The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20033018.tiff bhva 8l0£ EOOZ JIA3' 1 1 yoFan�ng g vaauifiu3�euassa4dd ,I,�I H — aul sYlelaOssy� (� J2i19 liSI33 p r toot �agwaidas z ' �� ,. �� 9 L y !� n3 Sgt, y} ® 1 ''!".:1.11;U r7. sti.'�t TY xrpuaddd ABM ® #` t 41 CI • s a s �(pn�s �eiaa�a y �� `m € Ajuno1 pjail lats a , S Z 3 s N 1 1 a a I-25 PARALLEL ARTERIAL STUDY APPENDIX ^ ^ w ty t . r fl *t Prepared^ ^ ^ Prepared for: Weld County Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 1111 "H" Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Prepared by: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 7951 E. Maplewood Avenue, Suite 200 ^ Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Principal: Robert W. Felsburg, P.E., C.C.E. Project Manager: Jeffrey W. Dankenbring, P.E. FHU Reference No. 02-211 September, 2003 _ ^- FELSBURG (' H O LT & 4lelf s Assoctatea Inc. ULLEVIG L E V I G Professional Engineers 8 Surveyors ^ ^ ^ 06) 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study APPENDIX EVALUATION MATRICES HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL GEOMETRY DESIGN CRITERIA LOCAL AGENCIES COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS .. .. .. FELSBURG CIHOLT & "' ULLEVIG 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study EVALUATION MATRICES • (II FELSBURG HOLT & 'a. ULLEVIG m,NA 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study EVALUATION MATRICES The following are the evaluation matrices that were utilized to evaluate the alternatives for the study area. The description at the top of each evaluation matrix correlates to the respective segment and alternative as it is shown in the report. The alternatives were evaluated for each segment using the following nine criteria: ✓ Transportation Effectiveness ✓ Horizontal and Vertical Geometry ✓ Community Impacts ✓ Land Use Consequences ✓ Existing Development Consequences ✓ Environmental Impacts ✓ Safety .. ✓ Construction ✓ Construction Cost The criteria were assigned a weight factor by the local agency group that would emphasize certain criteria more than others. The scoring for the matrices was based on a range from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. When the total scoring for each alternative was compared to the other alternatives for that segment, the alternatives with the lower scores were considered to be the better alternatives. It should be noted, however, that the purpose of this process was to screen alternatives and to develop relative rankings of the alternatives. A minor difference in the scoring should not be interpreted as definitive; these alternatives could be considered as relatively similar. FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG WL R COLORADOADO 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative Al -(Weld County Road 7-112 from Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 8) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minor east-west travel required in order to 3 avoid development adjacent to WCR 6 Continuity between Communities Could connect to Huron Street south of State 1 Highway 7 Average for Transportation Effectiveness 2 2.0 4.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal curves can be designed to 55 mph 2 1.0 2.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent development 2 a Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 1 occurs Right-of-way Impacts Entire right-of-way width would be required 4 a Average for Community Impacts 2.33 2.0 4.67 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Conflicts with the Town of Erie's Dev.Plan,but 2 1.0 2.00 it would direct traffic through com.areas Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would have minor impacts to undeveloped land 2 1.0 2.00 Environmental Impacts Wildlife Avoids prairie dog areas 1 a Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 ^ Air 8 Noise Quality Would have minor air 8 noise impacts to 2 existing development Average for Environmental Impacts 1.33 1.75 2.33 Safety Traffic Safety The roadway would be designed to current 1 2.0 2.00 a design standards Construction Ability to Phase Would have to be constructed in full between 3 .., the cross roads Constructability Traffic Control would only be required at the 1 intersections Average for Construction 2.00 1.0 2.00 Construction Cost ,., Construction Cost Would not be able to utilize an existing roadway 4 1.5 6.00 Total 27.00 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. a ^ FELSBLIRO 4HOLT U I.I.EVIG ae w WIn'Pc I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative B1 -(Weld County Road 7 from Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 8) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minor east-west travel required to transition 2 between WCR 7 and WCR 7-1/2 Continuity between Communities Could connect to Huron Street south of State 1 Highway 7 Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1.5 2.0 3.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal curves can be designed to 55 mph 2 1.0 2.00 Community Impacts _ Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent development 2 _ Access Impacts Existing residences have direct access onto 2 WCR 7 Right-of-way Impacts The existing right-of-way for WCR 7 can be utilized 3 Average for Community Impacts 2.33 2.0 4.67 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Compliments the Town of Erie's Transportation 1 1.0 1.00 Plan and the I-25 Sub-Area Plan Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would impact existing development adjacent to 3 1.0 3.00 WCR 7 Environmental impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 �- Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 AirB Noise Quality Would decrease the air quality and increase the 3 amount of noise to adiacent residences Average