trips in out in out Single Family - 148 DU 1415 28 81 98 52 a A& N NO SCALE DOUGLAS ROAD SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN Figure 5 TABLE 1 1996 Peak Hour Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM Terry Lake/Douglas (stop sign) EB LT/T/RT B B WB LT/T/RT B B NB LT A A SB LT A A CR 13/Douglas (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT A A WB LT A A Abbotsford/Gregory (stop sign) SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT A A Country Club/Lemay (all way stop) EB A A WB A A NB A B SB A A N N �N 0/8 M N m `-15/37 /-33/16 21 /48 -)� I I 33/18 40/26 -� N c< N tD DOUGLAS RD. 0 m 0 U �� -1 /5 " "' — 26/45 r-6/5 COUNTY CLUB RD. 4/12 -j) t I 38/42 — n N 0/3 --�N n 3/17 — 39/51 ) I t,.,l /- 97/67 4 r I 3965� / SN 72/41 --,, Lo W i w J CO. Q O U AM / PM A& N 54 RECENT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC Figure 3 Y f TERRY LAKE A cy 0 U D❑UGLAS ROAD INVERNESS C3" (C❑.RD.52E) N q H � O O FLAKE R1 U 2 RICHARDS COUNTRY CLUB ROAD (CO. RD. 50E) WILL❑X LANE (CO. RD. 54) aRD® ROAD N CO. RD. 52 AREA STREETS Figure 2 on the Fort Collins Master Street Plan. Its existing cross section, in this area, has one 12 foot lane in each direction. Douglas Road extends to and beyond Terry Lake Road (SH 1) to the west and covers significant distances to the east beyond I-25. The posted speed limit is 45 mph adjacent to the site. County Road 13 (CR 13) is a north -south roadway extending north and south of Douglas Road. To the south it is somewhat discontinuous due to Richard Lake. The current road system south of Douglas Road include CR 13, CR 11, Inverness Road, Abbotsford Road, Gregory Road, Lemay Avenue, and Country Club Road. CR 13, Inverness Road, and part of Abbotsford Road are unpaved two lane roadways. The area streets are shown on Figure 2. Existing Traffic Morning and afternoon peak hour traffic data were obtained as part of this study or obtained from recent traffic studies in the area. This information is presented in Figure 3. As shown peak hour traffic volumes are presented at the Douglas Road Intersections with Terry Lake Road and CR 13, the Abbotsford/ Gregory intersection and the Lemay/Country Club intersection. Raw traffic data is presented in Appendix A. Figure 4 shows recent daily traffic volumes on area streets. Existing Operation Using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 3 and the existing control, the key intersections operate at indicated in Table 1. Calculation forms for these analyses are provided in Appendix B. As shown on Table 1 all intersections currently operate acceptably. For evaluation purposes, acceptable level of service is defined as level of service D or better during peak hour conditions. Current levels of service in the area of the site typically are B or better. III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Hearthfire is a residential development proposed south of Douglas Road and east of CR 13 in Fort Collins. As currently planned, it will have 148 single family residential units which are expected to be completed over the next 3-4 years. Figure 5 shows a schematic of the site plan of Hearthfire. Site access is planned via a single access to Douglas Road. This access will be a public roadway which will extend to the south and connect to/through the Richard Lake development in the future. The access to Douglas Road will be located about 650,feet east of CR 13. K COUNTY ROAD 79 WINDSOR RESERVOIR COUNTY ROAD 96 ANNEX ND. 8 RESEROV OTR o n d 6 � � d � c J u i DOUGLAS ROAD d c\ G�-PD TERRY LAKE IC R AKE ^ a ROAD o: y f. >. �, '_ H Cy9�G F < ROAD ARTHFIF PUD D: p Ctid op j COUNTRY CLUB ROAD tj VAER N / \ / VILLO3tMNE— w <! �d0 J NEE' Y <q fifR \ R VINE DRIVE \ � W W W DDVNTOVN FORT COLLINS AIRPARK G W t W N JJ ❑ BERRY STREET " 1 NO SCALE h' N N SITE LOCATION Figure 1 I. INTRODUCTION This traffic impact study addresses the capacity, geometric, and control requirements at and near a proposed residential development known hereinafter as Hearthfire PUD. It is proposed to be located east of County Road 13 and south of Douglas Road in Fort Collins, Colorado. During the course of the analysis, numerous contacts were made, with the project planning consultant (Jim Sell Design), the Fort Collins Planning Department, and the Fort Collins Transportation Division. This study conforms with typical traffic impact study guidelines. The study involved the following steps: - Collect physical, traffic, and development data. - Perform trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment. - Determine peak hour traffic volumes. - Conduct capacity and operational level of service analyses on key intersections. - Determine roadway improvements as deemed appropriate. Traffic studies and current planning efforts for a previous development proposal on the site, the Richard Lake development, the Terry Shores development, and the "North Front Range Regional Transportation Plan" were reviewed as part of the analysis. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The location of the Hearthfire site is shown in Figure 1. Since the impact in the short range, as well as, the long range is of concern, it is important that a thorough understanding of the existing conditions be presented. Land Use The Hearthfire site is located on the far north side of Fort Collins. The area surrounding the site is primarily undeveloped with some residential developments lying primarily to the west and east of the site. Richard Lake is south of the site. Roads The primary streets near Hearthfire are Douglas Road and County Road 13. Douglas Road is adjacent to Hearthfire on the north. It is an east -west street designated as a minor arterial 1 HEARTHFIRE PUD SITE ACCESS STUDY FORT COLLINS, COLORADO JULY 1996 Prepared for: Richards Lake Development Co. Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared by: MATTHEW J. DELICH, P.E. 2272 Glen Haven Drive Loveland, CO 80538 Phone: 970-669-2061 FAX: 970-669-5034 AUG-18-1996 21:54 %1ATTHEW DELICH PE 3036695034 P.03 It is concluded that the volume range for the collector street without parking will not be exceeded. Except for a few large lot driveways, access to Hearthfire Drive is expected to be limited. TOTAL P.03 AUG-18-96 SUN 8:40 PM 3036695034 P. 3 AUG-16-1996 21:54 co LO o m o `n TO: o a 6 co � o J 0 Q r— U FROM: z LL DATE: 5 W p SUBJECT: J ni I MATTHEW DELICH PE 3036695034 P.02 MEMORANDUM Bill Xunker, Richards Lake Development Tom Dugan, Jim Sell Design Kerrie Ashbeck, Fort Collins Engineering Matt Delich August 19, 1996 Hearthfire PUD - Response to staff comments (File: 9643MEM2) This memorandum responds to the staff comment regarding the collector street through Hearthfire PUD. This street is referred to as Hearthfire Drive. While traffic volumes will vary somewhat on different segments of a given street, it is expected that the future volumes on Hearthfire Drive will be in the range of 2500-3000 vehicles per day (vpd). This forecast is based upon the following: - Hearthfire PUD will generate 1415 average weekday trip ends (AWDTE). In the long range future, 60% of these will utilize some portion of Hearthfire Drive. This results in 1132 AWDTE. - The Richards Lake Property, to the southeast, is anticipated to have 700 dwelling units. These will generate 6685 AWDTE. It is assumed that 20% will utilize Hearthfire Drive. This results in 1337 AWDTE. - The resultant forecast is 2469 AWDTE. Providing a contingency, results in a range of 2500-3000 vpd. The commercial portion of the Richards Lake Property is expected to be neighborhood oriented. Therefore, it will not likely attract significant trips through the Hearthfire PUD on Hearthfire Drive. It is expected' that mbst external trips to the commercial portion of the Richards Lake Property will be on the county road system, since the commercial area is near CR11. If the activity center depicted in the "City Plan" does occur, the forecasted volumes could also decrease. The new street standard for a collector street without parking indicates a volume range of 3500-5000 vpd. The forecasted volumes are less than this range. From available plans of the Hearthfire PUD, access to this collector street will be limited to public streets and a few driveways to some large lots. Based upon observation, large lot developments provide significant off-street parking in multi -vehicle garages and ample garage driveway pads. I would not expect a need for on -street parking. From available plans, it is not known whether there are shared driveways for the large lots on the east side of Hearthfire Drive. AUG-18-96 SUN 8:59 Phi �C3669508� P. 2 TABLE 2 2015.Peak Hour Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM Terry Lake/Douglas (stop sign) EB LT/T B D EB RT A A WB LT/T/RT C C NB LT A A SB LT A A CR 13/Douglas (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT A A WB LT A A Abbotsford/Gregory (stop sign) SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT A A Country Club/Lemay (all way stop) EB B B WB A A NB A C SB A A Douglas/Site Access (stop sign) NB LT A A NB RT A A WB LT A A TABLE 1 2000 Peak Hour Operation Level of Service Intersection AM PM Terry Lake/Douglas (stop sign) EB LT/T B C EB RT A A WB LT/T/RT B C NB LT A A SB LT A A CR 13/Douglas (stop sign) NB LT/T/RT A A SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT A A WB LT A A Abbotsford/Gregory (stop sign) SB LT/T/RT A A EB LT A A Country Club/Lemay (all way stop) EB B A WB B A NB B B SB B A Douglas/Site Access (stop sign) NB LT A A NB RT A A WB LT A A operating conditions. From a traffic operations perspective, all of the intersections meet City of Fort Collins standards. Improvements The road improvements that will be done by this development are: 1. Widen Douglas Road from the site access road to SH1. This widening will provide a 36 foot width for Douglas Road, including striped bicycle lanes on both sides of the street. 