for Environmental Impacts 1.67 1.75 2.92 Safety Traffic Safety Conflict points would be introduced with 3 2.0 6.00 driveways adiacent to WCR 7 Construction a Ability to Phase Could be phased with the existing WCR 7 2 Constructability Traffic control would be an issue on WCR 7 3 Average for Construction 2.50 1.0 2.50 Construction Cost Construction Cost Could utilize WCR 7 for cost savings 2 1.5 3.00 Total 28.08 �.. The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. _ , FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG _ w Wil'Pc COLORADO 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative C1 -(Weld County Road 5-1/2 from Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 8) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring ^ Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minor east-west travel required to transition 2 between WCR 5 and WCR 5-1/2 Continuity between Communities Could connect to Sheridan Boulevard south of 1 State Highway 7 .� Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1.5 2.0 3.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal curves can be designed to 55 mph 2 1.0 2.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent development 2 south of WCR 4 Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 1 occurs Right-of-way Impacts Entire right-of-way width would be required 4 Average for Community Impacts 2.33 2.0 4.67 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would direct traffic through a planned 3 1.0 3.00 residential area and through a landfill area Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would have minimal impacts to existing 2 1.0 2.00 development south of WCR 4 Environmental Impacts �- Wildlife Impacts prairie dog areas 2 ^- Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 �^ Air&Noise Quality Would have minimal air&noise impacts to 1 existing development Average for Environmental Impacts 1.33 1.75 2.33 Safety Traffic Safety The roadway would be designed to current 1 2.0 2.00 design standards Construction ^ Ability to Phase Would have to be constructed in full between 3 the cross roads Constructability Traffic Control would only be required at the 3 intersections;landfill area would be a concern Average for Construction 3.00 1.0 3.00 �. Construction Cost Construction Cost Would not be able to utilize an existing roadway 4 1.5 6.00 Total 28.00 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. _ FELEBURG rd HOLT & ULL EVIG !jo 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix East Alternative Al -(Weld County Road 11 from Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 8) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 1 Continuity between Communities Could connect to a realigned York Street and 1 an interchange to E-470 to the south Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1 2.0 2.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Design speed is 45 mph at WCR 4 to avoid irrigation ditch 3 1.0 3.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent residences 3 Access Impacts Existing residences have direct access onto 2 WCR 11 _ Right-of-way Impacts The existing right-of-way for WCR 11 can be utilized 2 Average for Community Impacts 2.33 2.0 4.67 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Could be utilized by future developments 1 1.0 1.00 adjacent to the roadway Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would impact residential areas,but would benefit to the Varra Companies Batch Plant 3 1.0 3.00 Environmental Impacts Wildlife Impacts the edge of a duck&geese area 2 Flood Plain Crosses the floodplain near WCR 8 2 -- Air 8 Noise Quality Would decrease the air quality and increase the 3 amount of noise to adjacent residences Average for Environmental Impacts 2.33 1.75 4.08 Safety Traffic Safety Conflict points would be introduced with adjacent driveways 2 2.0 4.00 Construction Ability to Phase Could be phased between major cross roads 2 a Constructability Traffic control would be an issue 3 Average for Construction 2.50 1.0 2.50 Construction Cost Construction Cost Could utilize the existing gravel roadway 2 1.5 3.00 Total 27.25 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. rdFELSBURG H O L T & ULLF.V I ^ Willie 1.25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix East Alternative Bt -(Weld County Road 9.1/2 from Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 8) a Weight Weighted Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 1 Continuity between Communities Could connect to Washington Street to the 2 south Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1.5 2.0 3.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Contains gradual horizontal curves 1 1.0 1.00 a Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Minimal visual impacts 1 a Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 1 occurs Right-of-way Impacts Entire right-of-way width would be required 4 Average for Community Impacts 2.00 2.0 4.00 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Bisects future developments 5 1.0 5.00 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would have minimal impacts to undeveloped p land 1 1.0 1.00 ^ Environmental Impacts Wildlife Divides a duck&geese area 3 Flood Plain Crosses the floodplain between WCR 6 and 2 WCR 8 Air 8 Noise Quality Would have minimal air&noise impacts to 1 existing development Average for Environmental Impacts 2.00 1.75 3.50 Safety ^ Traffic Safety The roadway would be designed to current 1 2.0 2.00 a design standards Construction Ability to Phase Would have to be constructed in full between 3 a the cross roads Traffic Control would only be required at the Consiructabilfty 1 intersections Average for Construction 2.00 1.0 2.00 Construction Cost Construction Cost Would not be able to utilize an existing roadway 4 1.5 6.00 Total 27.50 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. ^ FELSBURG .-. CdHOLT & U I.I.E VIG fie WINS 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative A2-(Weld County Road 7-112 from Weld County Road 8 to State Highway 52) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minor east-west travel is required to cross the 2 Union Pacific railroad Continuity between Communities Conflicts with the Town of Erie Transporta0on 2 Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 2 2.0 4.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry ^ Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Would require a grade separation at the Union 2 1.0 2.00 Pacific railroad crossing Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Minimal visual impacts 1 Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 2 occurs Right-of-way Impacts Entire right-of-way width would be required 4 ^ Average for Community Impacts 2.33 2.0 4.67 .-. Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would direct traffic through commercial areas 1 1.0 1.00 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would benefit existing commercial 1 1.0 1.00 development adjacent to State Highway 52 Environmental Impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 ^ Air 8 Noise Duality have minimal air&noise impacts to 1 existing development -- Average for Environmental Impacts 1.00 1.75 1.75 Safety Traffic Safety The roadway would be designed to current 1 2.0 2.00 design standards Construction Ability to Phase Would have to be constructed in full between 3 the cross roads Constructability Traffic Control would only be required at the 1 a intersections Average for Construction 2.00 1.0 2.00 Construction Cost Construction Cost Would have no benefits of an existing roadway 5 1.5 7.50 Total 25.92 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. ^ FEISBURG EHOLT B; U IT.F.V IC ^ a — Ili` I.25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative B2-(Weld County Road 7 from Weld County Road 8 to State Highway 52) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring — Transportation Effectiveness — Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel Is required 1 — Continuity between Communities Compliments the Town of Erie Transportation 1 Plan aAverage for Transportation Effectiveness 1 2.0 2.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry — Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Contains gradual horizontal curves 1 1.0 1.00 Community Impacts — Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent residences 3 r Access Impacts Existing residences have direct access onto 4 WCR 7 Right-of-way Impacts Existing right-of-way for WCR 7 can be used 3 but new right-of-way may be problematic Average for Community Impacts 3.33 2.0 6.67 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Compliments the Town of Ede's Transportation 1 1.0 1.00 Plan — Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would impact existing development adjacent to 3 1.0 3.00 WCR 7 Environmental Impacts — Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 — Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Air 8 Noise Quality Would decrease the air quality and increase the 3 amount of noise to adjacent residences Average for Environmental Impacts 1.67 1.75 2.92 Safety — Traffic Safety Conflict points would be introduced with 3 2.0 6.00 adjacent driveways Construction Ability to Phase Could be phased with the existing WCR 7 2 Constructability Traffic control would be an issue on WCR 7 3 — Average for Construction 2.50 1.0 2.50 ..— Construction Cost Construction Cost Could utilize WCR 7 for cost savings 2 1.5 3.00 — Total 28.08 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. , FEISHLBG — 'HC)LT & ULLE VIG aSk OLOAos I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative C2-(Weld County Road 5 from Weld County Road 8 to State Highway 52) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel No east-west travel is required 1 Continuity between Communities Compliments the Town of Erie Transportation 1 Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1 2.0 2.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Contains no horizontal curves 1 1.0 1.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent residences 2 Access Impacts Existing residences have direct access onto 3 WCR 5 Right-of-way Impacts Additional right-of-way may be problematic 3 Average for Community Impacts 2.67 2.0 5.33 -� Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Compliments the Town of Erie's Transportation 3 1.0 3.00 Plan;Adds traffic next to a proposed school Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would impact existing residences adjacent to 3 1.0 3.00 WCR5 Environmental Impacts "-' Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 "" Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Air 8 Noise Quality Would decrease the air quality and increase the 3 amount of noise to adjacent residences Average for Environmental Impacts 1.67 1.75 2.92 Safety Traffic Safety Conflict points would be introduced with 4 2.0 8.00 adjacent driveways and proposed school Construction Ability to Phase Could be phased with the existing WCR 5 2 Constructability Traffic control would be an issue on WCR 5 3 Average for Construction 2.50 1.0 2.50 Construction Cost ... Construction Cost Could utilize WCR 5 for cost savings 2 1.5 3.00 Total 30.75 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. ^ FELSBURG ... HOLT & ULLE V IG fislta 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix East Alternative A2-(Weld County Road 11 from Weld County Road 8 to State Highway 52) a Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 1 Continuity between Communities Compliments the City of Dacono's"Draft" 1 Transportation Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1 2.0 2.