2. Construct a site access road from the property to Douglas Road. This access road will be a collector street that will intersect with Douglas Road approximately 1200 feet east of CR13. 3. County Road 13 will be paved adjacent to the site to a width of 24 feet, with a sidewalk on the project side (east) of the road. 4. If not already built as part of the Richard's Lake Development to the southeast, a collector street will be constructed that connects to CR11. This connection will occur when the Hearthfire PUD reaches 90 dwelling units. In addition to the above, the following road improvements are planned and/or designed to be constructed in the near future: 1. Improvements to the SH1/Douglas intersection include the provision of auxiliary lanes on a number of legs of this intersection. These improvements are being funded by private developers and Larimer County. 2. Improvements to the US287/SH1 intersection include realignment, geometric, and signal changes. The improvements are intended to improve the operation at this intersection. This intersection improvement will be completed prior to occupancy of any dwelling unit in the Hearthfire PUD. This improvement is funded by public entities, primarily the Colorado Department of Transportation. Traffic Impacts The Hearthfire PUD will impact area streets and intersections. Prior to the completion of the street connection to CR11 (through the Richard's Lake Development), the site generated traffic will utilize Douglas Road and CR13. Most of the "attractions" for future residents of Hearthfire will be in and toward the central area of Fort Collins. This includes the downtown area, CSU, and points to the south along College Avenue. Based upon travel time studies, the shortest route is via Douglas Road/SH1/College Avenue. Some traffic will use CR13/Gregory/Lemay because of a perceived lower travel time. This was considered in the traffic study. Other Traffic In conducting operational analyses at various intersections and on various road segments, traffic from other known proposed developments are included as part of the background traffic. Background traffic is defined as traffic that is or will be on the road system that is not attributed to this (Hearthfire PUD) specific development. In addition, some growth of the existing traffic is also included. This is generally done.by factoring the existing traffic by an annual percentage rate, typically 2-4 percent depending upon location. This allows for isolated homes that are not part of a larger known development. Level of Service The concept of level of service uses qualitative measures that characterize operational conditions within a traffic stream and their perception by motorists and passengers. The descriptions of individual levels of service characterize these conditions in terms of such factors as speed, travel time, delay, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. Level of service is designated by letters A through F. Level of service A represents the best operating conditions and level of service F represents the worst operating conditions. There is also a range of operating conditions within each level of service category. The City of Fort Collins has established level of service D as the minimum acceptable level of service at signalized intersections, with the exception of arterial intersections along commercial corridors and intersections with activity centers. The minimum acceptable level of service at arterial intersections within these areas is level of service E. Tables 1 and 2 show the intersection level of service in the respective short range and long range futures with the improvements described below. As can be seen in these two tables, the operation at the key intersections is acceptable, with most movements in level of service categories A and B, which represent the best °D co MEMORANDUM t0 o Co Cl) ' L0 TO: Bill Yunker, Richards Lake Development Co. $ 0 6 (D Jim Sell, Jim Sell Design oco Fort Collins Planning Department J U °' FROM: Matt Delich z u_ DATE: November 25, 1996 3 o SUBJECT: Hearthfire PUD supplemental traffic and improvement T study (File: 9643MEM4) w CD C) N > p Co This memorandum documents additional traffic engineering orequested by the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board as part of the approval of the Hearthfire PUD. This memorandum addresses the following: w Z - Trip generation, C7 - Impacts to CR13 and Douglas Road, N ti n - Other traffic, N - Level of service, N - Improvements. Trip Generation The Hearthfire PUD is proposed to consist of 148 single family detached dwelling units. By City of Fort Collins traffic study guidelines, the reference document Trip Generation, 5th Edition, ITE is used to determine the expected vehicle trips to/from a proposed development. The single Uj family dwelling unit use is the highest residential trip generator from the reference document. It is expected that C. z the trip generation for the Hearthfire PUD will be as follows: Daily - 1415 trip ends n _ w z Morning Peak Hour - 109 trip ends (� C5 Afternoon Peak Hour - 150 trip ends J W z Questions are often raised whether the trip factors in 0 a the cited reference are applicable to land uses in Fort Collins and Northern Colorado. When the opportunity presents °a itself, City staff and I collect traffic data on existing y developments to determine the reliability of the data a contained in Trip Generation, 5th Edition. To accomplish F-- this, traffic count information must be collected at all W 06 access driveways/streets in order to isolate a given existing _ 0 land use. Based upon data collected, the trip generation r LL a factors contained in the cited reference do reflect the 1" Q ~ traffic characteristics of a given land use. These types of analyses have been conducted locally for residential land uses, light industrial land uses, and commercial/retail land uses. I' If warrants are met with the prevailing posted speed, then this turn lane should be implemented. This recommendation is also stated on page 4 of the site access study. co cv LO o d CD Cl) 0 o 6 o Cp CD 0 0. o rn U O LL a J W 7 0 J to W C) N Cr 0) 0 CD Lu o a � 2 � w zJ Z N O CV N W a z z Tf LU w i z U z J W W o 0 0 a z z ` a 5 F- W as U LL Cr Q ~ MEMORADNUM TO: Bill Yunker, Richards Lake Development Co. Tom Dugan, Jim Sell Design Fort Collins Planning Department FROM: Matt Delich '%clz ::) DATE: January 3, 1997 SUBJECT: Hearthfire PUD - Response to staff comments (File: 9643MEM5) Staff requested an evaluation of the turn lane requirements at the Douglas/Hearthfire intersection. Since this intersection will remain within the administrative control of Larimer County, it is appropriate that Larimer County Access Policy criteria be used to evaluate the need for turn lanes on Douglas Road at the Hearthfire access. The Larimer County Access Policy uses the graphs provided in the State Highway Access Code. The approach volumes to be considered at the subject intersection are the average of the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic forecasts. In the short range future, an eastbound right -turn deceleration lane is required at the Douglas/Hearthfire intersection. This is stated on page 4 of the "Hearthfire PUD Site Access Study," July 1996. It is -restated in the conclusions on page 5, along with the dimensions of this auxiliary lane. The operations analysis (Table 3) indicates that the Hearthfire Access Road has both a northbound right - turn lane and a northbound left -turn lane. These movements will operate at level of service A. If these lanes were combined, they would still operate at level of service A. Therefore, it is a judgment call whether separate turn lanes are required. If there is right-of-way available, then the separate lanes can be implemented, but if there are constraints, then they should not be implemented. Based upon the traffic forecasts, delays to the northbound traffic exiting the site will be less than 5 seconds per approach vehicle. No other turn lanes are required at this intersection in the short range future. Using the long range traffic forecasts shown in Figure 10 of the cited report, no additional road improvements are necessary at the Douglas/Hearthfire intersection. The need for a westbound left -turn lane is on the threshold of being warranted at the posted 45 mph speed. Since this is a twenty year forecast and the posted speed on Douglas Road could be reduced, a left -turn lane was not recommended. At 40 mph, a westbound left -turn lane would clearly not be warranted. As development occurs in this area, traffic should be monitored. l 1 J V • CO CV) u7 O rn o CD a (D Q O p O r U rn • X o u z a J W O J W a 7 W _L r 2 'T^ W 0 N M 0 ti rn Lj O S D_ 0 Z Fr w W Z 6 Z w Z 0 cc r O a U) Z 4 H 03 0 LL LL 4 ¢ TO: Tom Kennedy, Austin Mortgage Tom Dugan, Pine Crest Planning and Design City of Fort Collins Staff FROM: Matt Delich f�fif� DATE: May 24, 1999 SUBJECT: Hearthfire PUD-Response to staff comments (File: 9643MEM6) This memorandum responds to two comments related to the traffic study for the Hearthfire PUD. The responses relate to comment ll.a) and comment ll.c). Comment ll.a) refers to an additional. access point to CR13 via an extension of Buntwing Court. It is my understanding that Buntwing Court is a cul-de-sac and there is no intention to connect it to CR13. A right-of-way is provided