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry a Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Normal crown horizontal curves utilized 1 1.0 1.00 Community Impacts a Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent residences 3 Access Impacts Existing residences have direct access onto 3 WCR 11 Right-of--way Impacts Existing residences are in close proximity to the 4 roadway Average for Community Impacts 3.33 2.0 6.67 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Could be utilized by future developments adiacent to the roadway 2 1.0 2.00 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would impact adjacent residences 4 1.0 4.00 Environmental Impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 ^ Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 �- Air&Noise Quality Would decrease the air quality and increase the 3 amount of noise to adiacent residences Average for Environmental Impacts 1.67 1.75 2.92 Safety Traffic Safety Conflict points would be introduced with adjacent driveways 3 2.0 6.00 Construction a Ability to Phase Could be phased with the existing road 2 Constructability Traffic Control would be an issue 3 Average for Construction 2.50 1.0 2.50 Construction Cost Construction Cost Could utilize the existing gravel roadway 2 1.5 3.00 Total 30.08 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. .--. FELSRURO 'HOLT & ULLE VIG WiCOLOR I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix s East Alternative B2-(Weld County Road 9-112 from Weld County Road 8 to State Highway 52) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minor east-west travel required at railroad 2 crossing Continuity between Communities Conflicts with the City of Dacono's"Draft" 4 Transportation Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 3 2.0 6.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Contains reverse curves to cross the railroad 2 1.0 2.00 a Community Impacts a Aesthetic Impacts Minimal visual impacts 2 Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 1 occurs Right-of-way Impacts Entire right-of-way width would be required 4 Average for Community Impacts 2.33 2.0 4.67 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Bisects future developments 4 1.0 4.00 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would have minor impacts to undeveloped land 2 1.0 2.00 Environmental impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 Flood Plain Crosses the flood plain at WCR 12 2 Air&Noise Quality Would have minimal air&noise impacts to 1 existing development ... Average for Environmental impacts 1.33 1.75 2.33 Safety Traffic Safety The roadway would be designed to current design standards 1 2.0 2.00 Construction Ability to Phase Would have to be constructed in full between 3 the cross roads Constructability Traffic Control would only be required at the 1 ^„ intersections Average for Construction 2.00 1.0 2.00 a Construction Cost Construction Cost Would not be able to utilize an existing roadway 4 1.5 6.00 Total 31.00 a The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. 4FEISRURO HOLT & ULLEVIG f04; Win R I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative A3-(Weld County Road 7-1/2 from State Highway 52 to Weld County Road 20) a Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 1 Continuity between Communities Conflicts with the collector designation in the 2 Town of Frederick Comprehensive Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1.5 2.0 3.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal curves can be designed to 55 mph 2 1.0 2.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent development 2 Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 2 occurs Right-of-way Impacts Entire right-of-way width would be required 4 Average for Community impacts 2.67 2.0 5.33 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would divide commercial and residential areas 1 1.0 1.00 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Impacts existing residences north of WCR 18 2 1.0 2.00 Environmental Impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Air&Noise Quality Would have minor air 8 noise impacts to 3 existing development �. Average for Environmental Impacts 1.67 1.75 2.92 Safety Traffic Safety The roadway would be designed to current design standards 1 2.0 2.00 Construction Ability to Phase Would have to be constructed in full between 3 the cross roads Constructability Traffic Control would only be required at the 1 intersections Average for Construction 2.00 1.0 2.00 Construction Cost Construction Cost Would have no benefits of an existing roadway 4 1.5 6.00 Total 26.25 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. NIPFELS6URG 4 H O L T & ULLEVIG aetsA COLORADO I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative B3-(Weld County Road 7 from State Highway 52 to Weld County Road 20) Weight Weighted Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 1 Continuity between Communities Compliments the Town of Frederick 1 Comprehensive Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1 2.0 2.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Contains gradual horizontal curves 1 1.0 1.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent residences 3 Access Impacts Existing residences have direct access onto 2 WCR 7 Right-of-way Impacts The existing right-of-way for WCR 7 can be 2 utilized Average for Community Impacts 2.33 2.0 4.67 aLand Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Compliments the Town of Frederick 1 1.0 1.00 Comprehensive Plan Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would impact existing residences adjacent to p q WCR 7 3 1.0 3.00 Environmental Impacts -- Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Air 8 Noise Quality Would have minor air&noise impacts to 3 existing development Average for Environmental Impacts 1.67 1.75 2.92 Safety Traffic Safety Conflict points would be introduced with 3 2.0 6.00 adjacent driveways Construction Ability to Phase Could be phased with the existing WCR 7 2 Constructability Traffic control would be an issue on WCR 7 3 Average for Construction 2.50 1.0 2.50 Construction Cost Construction Cost Could utilize WCR 7 for cost savings 2 1.5 3.00 a Total 26.08 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. ' FELSBURG HOLT & ULLE V I SI&lw Wi 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative C3-(Weld County Road 5 from State Highway 52 to Weld County Road 20) Weight Weighted Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness ... Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 1 Continuity between Communities Different sections compliment and conflict with 2 the Town of Frederick Comprehensive Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1.5 2.0 3.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Contains reverse curves north of WCR 18 to 2 1.0 2.00 minimize environmental impacts Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent residences 2 Access Impacts Existing residences have direct access onto 2 WCR 7 Right-of-way Impacts The existing right-of-way for WCR 7 can be 2 utilized Average for Community Impacts 2.00 2.0 4.00 Land Use Consequences Different sections compliment and conflict with Land Use Consequences 2 1.0 2.00 the Town of Frederick Comprehensive Plan Existing Development Consequences Existin Develop ment Conse uences Would impact a few existing residences g p q adjacent to WCR 5 2 1.0 2.00 Environmental Impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 Flood Plain The north end crosses into the flood plain 3 Air&Noise Quality Would have minor air 8 noise impacts to 2 existing development Average for Environmental Impacts 2.00 1.75 3.50 Safety Traffic Safety Conflict points would be introduced with 2 2.0 4.00 adjacent driveways a. Construction Ability to Phase Could be phased with the existing WCR 5; 3 Connecting the north end is problematic Constructability Traffic control would be an issue on WCR 5 2 Average for Construction 2.50 1.0 2.50 Construction Cost Construction Cost Could utilize WCR 5 for cost savings 3 1.5 4.50 Total 27.50 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. FELSRURG s HOLT & ULLEVIG as r Wilk COLORADO 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix East Alternative A3-(Weld County Road 11 from State Highway 52 to Weld County Road 20) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 1 Continuity between Communities Compliments the Town of Frederick 1 Comprehensive Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1 2.0 2.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Normal crown horizontal curves utilized 1 1.0 1.00 Community impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent residences 4 Access Impacts Existing residences have direct access onto 4 WCR 11 Right-of-way Impacts Existing residences are in close proximity to the 5 roadway Average for Community impacts 4.33 2.0 8.67 a Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would serve as a central spine for residential 1 1.0 1.00 development Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Impacts existing adjacent residential areas 4 1.0 4.00 Environmental Impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Would decrease the air quality and increase the Air 8 Noise Quality 4 amount of noise to adjacent residences Average for Environmental Impacts 2.00 1.75 3.50 Safety Traffic Safety Conflict points would be introduced with 3 2.0 6.00 adiacent driveways Construction Ability to Phase Could be phased between cross roads 2 Constructability Traffic Control would be an issue 3 Average for Construction 2.50 1.0 2.50 Construction Cost Construction Cost Could utilize the existing gravel roadway 2 1.5 3.00 Total 31.67 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. FELSBURG rd HOLT h U LLE V IC ,44.1.1.41 WI`PG 2.25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix East Alternative B3-(Weld County Road 9-1/2 from State Highway 52 to Weld County Road 20) Weight Weighted Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring ^ Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minor east-west travel required adjacent to 2 drainage ways Continuity between Communities Conflicts with collector designation from the 3 Town of Frederick Comprehensive Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 2.5 2.0 5.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Contains reverse curves to cross drainage 2 1.0 2.00 areas Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent residential 4 developments Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 1 occurs Right-of-way Impacts Entire right-of-way width would be required 4 Average for Community Impacts 3.00 2.0 6.00 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Impacts planned park areas north of WCR 18 4 1.0 4.00 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Impacts existing residential area 3 1.0 3.00 Environmental Impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 Flood Plain Impacts the flood plain between WCR 16 and 3 WCR 20 at Godding Hollow AirB Noise Quality Would have minor air&noise impacts to 2 existing development Average for Environmental Impacts 2.00 1.75 3.50 Safety Traffic Safety The roadway would be designed to current 1 2.0 2.00 design standards Construction Ability to Phase Would have to be constructed in full between 3 the cross roads Constructability Traffic Control would only be required at the 1 intersections Average for Construction 2.00 1.0 2.00 Construction Cost Construction Cost Would not be able to utilize an existing roadway 4 1.5 6.00 -Major drainage crossings Total 33.50 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. ^ . FELSBURC �. (4 HOLT & U L V IC WII'Pc 1.25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative A4-(Weld County Road 7.112 from Weld County Road 20 to State Highway 119) Weight Weighted Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minor east-west travel required to connect to 3 WCR 7 Continuity between Communities Compliments the Town of Frederick 1 Comprehensive Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 2 2.0 4.