at the end of Buntwing Court to extend it if that were the desire of the City. If that connection occurred, it is estimated that 100-200 daily trips might utilize this connection to travel south on CR13 or use it as an alternative access to Douglas Road. However, it is not the developer's desire to make this connection. Comment ll.c) refers to the sight distance issue at the Gregory/Abbotsford intersection. The issue is in regard to sight lines to the west along Gregory Road for a vehicle that is stopped on Abbotsford. In previous discussions and memoranda, I pointed out that there was a sight line constraint due to foliage blocking the line of sight to the right (west). A site visit was made on May 21, 1999 to this intersection. The sight line constraint does not exist at the present time with a driver location 10 feet from Gregory Road. However, the further back from Gregory Road, the more the foliage begins to block the sight line. If the property owner allows this foliage to grow into the sight triangle, it is important that the governmental entity (Larimer County) take steps to ensure proper sight lines. This situation should be carried out regardless of the Hearthfire development. Sight lines are adequate to the left (east) of the Gregory/Abbotsford intersection. i 09/23/2002 16:55 9702261635 PINECREST PAGE 05 I APPENDIX A PO 'd 9MIZZOLB 'ON XVA I9N3 033 wu 9E:80 NOR Z002-68-d3s i' 09/23/2002 16:55 9702261F35 PINECREST PAGE 04 I AM/PM RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION b, N Figure 1 u £0 'd SL£91ZZOL6 'ON XUA '9N3 030 Wd 5£:90 NOW ZOOZ-CZ-d3S �t 09/23/2002 16:55 9702261635 PINECREST PAGE 03 Toe Sill Yunkez, Hearthfire Cam McNair, Fort Collins City Engineer FROK- Matt belich DATE, october 12, 2000 BUBMCT; Hearthfire trip distribution (rile: 9643MLM7) in the "Hearthfire poo Site Acooss study,- July 1996, I used the trip distribution provided in Appendix A. It shown that over half (50-60%) of the site generated traffic is expected to utilise Douglas Road to get to/from the SR1 intersection. It is my understanding that due to this traffic, this developer was required to make certain improvements to Douglas Road from the site access to SH1. Certain property owners along Douglas Road have not cooperated with this developer in granting easements no that the prescribed improvements could be made. Since a portion of the Hearthfire PVD has been built and occupied, traffic counts of home based trips were obtained in order to test tho trip distribution used in the cited site access study. These traffic counts are shown in Figure 1. Caro was taken to only count those vehicles that appeared to be home based txipz. Since therm are a number of homes under construction, there is a significant amount of construction related traffic. This traffic was easily discernible. While this traffic was counted, it is not shown in Figure 1. In addition to determining the east and west movements on Douglas Road, the traffic to/from the west Ma: further distinguished by Douglas Road and CR13. it was detenui.ned that, during the peak hours on October 11, 2000, the distribution was 45% to/from the east on Douglas Road, 42% to/from the west on Douglas Road, and 13% to/Prom the southwest on CR13. From this information, it would appear that the route of choice is to/%xom the east. This may be due to the ease of access to I-25 and the improvement to the south on CR11, CR50E, and CR9E. The Rearthftre puD will build a connection through the Richards Take devQidpment to the east when approximately 92 building permi-ts are drawn. This connection will provide a shorter route to CRII, which will likely increase the number of vehicles going to the east. Convexaaxy, this will likely reduce the number of vehicles taking Douglas Road to sal. This information may provide enough data to the City of Fort Collins to change the route along which improvements should be made to satisfy, the requirements of the City. ZO 'd 8LE9 WOL6 'ON XUd TH OJO WV 9E:80 NOW d00Z-CZ-d3S JAN-04-2001 09:49 ?.02 XZNDRUMUM TO: Hill Yunker, Hearthfire ' Tom Kennedy, Hearthfire Tricia Kroetch, North Star Design G. PROM: Matt Delich DATE: January 4, 2001 SUHJBCT: Hearthfire - Traffic volume or. CR54 :File: 9643DSEM8) W This memo=andum documents my analyses pertaining to future wO c1 traffic volumes on CR54 between the Hearthfire access anc CF.11. The > Hearthfire PUD development, as a condition of approval, is required 8 CO to design and build CR54 ,Douglas Road) from the Hearthfire access 4 to CR11. The City of Fort Collins is building CR11 south of CR54. zZ m CD The improvement to CR54 will satisfy the condition that the 24 Hearthfize PUD will be connected to an improved arterial street. CR54 is classified as a minor arterial street on the Fort Zollins Master iQ 3tree: Plan. As such, it will have a three lane cross section plus cV 8 foot bike lanes. However, in order to satisfy the condition of N approval, an interim cross section will be designed and constructed CV which will accommodate the expected motor vehicle traffic and provide adequate bike lazes. The traffic forecast as*-;,mes a build -cut year of 2003, and full development and occupancy of the Hearthfire PUD. Using recent peak hour and daily traffic counts alc_nq CR54, year 2003 traffic forecasts were developed a= the CR54/CR11 intersection and at the CR54/Hearthfire Access intersection. These traffic forecasts are shown in Figuze 1. As a two-lane road with at least 4 foot bike lanes, CR54 will operate at level of service 8 during both peak hours, assuming a 100% no passing condition. The width of the bike lanes should be determined by the City of Fort Collins. if wider bike lanes are required, the level of service will (� improve within the level of service a category. a Using turning lane criteria contained in the "Intersection Channelization Design Guide," NCHRP279, TRB, no auxiliary lanes are required at either the CRil or the Eearthfire Access intersections. Given the calculated level of service, it is expected that the ..� recommended cross section would accommodate the expected traffic W volumes for a nLunber of years beyond the year 2003. if other �. development occurs that contribute significant traffic to CR54, this �e cross section should be reevaluated. . S W �„y HCS2000: Unsigna' ad Intersections Release 4.1a TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: matt Agency/Co.: mjdpe Date Performed: 12/31/01 Analysis Time Period: am pm Intersection: shl/cr 4 Jurisdiction: larimer county Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2000 Project ID: 9643 East/West Street: cr54 North/South Street: shl Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 61 297 46 7 117 56 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.85 0.85 0.85 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 65 319 49 8 137 65 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade ($) Median Storage Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration 22 46 16 74 30 42 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.92 23 49 17 80 32 45 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 No No 0 1 0 0 1 0 LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR I LTR I LTR v (vph) 65 8 89 157 -_(m) (vph) 1370 1191 363 378 v/c 0.05 0.01 0.25 0.42 35% queue length 0.15 0.02 0.95 1.99 -ontrol Delay 7.8 8.0 18.1 21.1 LOS A A C C Approach Delay 18.1 21.1 approach LOS C C HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1a HCS2000: Unsigna' d Intersections Release 4.1a TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: matt Agency/Co.: mjdpe Date Performed: 12/31/01 Analysis Time Period: am pm Intersection: shl/cr54 Jurisdiction: larimer county Units: U. S. Customary,—-,--, Analysis Year: 2000 Project ID: 9643 East/West Street: cr54 North/South Street: sh1 Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 13 75 15 28 284 88 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 15 91 18 30 305 94 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade M Median Storage Flared Approach: Exists? Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration 37 39 4 51 65 51 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.86 0.86 0.86 40 42 4 59 75 59 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 No No 0 1 0 0 1 0 LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR I LTR I LTR v (vph) 15 30 86 Ili-) C(m) (vph) 1160 1481 364 466 v/c 0.01 0.02 0.24 0.41 95% queue length 0.04 0.06 0.90 2.00 Control Delay 8.1 7.5 17.9 18.1 LOS A A C C Approach Delay 17.9 18.1 Approach LOS C C HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1a 54 AM/PM N SHORT RANGE (2006) Figure 3 PEAK HOUR APPROACH VOLUMES TABLE I 2000 Peak Hour Operation 00 -W A NEW, ffN WB LT/T/RT c c SH1/CR54 EB LT/TIRT c c NB LT A A (stop sign) S13 LT A A co CD 000 OD QO Nl N 144, 51 /74 65/30 51/42 4/16 39/46 37/22 rn M N � to r- -• AM/PM CR54 N AVERAGE OF RECENT (2000) Figure 2 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC COUNTS 50/82 70/29 —► 55/40 3/15 39/41 35116 t r CR54 rn rn rn L IT � M r- Nrl- - October 2000 5/17 38151 38/28 CR54 52/65 59/31 M to IN 47/4364 ti November 2000 RECENT (2000) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC -�w— AM/PM N Figure 1 Northeast Area Overly Project. Other developments in the vicinity include Hawthorne Village CD in Larimer County and the Hearthfire PUD in the City. For this exercise, I have included existing traffic at the intersection (factored to reflect the short range future); Richards Lake, First Filing; the Douglas Farms Exemption; Hawthorne Village; and Hearthfire. For analysis purposes, I am assuming a short range development