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry ^ Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal curves can be designed to 55 mph 2 1.0 2.00 ... Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from planned residential 3 development north of WCR 20 Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 1 occurs Right-of-way Impacts Entire right-of-way width would be required 4 Average for Community Impacts 2.67 2.0 5.33 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would be used to link commercial 1 1.0 1.00 a developments to residential developments Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Has minimal impacts to existing developments 2 1.0 2.00 Environmental Impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 Flood Plain Does encroach on the flood plain 2 Air&Noise Qualify Would have minor air&noise impacts to 2 existing development Average for Environmental Impacts 1.67 1.75 2.92 Safety Traffic Safety Conflict points would be reduced by combining 1 2.0 2.00 access from driveways a Construction Ability to Phase Would have to be constructed in full between 4 WCR 20 and WCR 7 Constructability Traffic Control would only be required with 2 adjacent residences and at the intersections Average for Construction 3.00 1.0 3.00 Construction Cost Construction Cost Would have no benefits of an existing roadway 4 1.5 6.00 Total 28.25 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. 0 FELSBURG 'HOLT & ULLEVIG r WIIlk 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix .., West Alternative B4-(Weld County Road 7 from Weld County 20 to State Highway 119) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal out of direction travel required 1 ^ Continuity between Communities Ties into the Town of Frederick Comprehensive 1 Plan on the south end Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1 2.0 2.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal curves can be designed to 55 mph 1 1.0 1.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent residences 3 Existing residences have direct access onto Access Impacts 3 WCR 7 Right-of-way Impacts Additional right-of-way may be problematic 4 Average for Community Impacts 3.33 2.0 6.67 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Ties residential areas together on the south 2 1.0 2.00 end Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would impact existing residences adjacent to p WCR 7 4 1.0 4.00 Environmental impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts on wildlife 1 Flood Plain Would impact the flood plain north of WCR 2 20.5 Air&Noise Quality Would decrease the air quality and increase the 3 amount of noise to adjacent residences ^ Average for Environmental Impacts 2.00 1.75 3.50 Safety Conflict points would be introduced with Traffic Safety 3 2.0 6.00 ,.� adjacent driveways Construction Ability to Phase Could be phased with the existing WCR 7 1 Constructability Traffic Control would be an issue 3 Average for Construction 2.00 1.0 2.00 Construction Cost Construction Cost Could utilize the existing paved roadway 2 1.5 3.00 Total 30.17 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. .-. , FELSBURG 'HOLT & ULLEV I WI`'le COLORADO 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative C4-(Weld County Road 5-1/2 from Weld County 20 to State Highway 119) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 1 —� Continuity between Communities Impacts the City of Longmont plans 3 Average for Transportation Effectiveness 2 2.0 4.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal curves can be designed to 55 mph 2 1.0 2.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from the Longmont Open 4 Space Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 1 occurs Right-of-way Impacts Entire right-of-way width would be required 4 Average for Community Impacts 3.00 2.0 6.00 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Minimal development is anticipated in this 2 1.0 2.00 corridor Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Impacts the Boulder Creek and St.Vrain River P q 4 1.0 4.00 area Environmental Impacts Wildlife Impacts wildlife areas adjacent to the St.Vrain 5 River and Boulder Creek Flood Plain Impacts the flood plain near the St.Vrain River 5 and Boulder Creek Air 8 Noise Quality Would have major impacts to Longmont Open 5 Space Average for Environmental Impacts 5.00 1.75 8.75 Safety Traffic Safety Wildlife crossing the roadway would be a 3 2.0 6.00 concern Construction Ability to Phase Structures at the drainage crossings could limit 4 the phasing Constructability Environmental mitigation may create 4 problematic constructability Average for Construction 4.00 1.0 4.00 Construction Cost Construction Cost Bridges over the St.Vrain River and Boulder 5 1.5 7.50 Creek will increase the cost Total 44.25 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. FELSHLRG (4 HOLT & ULLEVIG Wine COLORADO I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix East Alternative M-(Weld County Road 11 from Weld County Road 20 to State Highway 119) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 1 Continuity between Communities Compliments the Frederick Comprehensive 1 Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1 2.0 2.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Normal crown horizontal curves utilized 1 1.0 1.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent residential 3 developments Access Impacts Several existing driveways have direct access 4 to WCR 11 Right-of-way Impacts Widening the right-of-way for WCR 11 could be 3 problematic Average for Community Impacts 3.33 2.0 6.67 .,. Land Use Consequences ._ Land Use Consequences Would serve as a central spine for residential 1 1.0 1.00 development Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Impacts existing residences adjacent to WCR 4 1.0 4.00 11 Environmental Impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 -- Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 -� Air6 Noise Quality Would decrease the air quality and increase the 4 amount of noise to adiacent residences Average for Environmental Impacts 2.00 1.75 3.50 Safety Traffic Safety Conflict points would be introduced with 3 2.0 6.00 adjacent driveways Construction ^ Ability to Phase The new roadway could be phased with the 2 existing roadway Constructability Traffic control would be an issue 4 Average for Construction 3.00 1.0 3.00 Construction Cost Construction Cost Could utilize the existing roadway 2 1.5 3.00 Total 30.17 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. OP FELSBURG i HOLT & ULLE VI - Wi119€ COLORADO I.25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix East Alternative B4-(Weld County Road 9.3/4 from Weld County Road 20 to State Highway 119) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minor east-west travel is required 2 Continuity between Communities Could be a compromise between the Town of t Frederick and the Town of Firestone Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1.5 2.0 3.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal curves can be designed to 55 mph 2 1.0 2.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Minor visual impacts 2 Access could be restricted as development Access Impacts 1 occurs Right-of-way Impacts Entire right-of-way width would be required 3 _ Average for Community Impacts 2.00 2.0 4.00 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Conflicts with Firestone's and Frederick's plans 2 1.0 2.00 but provides a continuous connection Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would have minor impacts on existing 3 1.0 3.00 development Environmental Impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts on wildlife areas 1 Flood Plain Crosses the flood plain at one location 2 — Air&Noise Quality Would have minimal air&noise impacts to 1 existing development Average for Environmental Impacts 1.33 1.75 2.33 Safety Traffic Safety The roadway would be designed to current 1 2.0 2.00 design standards Construction Ability to Phase Would have to be constructed in full between 3 the cross roads .� Construcfabildy Traffic Control would only be required at the 1 intersections Average for Construction 2.00 1.0 2.00 Construction Cost Construction Cost Would not be able to utilize an existing roadway 3 1.5 4.50 Total 24.83 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. FELSBURO HOLT & ULLEVIC tetw MO 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix East Alternative C4-(Weld County Road 9-1/2 from Weld County Road 20 to State Highway 119) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 2 Continuity between Communities Would connect Firestone and Frederick 1 commercial areas together Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1.5 2.0 3.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry a Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal curves can be designed to 55 mph 2 1.0 2.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Minimal visual impacts 1 Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 1 occurs Right-of-way Impacts Entire right-of-way width would be required 4 Average for Community impacts 2.00 2.0 4.00 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Compliments the Town of Firestone and the 1 1.0 1.00 Town of Frederick plans Existing Development Consequences ^- Existing Development Consequences Would have minimal impacts on existing 2 1.0 2.00 development Environmental Impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts on wildlife areas 1 Flood Plain Crosses the flood plain at two locations 3 ^ Air&Noise Qualify Would have minimal air&noise impacts to 1 existing development Average for Environmental Impacts 1.67 1.75 2.92 Safety Traffic Safety The roadway would be designed to current 1 2.0 2.00 design standards ^ Construction Ability to Phase Would have to be constructed in full between 3 the cross roads ConstructabilRy Traffic Control would only be required at the 1 intersections Average for Construction 2.00 1.0 2.00 -- Construction Cost Construction Cost Would not be able to utilize an existing roadway 4 1.5 6.00 Total 24.92 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. a FELSBURG ,.�. (4HCILT & ULLE V I o :" Wi�'PG COLORADO 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative A5-(Weld County Road 7 from State Highway 119 to Weld County Road 28) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 1 Compliments the"Draft-Town of Mead Continuity between Communities Transportation Plan on the north 1 Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1 2.0 2.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal curves can be designed to 55 mph 2 1.0 2.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from the St.Vrain State Park 5 Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 2 occurs Right-of-way Impacts The existing right-of-way for WCR 7 can be 2 utilized Average for Community Impacts 3.00 2.0 6.00 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Compliments growth on the north end,but 3 1.0 3.00 conflicts with the St.Vrain State Park Existing Development Consequences Would impact the existing residence adjacent Existing Development Consequences to WCR 7 2 1.0 2.00 '-' Environmental Impacts .