future year of 2006. Figure 3 shows the short range (2006) total peak hour approach volumes on each leg of the SH1/CR54 intersection. The sum of these approach volumes is 934 and 1025 in the respective morning and afternoon peak hours. In order to simplify the cost sharing calculation, the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic was totaled so that we are only dealing with one value. The total of all of the peak hour traffic (morning plus afternoon) on all approaches is 1959. The site generated traffic, from each of the developments, that is expected to go through the SH1/CR54 intersection is as follows: Richards Lake - 20 Douglas Farms Exemption - 9 Hawthorne Village - 49 Hearthfire First - 67 Hearthfire Second - 41 The amount of traffic that is associated with existing traffic (that is traffic that cannot be related to a specific development) is 1773. The formula for determining the proportional share toward the improvements at the SH1/CR54 intersection is a simple calculation dividing the specific development traffic by the total traffic. In the case of Hearthfire First and Second, that share is calculated at 5.5 percent (108/1959). This methodology can be used to determine a contribution for each of the traffic sources used in the' formula. Clearly, the largest share belongs to the existing traffic and traffic from additional development from which no additional contribution could be collected. This is not surprising and is certainly fair given that the improvements to the SH1/CR54 intersection are needed with the existing traffic. ao M LO o 00 ch • O LO 0 p� � (o a O J � U 0) • X a 0 LL z a J W O J • co W � E CV Cr M p co z c° > o a r S z w W Z J CV d n CV CV W IL Z CC Tn W i W z U Z z � W W 0 � a O 7 W Z CC 5 1CC as i 0 F- a CQ ~ G TO: Cam McNair, Fort Collins Engineer FROM: Matt Delich DATE: January 28, 2002 SUBJECT: Hearthfire - Cost sharing methodology for SH1/CR54 intersection (File: 9643MEM10) This memorandum documents a cost sharing methodology for improvement to the SH1/CR54 intersection in Larimer County. Figure 1 shows the most recent peak hour traffic counts available for the SH1/CR54 intersection. The counts at the top of the graphic were obtained in October 2000 and are contained in the "Hawthorne Village Traffic Impact Study," May 2001. The counts at the bottom of the graphic were obtained by Larimer County in November 2000. The differences between the counts are within the range of acceptability. Figure 2 shows the average of the two counts. Table 1 shows the peak hour operation at this intersection using the traffic volumes shown in Figure 2 and the existing control and - geometry. Calculation forms are provided in Appendix A. This intersection currently operates acceptably according to Larimer County and CDOT level of service criteria. SH1 is categorized by CDOT as an RB highway in this area. The posted speed in this segment is 45 mph. with the existing traffic, the following auxiliary lanes are required at the SH1/CR54 intersection according to the State Highway Access Code, 1998: - Northbound left -turn - Northbound right -turn - Southbound left -turn - Southbound right -turn deceleration/storage lane deceleration lane deceleration/storage lane deceleration lane There are a number of developments (existing, approved, and proposed) that do or will contribute traffic to the SH1/CR54 intersection. On the west side of the intersection, there are three County -approved developments (Terry Cove, Point Townhomes, and Eagle Lake), all within approximately ;12 to 3, miles of the intersection, from which Larimer County collected funds as their contribution to the intersection improvements. According to Mark Peterson, Larimer County Engineer, a total of $38,400 was assessed against these three developments and paid, and it is not possible to collect any additional funds. On the east side of the intersection, the County recently approved the Douglas Farms Exemption (1i mile north of CR54 between SH1 and CR13) without requiring any contribution to the intersection improvements. Also on the east side of the intersection is the Richards Lake, First Filing, located adjacent to the east side of Hearthfire, First Filling, in the City limits. Although the traffic study indicated that a portion of Richards Lake generated trips would utilize the SH1/CR54 intersection, the off -site road obligations of this development were limited to contributions to the To Planning and Zoning Board Members: In a recent e-mail to Marc Engemoen of the County, Cam McNair made several comments to which I would like to respond:. ....... will probably prompt some motorists to utilize Country Club Drive to get back to Lemay. We already know the Country Club residents' sentiments about these projects, and their concerns for increased traffic on Country Club. We think it will just shift the debate, not resolve it." Response: Mr. McNair told me on the phone that based on a recent traffic study the connectivity will only increase traffic on Inverness/Abbotsford by about two cars per hour. It is presumed that an unimproved dirt road can handle this amount of traffic, yet it would cause concerns on Country Club, which is already paved and handles a larger amount of traffic. I believe this indicates an intuitive knowledge on Mr. McNair's part that two trips per hour is not an accurate assessment of the traffic flow. "We also recently entertained another suggestion - to escrow the funds for making the improve- ments on CR13 and the connection of Bateleur Lane to CR13. City staff believes that making this connection with the development is important for providing connectivity and travel choices, as well as for providing multiple access points for emergency services. Response: The travel choices already exist. People can choose to turn on Douglas and come down County Road 13 if they wish to head south, or they can -stay on Douglas and use Hwy I or access Gregory or access Country Club from Hwy 1, or they can head east on Douglas and south on CR 11. The multiple access points already exist. There is an emergency access from the corner of CR 13 and Inverness as well as access from Douglas and CR I 1 This new connection runs parallel to the existing emergency access. I would like to reemphasize the condition as stated at the time of approval: The requirement is that the developer provide right of way so that..."a local street connection could be constructed in the future when traffic volumes and surrounding development make it necessary to provide neighborhood connectivity." To make this connection at this time is a "con- venience" for the City not a "necessity" and undermines the conditions of the original approval. Escrowing the funds for the road connection is the most responsible decision at this time. rMj -�: - ��. ^°i .. � , sr y�p�!� .�q�(!� l 4 'f it / G�' tut 1 � � 1� y. k�, �R 4 �t� Y !' j �I' dvy . _ � ��,��.��- "'�` "pkwn kr� rc. � }M�`'�F 4 1 _ µt.;� ' f. . '�' 1 r a: ��,: ,: ,t > `� �6 3 �5 �Ma 3' sY . s ft s � S _ T i_ _ 1; .•. F. r a: ��,: ,: ,t > `� �6 3 �5 �Ma 3' sY . s ft s � S _ T i_ _ 1; .•. F. Sorry the qua,.cy of this picture is poor, but hopefully you can see the bicyclist approaching the blind rise. This is roughly the area where the paving of CR 13 will end if it goes around the corner. On other side of same rise. o q ( -/V .a r4A4 0- 0 Ri Co gd I NOTE FROM JOHN (JACK) KARNS As a concerned citizen and long time resident (29 years) of this neighborhood. I want to say the opening of Inverness to the increased volume of traffic from the Hearthfire area would create an overload on a road that has more than it should have now. The 90' turns and a bridge that for all practical purposes is a one way bridge in the 90' turn is very dangerous with many near miss accidents. To asphalt all or any part of this road would require major reconstruction to make it safe. i oU � � Z � 7 lt7 Sw 3 y� ou 4. Address # on map Acreage Size 1026Inverness 1 5 1025Inverness 2 8.35 1000Inverness 3 2.33 1p / 932 Inverness 4 2.32 s� \ 920Inverness 5/5a 2.25/2.25 v2D816 Inverness 6 5 808 Inverness 7 5 j, 801 Inverness 8 11 708 Inverness 9 5 2 U 624Inverness 10 4.55 1 3414 Abbotsford 11 4.48 Z 3325 Abbotsford 12 9.8 3312 Abbotsford 13 2.78 3325 Abbotsford 14 2.5 700 Richards Lake 15 10.9 e� n� 23 628 Richards Lake 16 4 629 Richards Lake 17 1.8 793 Richards Lake I8 229 3110 Abbotsford 19 2.29 3109 Abbotsford 20 3 2� 3025 Abbotsford 21 2.5 3021 Abbotsford 22 L4b 3020 Abbotsford 23 6.99 3024 Abbotsford 24 8? 2929 Abbotsford 25 1.02 2900 Abbotsford 26 3 2832 Abbotsford 27 1.13 2824.Abbotsford 28 22 2808 Abbotsford 29 0.37 \ 639 Gregory 30 0.76 \ \ these roads some day. Unfortunately, we have many other roads that currently need improving more than CR 13, Inverness and Abbotsford." It appears: limited development opportunities + low County resources = no foreseeable improvements "Collector Status" and modifications to the Urban Growth Area Discussions by the City Plan Citizens Advisory Committee have generated a scenario that would draw back the Urban Growth Area Boundary in areas of county subdivision development that the City prefers not to annex in the near future. Although these discussions are in preliminary stages they will be presented at an open house.on November 7t'. The "horsy acreages" on Inverness and Abbotsford might be removed from the UGA and the roads may never achieve "collector" status. The county views them as local streets and would only improve to that level. It seems premature for the City to consider improving CR 13 to collector status and generating a tax burden when that type of road improvement may not be indicated. The money would be better spent on turn lanes on Douglas Road. There is a concerted effort to raise money to make improvements to Douglas, and that road will be improved at some time -'although it will also be at considerable cost. There may be the possibility that CR 13: could revert to the County if the. UGA is redefined:: In that case it would be much more profitable to •use the developer's funds for improvements to Douglas Road instead of paving CR 1-3 Other Attachments: As mentioned at the September meeting most of the "incidents" on our roadways do not get reported. The traffic study indicates only 2 have been reported in the past five years. There are a few -notes of additional documemationfrom neighbors who have witnessed accidents and/or had to repair property damage. The neighbors can verify about five other cases of cars leaving the roadway causing damage either to the vehicle or landowners property. If you consider that our traffic volume is so low, this is a high per vehicle rate. All of Gregory Road which has 3,000 trips per day —roughly ten times our volume had 17 reported accidents over the same period. As our vehicle trips increase, our accident rate wilt also increase especially if the accidents involve other vehicles or pedestrians. Hopefully people will be less likely to drive off in those circumstances. We have also provided some pictures that reflect the comments made in the County's letter —the blind rises, narrowness and sharp turns. The bridge railing is an example of a case that probably was not reported: The railing has not been repaired in more than a month: The County usually repairs these quickly since there is a steep ditch on either side. Thank you for your time in allowing us this input. Sincerely, Brigitt chmidt NorthEast Neighborhood Coalition October 24, 2002 Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Board: We have prepared additional information for clarification of issues raised at the September 19`s Planning and Zoning Board hearing regarding the Hearthfire PUD Ind Filing. Previous Approval Conditions This project was approved under the Land Development Guidance System: Requirements under the LDGS were not the same as City Plan. This development should be allowed to progress according to the conditions cited for approval. Attached (#1) is a copy of section 5 of the Staff report concerning the street connections. The requirement is that the developer provide right of way so that..."a local street connection could be constructed in the future when traffic volumes and surrounding development make it necessary to provide neighborhood connectivity." At this point in time traffic volumes have increased minimally according to a recent traffic study and the surrounding development has only changed by an additional three houses about ''/Z mile away. Traffic and the "surrounding development" have not changed to the extent that would necessitate connectivity. Future Development Opportunities The next attachment (#2) shows the Inverness and Abbotsford lot divisions and contains a list of lot sizes. Since the original approval of this project, there have three additional houses added on approx. 21/2 acre county parcels -on Abbotsford Road. The large development that was going to occur north of Douglas on County Road 13 has changed to a conservation development with 9 houses and has yet to start building. North County Road 13 will remained unpaved. Two new houses have been constructed between County Road 13 and 11 on Douglas and one on north County Road 13. In the immediate neighborhood, the likelihood of future development is constrained by the lot sizes and the large financial obligation for road improvements. Also, achieving contiguity with the City for annexation purposes would happen very slowly since this area can never be totally surrounded. The following County assessment of the road situation indicates why the road improvement cost would be prohibitive for small development: "both roads have significant horizontal alignment constraints that would prevent them from functioning safely with higher volumes of traffic. These include 90-degree bends in the road, sight distance problems, two bridge structures that would need to be rehabilitated and safety issues at the intersection of Abbotsford Rd. and Gregory Rd." (Letter from Larimer County Engineering to City Engineering, 10/7/02) Another recent letter indicates they will not be able to improve the road until they can "reprioritize other county road improvements." "...we will undoubtedly have to pave Mr. Cam McNair October 22, 2002 Page 3 We do not think that leaving these roads gravel will prevent people from driving on them. Actually, our experience has been that people continue to drive on them and then call and complain that we are not doing an adequate job of maintaining them. One alternative which has not been adequately explored yet would be to restrict traffic on County Road 13 to one direction, which would create a much greater deterrent to traffic from Hearthfire using these roads than simply failing to maintain them adequately. This would likely only be an interim improvement, as the City has stated that County Road 13/Abbotsford/Invemess will ultimately become a collector road based on your Transportation Master Plan. In closing I would like to reiterate that we realize that we have no ability to require these issues to be addressed and that this is a City development. We appreciate that the City and Developer have solicited our input and have worked with us on past issues. We also realize that the developer has had to make other improvements based on City requirements and that they feel that they have done more than their fair share. Nevertheless, it is our responsibility to raise and seek to have addressed those issues that affect County residents that are being created or influenced by development. We still feel that there will be significant impacts to CR 13, Inverness, and Abbottsford from this development and we stand by our request that these impacts be addressed prior to the final approval of the second filing of Hearthfire. If you have any questions or need additional information, you may call Traci Downs at 498-5701 or you can reach me at 498-5714. Sincerely, &C L a p/� Mark Peterson, P.E. Larimer County Engineer cc: Lucia Liley Marc Engemoen, Larimer County Public Works Director h:\devrev\planchk\reterrals\cities\(collins\heanhfire Ist & 2nd\response to 10-16-02 mt¢ heanhfire 2nd tiIing.doc Mr. Cam McNair October 22, 2002 Page 2 to monitor the traffic patterns once the development is built out. We do however continue to have concerns about the impacts this development will have on County Road 13, Abbottsford Road and Inverness Street. I would also like to point out that this is not a new concern, but was identified as a major concern when we provided comments about the proposed development in 1996. The Hearthfire PUD Site Access Study dated July 1996 looked at the impacts of 148 proposed single family residential units. This is the study that the comments from our office dated August 2, 1996 were based on. At that time there was no direct access to County Road 13 proposed with the development, and it was anticipated by the study that 20%-25% of the traffic from Hearthfire would use the County Road 13, Inverness, and Abbottsford road sections. This equates to approximately 283 to 354 new vehicle trips per day on these sections of road. The new traffic information, dated October 16, 2002, analyzes the impacts of 147 proposed single family residential units. Now, with a direct access to County Road 13 that was not a part of the 1996 study, the trip distribution to the CR 13, Inverness, and Abbottsford road segment is anticipated to be only 13%. The new traffic information also assumes that this trip distribution will be the same regardless of whether or not there is a direct connection from Hearthfire onto CR 13. I understand that the change in the trip distribution percentages is based on the assumption that a larger percentage of the traffic is actually going to go east to County Road 11. As I mentioned above though, intuitively, this does not make sense to us. The 13% equates to approximately 183 new vehicle trips per day. The most recent traffic counts we have, which are also reflected in the October 16, 2002 study by Matt Delich show the average daily traffic on CR 13, south of Douglas Rd to be 250 vehicles per day and 375 vehicles per day on Abbottsford, north of Gregory Rd. Matt Delich's analysis indicates that using the 13% assumption for total Hearthfire traffic using CR 13, about 75 of these trips could be expected to be generated by the existing homes in the first filing of Hearthfire and that there could be another 108 daily trips added to CR 13 as Hearthfire is fully built -out. If this were a Larimer County development, Section 8.1.5.C. I of the Latimer County Land Use Code considers 300 vpd to be the threshold of a gravel road before it needs to be paved. Even with the new reduced 13% trip distribution figure, the average daily traffic will increase between 29% and 43% from what it is now and put these roads over the paving threshold. Because the existing traffic on these segments of roads are close to, or at, the paving threshold, we will undoubtedly have to pave these roads some day. Unfortunately, we have many other roads that currently need improving more than CR 13, Inverness, and Abbottsford. If this additional Hearthfire traffic is allowed to use the roads without improvements, we are faced with an increased maintenance burden and it may mean