— Wildlife Impacts several wildlife areas 4 .�, Flood Plain Impacts the flood plain around the St.Vrain 4 River Air&Noise Quality Impacts the St.Vrain State Park 5 Average for Environmental Impacts 4.33 1.75 7.58 Safety Traffic Safety Wildlife crossing the roadway would be a 3 2.0 6.00 concern Construction Ability to Phase Structure across the St.Vrain River could limit 4 phasing opportunities Constructability Environmental mitigation may create 3 problematic constructability Average for Construction 3.50 1.0 3.50 Construction Cost Construction Cost Would be costly to cross the St.Vrain River: 4 1.5 6.00 —� Would benefit from an existing road to the north Total 38.08 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. ' FELSHURC HOLT & UL LEVIC feta COLORADO 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative B5-(Weld County Road 7 to 5.1/2 from State Highway 119 to Weld County Road 28) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel East-west travel is required from WCR 7 to 4 WCR 5-1/2 Continuity between Communities Conflicts with the"Draft"Town of Mead 3 Transportation Plan on the north end Average for Transportation Effectiveness 3.5 2.0 7.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry _ Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal curves can be designed to 55 mph 2 1.0 2.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from the St.Vrain State Park 5 Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 2 occurs Right-of-way Impacts The existing right-of-way for WCR 7 on the 3 south end can be utilized Average for Community Impacts 3.33 2.0 6.67 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Conflicts with land use on the north end and the 5 1.0 5.00 St.Vrain State Park Existing Development Consequences ^ Existing Development Consequences Would impact the existing residence adjacent 2 1.0 2.00 to WCR 7 Environmental Impacts Wildlife Impacts several wildlife areas 5 Flood Plain Impacts the flood plain around the St.Vrain 5 River Air&Noise Quality Impacts the St.Vrain State Park 5 Average for Environmental Impacts 5.00 1.75 8.75 Safety Traffic Safety Wildlife crossing the roadway would be a 3 2.0 6.00 concem Construction Structure across the St.Vrain River could limit Ability to Phase 4 phasing opportunities Constructability Environmental mitigation may create 3 problematic constructability Average for Construction 3.50 1.0 3.50 ^ Construction Cost .,. Construction Cost Would be costly to cross the St.Vrain River;No 5 1.5 7.50 benefits from an existing road to the north Total 48.42 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. OPFELSBURG (,HOLT & ULLEVIG ^ iststn ^ WIN I.25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative C5-(Weld County Road 5-1/2 from State Highway 119 to Weld County Road 28) a Weight Weighted Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minor east-west travel north of State Highway 3 119 is required Continuity between Communities Conflicts with the"Draft"Town of Mead 3 Transportation Plan on the north end a Average for Transportation Effectiveness 3 2.0 6.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Design is restricted to 35 mph on the south end 5 1.0 5.00 by the existing roadway aCommunity Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent residences 4 Access Impacts Access is already controlled on the existing 2 roadway Right-of-way Impacts Additional right-of-way may be problematic 4 Average for Community Impacts 3.33 2.0 6.67 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Conflicts with land use on the north end 3 1.0 3.00 a Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would impact existing residences adjacent to 4 1.0 4.00 WCR 5-1/2 Environmental Impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts on wildlife 1 ^ Flood Plain No apparent impacts on the flood plain 1 ^ Air 8 Noise Quality Would decrease the air quality and increase the 4 amount of noise to adiacent residences �^ Average for Environmental Impacts 2.00 1.75 3.50 Safety Traffic Safety The low design speed north of State Highway 3 2.0 6.00 119 could be a safety hazard Construction Ability to Phase Could be phased with the existing WCR 5-1/2 1 Traffic Control and widening the existing Constructability 3 roadway would be an issue Average for Construction 2.00 1.0 2.00 Construction Cost Construction Cost Could utilize the existing paved roadway 2 1.5 3.00 a Total 39.17 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. a ^ FEL56UHO 4HOLT & ULI.EVIO feet; Mae COLORADO 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix ^ East Alternative A5-(Weld County Road 11 from State Highway 119 to Weld County Road 28) Weight Weighted Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 2 Continuity between Communities Conflicts with the Town of Firestone plan south 4 of State Highway 119 Average for Transportation Effectiveness 3 2.0 6.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal curves can be designed to 55 mph 2 1.0 2.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent residences 3 Access Impacts Existing roads and driveways could be rerouted 2 to access roadway Right-of-way Impacts Existing residences are in the general vicinity of 3 the roadway Average for Community Impacts 2.67 2.0 5.33 �— Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Bisects planned residential land use 4 1.0 4.00 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would have minimal impacts to existing 2 1.0 2.00 residences Environmental Impacts Wildlife Impacts several wildlife areas 5 Flood Plain Crosses the flood plain at multiple locations 5 Air 8 Noise Quality Would decrease the air quality and increase the 4 amount of noise to adjacent residences Average for Environmental Impacts 4.67 1.75 8.17 