that we will have to reprioritize other county road improvements. We realize that the County has no authority to require anything of this development or the City. However, if this were a County project, our Land Use Code would allow us to require the developer to improve CR 13, Inverness, and Abbottsford. A recent example of this is the two miles of CR 52 east of I-25 that is currently being paved as one of the conditions of approval of the Hill Conservation Development because the development was tripping the paving threshold. The developer was also required to realign the intersection of CR.52 and CR 3 due to a safety issue. I say this simply to point out that we are not asking the City to require something that we ourselves would not require of a County development. One last topic that came up in our meeting was the idea that the County residents that live along CR 13, Inverness, and Abbottsford do not want the roads paved. There have been several property owners in the area that have been interested and concerned about the Hearthfire Development and have communicated their concerns to us. It is our interpretation that it is the additional traffic that the residents do not want and they feel that if none of the roads are paved, or maintained for that matter, that not as many people will drive on them. One e-mail from a resident in the area stated: The neighbors have suggested not connecting Hearthfire to CR 13 and leaving the road dirt for now until such time as it can all be paved. We recognize that might be a long time, but are hoping that if the road quality deteriorates enough people will choose other routes. The County has been doing a great job of maintaining the road — we'd be glad to donate some of our grading fitnds to another area. It: idewewplanchk\¢femis\citimilco l Iins\hearthftre Ist & Ind`aesponse to 10.16-02 mtg hearth lire 22nd liI ing.doc ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT • COMMITTED TO EXCELLENCE October 22, 2002 Cam McNair City Engineer City of Fort Collins Engineering Department 281 N. College Ave. Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: Hearthfire Second Filing, response to 10/16/02 meeting Dear Cam, Post Office Box 1190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-1190 (970)498-5700 FAX (970) 498-7986 The intent of this letter is to offer our response to the discussion that took place at our office on Wednesday October 16`I' with yourself and Ward Stanford from the City, Lucia Liley and Janelle Kechter representing the developer, and Marc Engemoen, Rusty McDaniel, and myself from the County. The letter also addresses the new traffic information that was supplied to us by Matt Delich, dated October 16`6, 2002. First, we would like to acknowledge that there have been communication gaps during the history of this project. Most of the people from our department currently involved in reviewing this project did not work for Larimer County in 1996 when I believe the project received preliminary approval from the City. I think this is also true for the engineering staff involved from the City's side. Second, as the project has stretched out over the past six years, specific issues have arisen and been dealt with on an individual basis that were tied to Hearthfire First Filing, most notably improvements to Douglas Road and the intersection at Highway 1. We probably should have continued to reiterate the other concerns we had with the Second Filing as we were dealing those issues. Third, changes have occurred on other fronts over the past six years. For example, the project now proposes direct access to County Road 13 which was not the case in 1996, the County has a more formal definition of Adequate Public Facilities, and the projected volumes of traffic generated from Hearthfire on County Road 13 have changed. We would also like to acknowledge that the developer has agreed to improvements that were not part of their preliminary approval, and we sincerely appreciate their cooperation in this regard. Most notably, the developer has agreed to make a monetary contribution towards improvements at the intersection of Douglas Road and Highway 1. The status of the improvements at this intersection is currently on hold. CDOT will not have any money available until 2003 at the earliest and this money will mainly be used for improvements on the SW comer of the intersection. CDOT will not allocate funds towards improvements (i.e. tumlanes) on the Douglas Road portions of the intersection. From the engineering analyses work done by PBS&J for CDOT, the most costly improvements to the intersection relate to the east leg. Consequently, improvements to the east leg of the intersection will not occur until the City and County can either find a funding source to go along with the funds provided by Hearthfire, or until another development occurs in the area that will be required to participate in the improvements. The need for improvements to this intersection was an adequate public facilities issue for the proposed Hawthorne Village development and played a part in the difficulties that the developer experienced in obtaining preliminary approval by the County. We have had the opportunity to review the revised traffic information provided by Matt Delich, dated October 16, 2002. We do not really have any comments on the information other than to say that intuitively we feel that the trip distribution may be off on certain segments of roads. But as we discussed in the meeting on Wednesday we could argue endlessly about the trip distribution percentages and the only way to know the correct distribution is h:Wevrev�plane [Wrefena Iskities,fcollins flheanhfire Ist& 2ndkesponse to I0-16-o2 nit hearthfire?nd fiI ing.doc Fromm: <Bsuhnnidbmag@cs-odnl» To: FC1.CFCPO(SOL|) Subject: Procedures for September 19th Steve, Sorry tobother you again. |fthe chair ofP&2inresponsible for this decision, would you please forward this request? Thanks, Brigitte The Northeast Neighborhood Coalition would like to make a brief presentation mtthe September 19thmeeting ofthe Planning and Zoning Board onthe Hearthfire Second Filing Agenda item. We understand the citizen comment is usually limited to 3 minutes per person and are willing to group our citizen input for amore coherent presentation which wocould limit to15^2Uminutes. VVmfeel that iaactually amore efficient use oftime and more clearly conveys the necessary information versus individual citizen comments. If this will not bepossible, please let maknow how you would like toproceed with citizen input sovVecan baadequately prepared. Thank you, Brigitte Schmidt for the Northeast Neighborhood Coalition Steve Olt - Memo for Planning and Zo bard From: <Bschmidtmag@cs.com> To: FCI.CFCPO(SOLT) Date: 9/11/02 5:13AM Subject: Memo for Planning and Zoning Board Steve, I was told that you would be able to forward this to P&Z members before the Friday work session. Let me know if I should be doing something differently, Thanks, Brigitte Dear Planning and Zoning Board members: As you review the Hearthfire Second Filing project in this Friday's work session I am hoping that you will be able to review information in response to the questions listed below. The unique nature of this project with the blending of rural/urban lifestyles and city/county policies within infrastructure constraints requires innovative administration. The Northeast Neighborhood Coalition representing the residents of the area will be requesting that you consider holding road improvement dollars for road improvements along County Road 13 in escrow until such time as the entire stretch of road can be maintained in a safe fashion. We will supply substantiating information for such a request at the September 19th meeting. Questions? At what point will Inverness Road will be annexed into the City? At what point will Inverness/Abbotsford Road be improved? Are there any development opportunities along Inverness, Richard's Lake and Abbotsford to finance any improvements? Will the City need to pay for these improvements? How --community choices, possibly? Has there been a recent traffic count on the Cty Rd 13/Inverness/Abbotsford route? One of the County "triggers" for improvement past dust mitigation is 300/400 ADT. What if that number is reached with no funding for improvements? What improvements will be needed to the Gregory Rd/Abbotsford intersection? Thank you for your time and consideration. Brigitte Schmidt for the Northeast Neighborhood Coalition t�-try-'UT� ZAnA t t — Activity A: ALL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ALL CRITERIA I APPLICAELE CRITE=IA ONLY CRI T =� ION S d1e Cate= aeplicaclei WIII the Gee w sadsfee? ' if no, please exclain s• , Yes INo Al. COMMUNITY -WIDE CRITERIA I I 1.1 SET Orientation I I I I 1.2 Comorehensive Plan I I I I 1.3 Wildlife Habitat I I � V I I 1 = Mineral Deposit I I Ixl I 1.:5 Ecclocically Sensitive Areas I rziarvea I 1.9- Lands cf Acricultural Imoorance I r'ro rV ed I I I I 1.7 Enercv Conservation I ICI I I 1 E Fir Qualitv I I I X I I 1 C Water cuaalltV I hU I I I 4.0 Sa`Nace =_nd V` ss;es I 1 11 W=terronseryationI 1.12 Resideniial Densitv I I I ( I r N=_!GHEOP,HOOD COMPA�TIEILI TY CRITc=cl=1 1 v=hi—iar. Pedps-man Eike T ransoonation I I ➢y I I I Euiicirc P'ar•=ri.=nt and Orient=tics I IXj I I 2. ^ Natural Features I Ixl I I I a V=riic flar Circulation anc P_rkinc I I I I I 2.:, En, ergenc/ Accass 2.;5 Pecestrian Circulation I I I I I I 2.7 Art ,itectura 11 I I I Building lrieigrit and Views I ( I I .2.9: Shading I I I I I I 2.10 Sclar Access I 2.11 Historic Rescurdas 2.12 Setbacks 2.13 Landscape I 2.1 Signs I I I 2.15 Site Lighting I 1K1 I 2.16 Ncise and Vibration I I I I I 2.17 Glare or Heat I I I ➢� 2.18 Hazardous Materials I A 3. ENGINEERING CRITERIA 3.1 Utility Capacity 1 3.2 Design Standards I I I 3.3 Water Hazards 3.4 Gealocic Hazards I ! Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments The City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Revised'ofa cLh 199�� "J 5 U�� - 61 - ._fib ��► 5n a NOTES— T DISnmeED wince A FIRST FUND - T4 S. SECOND RUNG ,7 C. TOTAL DISTURBEIS- 2 WETLANDS CREATED FOR M W IN THE FIRST RUNG R THE FIRST AND SECOND FIL A NORTH PARCEL - a SOUTH PARCEL = G TOTAL B. TOTAL mrnGAT10N REOIIIRI M RATIO -U AG c W - 2 RNA SITE AND LANDSCAPE PUN NOTES PRORL7 NOTES UNpSGWNC � ASSURANCES Y SOLAR ORIENTATION.. PUNT NOTES PROTECT STATISM _ LIOETING LEQlID nwe � .cars NATIVE SEED MIX P� N-ace .vane, TMPMLiM fOrillM�[ eT/�'4V< •IApT� niX r'lIl.pCiM_ y .� .. �--�; { 0VR7fIY AIW UC NOSCAPE CONCEPT � - f-r� _ _ l� _ : �,�.,_ j�� -mac.., -C wx�vw i�^^W. arr.w. ro+oxnw.e.Wray.y vrwx \ :._ / �' t nr xcr xw+.a�.PY^^9"o[pry PPmi.. Fuw rausw.x.YivwrurnWvrvv. ,/ pnmgWcq arm for rw.q D.'.m / •�/ I __ 'x" \l. ,„.a �� e+m�ew a�.e...xmvw.xvWu+..yaxxr.n YrYW.ara.a+le ox4. nrYy.e un `?i F�I f Y �""'� ^�l I� \ � WOwwS WIPw6 xr rrPx.P.m MYY1Ww EYxve.wl P.Ylr WlxybPnWwb...pY :y / - � �\ A �\\},�� .% ��7 �` I( b.�.x •x. �u.b.va.mn.y wg rY.u�s wnw w..x.�'.g�vuw ugnrx w..�u.pyxl `. A� '� �. ��' � °� � t � r l E..vlep.wg m.m.^ir.pwmy.vnyn WpPfilY.nYoxPa N.leM1 "5^r^P.^rY+b9 �/.I _ ...m u.vx.� T 1 � / i i^wu.arnnPwinuurP..Kr WlxxM xmx re Ya.4w^.9 y \ � � �\�\ � A, A^SPnw»Iw.x... a y'B^aa.n ....T:wa.. q.aur4g W1ag.exa.X..nq WYbxy wo'bywx P�.bM1j hwwo-v. /�/ -� 41� ,_. , '! n Pvm.aa^.n/eeir u�xx e..n,b w...me. ep/ / o O LL Uci PNT LIST fC / OCCIDUOUS_TPEES CVFPCPFEN TPEES "� _ O // F� �•' ti l�=_' .r.. • ..n D�(� yT r uwTr.�� a• x..y i F✓ �.—� , x..n 2 3 4 iA I T ,y ras�P�dC t.'OiT• �xaxc 8\ in l0\ VL `J 2 3; p LANDSCAPE CATEGORIES \\ 1S •®omx PUNNING & ZONING APPROVAL w^...x. ...ewnvw...e.e r.xx.�o.v cm.mx ro.r .on� Taw conmr.nia+.ns.� .n.v..00 v.,... w.e ._.o n.Pr roles w.wa.r al �Q °'x : row aPaEce �� " OWNER'S CERTIFICATION NOTES: SINGLE FAMILY WITS .��e,.,x�s�wnomsw..em.axx.w wr AVERAGE LOT SIZE IODOT SF AVEN WIT SIZE 3P.Oa SF yvYrrwocwao.eYvvv w® un ]-. pEDROOMS PEN MIT .. a TOTAL UNITS 56 -- rmmwvwvmswa.v np.. mvlxcT®w.wa o•wvrmw. ^oP vocT .o .cm. rrrc m. �""s•'�a GROSS DEN61T ia]pU/AG NET DENSITY I,AS OWAC e_ —n MAXI I MILDMG NEIGNT sal FT DEVELOPMENT S WULE - 5F<ING 2091 EX15TING ZONING - um - UR6AN ESTAYE 8 26 77 r.v.wr K.ALe r. KO' # 31-95E Hearthfire PUD, 2nd Filing 09/04/02 N LDGS 1 inch : 600 feet No Text Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing - Final, #31-95E September 19, 2002 P & Z Meeting Page 7 utility plans, and final plans for the PUD be negotiated between the developer and City staff and executed by the developer prior to the February 6, 2003, Planning and Zoning Board public hearing, which follows the public hearing (held November 7, 2002) at which this PUD final plan was conditionally approved; or, if not so executed, that the developer or the City staff, at said subsequent monthly meeting, apply to the Board for an extension of time. The Board shall not grant any such extension of time unless it shall first find that there exists with respect to said PUD final plan certain specific unique and extraordinary circumstances which require the granting of the extension in order to prevent exceptional and unique hardship upon the owner or developer of such property and provided that such extension can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. If the staff and the developer disagree over the provisions to be included in the development agreement, the developer may present such dispute to the Board for resolution. The Board may table any such decision, until both the staff and the developer have had reasonable time to present sufficient information to the Board to enable it to make its decision. (If the Board elects to table the decision, it shall also, as necessary, extend the term of this condition until the date such decision is made.) If this condition is not met within the time established herein (or as extended, as applicable), then the final approval of this PUD shall become null and void and of no effect. The date of final approval for this PUD shall be deemed to be the date that the condition is met, for purposes of determining the vesting of rights. For purposes of calculating the running of time for the filing of an appeal pursuant to Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3, of the City Code, the "final decision" of the Board shall be deemed to have been made at the time of this conditional approval; however, in the event that a dispute is presented to the Board for resolution regarding provisions to be included in the development agreement, the running of time for the filing of an appeal of such "final decision" shall be counted from the date of the Board's decision resolving such dispute. Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing - Final, #31-95E November 4, 2002 P & Z Meeting Page 6 information, staff has determined that the condition of preliminary PUD approval has been satisfied. 7. Resource Protection Issues regarding wetland disturbance and mitigation and the treatment of the wetland area were not fully resolved with the Hearthfire PUD - Preliminary. Therefore, the project was approved with a condition stating that: Wetland disturbance and mitigation measures will be resolved at time of final PUD review. Wetlands to be disturbed will be replaced at a rate of 1.5 to 1. The ultimate disposition of the wetland pond area will need to be resolved with the final PUD through submittal of a detailed plan for the area. Preliminary PUD approval does not imply that modification of the wetland area is acceptable to City staff. The developer has submitted a mitigation plan that staff has reviewed. It creates 2.22 acres of wetland as mitigation in the entire Hearthfire PUD (First and Second Filings) and the requirement was for 2.10 acres. The plan does provide adequate mitigation and, therefore, the Natural Resources Department has determined that the condition of preliminary PUD approval has been satisfied. FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSIONS: In evaluating the request for the Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing - Final, staff makes the following Findings of Fact: It is in conformance with the Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary that was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on September 23, 1996. It meets the All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System L( DGS), with the exception of Criterion A-1.12 Residential Density. A variance to the minimum density requirement of 3.0 dwelling units per acre was granted by the Board with the Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary approval. The three conditions of preliminary PUD approval have been addressed and satisfied. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing - Final - #31-95E, with the following condition: The Planning and Zoning Board approves this planned unit development (PUD) final plan upon the condition that the development agreement, final Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing - Final, #31-95E November 4, 2002 P & Z Meeting Page 5 constructed. It will be required at the time of future surrounding development. Since County Road 13 will eventually be annexed into the City, the Transportation staff believes it is important to require that the portion of the road adjoining the property be improved to City standards at the time of development of the Hearthfire PUD, 2"d Filing. None of the improvements aforementioned in this paragraph happened with the First Filing of the Hearthfire PUD. They will be done with the Second Filing which abuts County Road 13. With this staff has determined that the condition of preliminary PUD approval has been satisfied. As well as the improvements mentioned above this project is also contributing to or making other off -site improvements. Per the development agreement for Hearthfire PUD, 1st Filing this project is contributing funds toward future improvements at the intersection of Highway 1 and Douglas Road (a County and Colorado Department of Transportation project) and contributing funds for a portion of the County Road 11 improvements mentioned above. Additional funds for both projects will be identified within the development agreement for Hearthfire PUD, 2"d Filing (the amounts to be provided are identified within the 1st Filing agreement). As documented in the 1st Filing development agreement and noted in a couple of the traffic studies the collector street connection through Richards Lake PUD from Hearthfire Way to County Road 11 shall be in place prior to the issuance of the 915t building permit within the Hearthfire 1st and 2"d Filings. This connection will need to be built by the Hearthfire developer and/ or the Richards Lake developer prior to the issuance of the 91 st building permit 6. Storm Drainage: Since this project is adjacent to Richards Lake and has an on -site wetland, there was a condition of preliminary PUD approval to ensure that, with the final Site Plan and engineering for the project, there will be no negative impacts on the wetland or quality of water released into Richards Lake. The condition stated that: Concurrently with submission of final PUD documents the developer shall submit a detailed study based on the final plan and engineering, analyzing the effects of urban runoff into the wetlands and ultimately into Richards Lake, along with an adequate mitigation plan to deal with negative impacts if needed. As required by this condition of approval, the developer did submit a wetlands mitigation map and a water quality study aimed at assessing the impacts of the development on the overall water quality in the receiving waters. Staff has determined that the information provided demonstrates that the wetlands disturbed by site development will be mitigated at a ratio exceeding the minimum requirement and that the water quality extended detention as proposed satisfies the City's requirements. Based on the foregoing Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing - Final, #31-95E November 4, 2002 P & Z Meeting Page 4 1. There will be a 6' - 8' high landscaped earthen berm as a physical and visual barrier between the oil well and the adjacent home on Lot 1. Vehicular access by the oil company, for operations and maintenance purposes for the well and facilities, will be provided via an off -site access easement on property to the north of the Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing. The Colorado Gas & Oil Commission, Whiting Oil (the operating company), Poudre Fire Authority, and the developer have all been involved in this process to assure that the oil well and residential development can co -exist compatibly. 5. Transportation/Engineerin The Developer will be taking primary access for this development from Douglas Road, approximately 1,200 feet east of the intersection of Douglas Road and County Road 13. A second point of permanent access into this development will be via an intersection of Bateleur Lane (a local street) with County Road 13, approximately 1,000 feet south of Douglas Road. The Developer also will construct a secondary emergency access approximately 500 feet south of Douglas Road on County Road 13, which will connect to the cul-de-sac at the west end of Hearthfire Drive. The City's Transportation staff supports the access locations as proposed. The Hearthfire PUD is required to construct off -site street improvements to Douglas Road in accordance with City Code requirements. The Code requires Hearthfire to provide an improved connection to an existing improved arterial roadway. This connection is being accomplished by the design of Douglas Road from Hearthfire Way east to County Road 11 and the cash escrow of money to the City for the construction of this portion of roadway. The plans for design of all off -site improvements, including the configuration of the gravel shoulders and drainage ditches, have been approved by the City and the County. The City currently plans on constructing the Douglas Road improvements designed by this project and the remaining County Road 11 improvements which will provide the improved arterial connection required for this project next year (2003). This partially addresses the condition of preliminary approval that states: The Developer shall submit plans for all off -site improvements and the improvements required to County Road 13 with the final PUD utility plans. County Road 13 is required to be improved adjoining the west side of the Hearthfire PUD, 2nd Filing from the intersection with Douglas Road south to the curve into Inverness Street. It will be a 30 foot wide paved section with curb, gutter, and sidewalks on the east side of the road (the area adjacent to Hearthfire PUD). No curb and gutter is being required on the west side of County Road 13 at this time since the ultimate roadway width is not being Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing - Final, #31-95E November 4, 2002 P & Z Meeting Page 3 All Development Criteria of the LDGS: The request meets the All Development Criteria with the exception of Criterion A-1.12 Residential Density, which asks the question: On a gross acreage basis, is the overall average residential density at least 3 dwelling units per acre? The proposed gross residential density for the Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing is 1.42 dwelling units per acre; however, a variance to this criterion was granted by the Planning and Zoning Board with the Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary approval. 3. Design: Architecture: The architecture for the single family residences is not being reviewed at this time. Typically the City does not review building elevations for single family homes unless there appears to be specific reason to do so. In this case, staff has determined that there is not sufficient reason to review the building elevations and architecture. The homes will be custom designed and constructed, and they will be in the medium to high price range. Landscaping: The developer will provide street trees along all the public streets in the development. Also, the developer will provide landscaping in the open areas, including on the 6' - 8' high earthen berm around the existing oil well and associated facilities on the north property line. 4. Neighborhood Compatibility: Surrounding Areas: Lot sizes in the Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing that are adjacent to surrounding areas will range in size from 17,100 square feet to 53,400 square feet, with the majority of the lots being in the 20,000 to 30,000 square foot range. These lots will provide adequate buffer between the smaller lots in the Hearthfire PUD and the surrounding properties. Existing Oil Well and Facilities: There is an existing oil well and associated facilities on the north property line that will remain and continue to have the ability to operate. It is located adjacent to and partially in an open space adjacent to Lot 1. The Site Plan provides for a minimum setback of 150' from the public street right-of-way for Hearthfire Drive and an inhabitable structure on Lot Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing - Final, #31-95E November 4, 2002 P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background: The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: FA-1 in Larimer County; rural acreages S: FA-1 in Larimer County; existing lake (Richards Lake) E: UE in the City, single family residential (Hearthfire PUD) W: FA in Larimer County; rural acreages The property was annexed into the City as part of the Country Club North Second Annexation in January, 1984 and as all of the Jewett Annexation in July, 1987. There is an existing oil well and associated facilities along the north property line (as part of a larger oil field) that has operated in its present location for over 20 years. This well will remain and will continue to have the ability to operate. The Planning and Zoning Board approved the Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary on September 23, 1996 for 147 single family residential lots on 105.36 acres and granted a variance to the minimum residential density requirement of 3.0 dwelling units per acre. The overall gross residential density for the Hearthfire PUD, First & Second Filings will be 1.39 dwelling units per acre. 2. Land Use This is a request for final PUD approval for 56 single family residential lots on 39.31 acres. The gross residential density for the Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing is 1.42 dwelling units per acre. It is in conformance with the approved Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary. There are two distinct areas to this project: Around the wetland area and adjacent to Richards Lake. The lots range from 7,100 square feet to 19,500 square feet in size, with the majority of the lots being between 10,000 square feet (0.23 acre) and 15,000 square feet (0.34 acre) in size. These lots represent 55% of the total lots. Along the northwest periphery of the development. The lots range from 17,100 square feet to 53,400 square feet in size, with the majority of the lots being between 20,000 square feet (0.46 acre) and 30,000 square feet (0.69 acre) in size. These lots are designed to provide a transition from the higher, urban density of the Hearthfire PUD to the surrounding areas. These lots represent 45% of the total lots. ITEM NO, 3 MEETING DATE 11/4/02 STAFF ` *eve Alt Citv of Fort Collins PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Hearthfire PUD, Second Filing, Final - #31-95E APPLICANT: PineCrest Planning & Design LLC C/o Thomas J. Dugan 4225 Westshore Way Fort Collins, CO. 80525 OWNER: Richards Lake Development Company 4809 Chippendale Drive Fort Collins, CO. 80526 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for final planned unit development (PUD) approval for 56 single family residential lots on 39.31 gross acres. The gross residential density is 1.42 dwelling units per acre. The property is located north of Richards Lake at the southeast corner of Douglas Road and County Road 13. It is zoned UE - Urban Estate. RECOMMENDATION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Approval with a condition This request for final PUD approval: Is in conformance with the Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary that was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on September 23, 1996; meets the All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System L( DGS), with the exception of Criterion A-1.12 Residential Density. A variance to the minimum density requirement of 3.0 dwelling units per acre was granted by the Board with the Hearthfire PUD, Preliminary approval; and satisfies the three conditions of preliminary PUD approval. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. PO. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (970) 221-6750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT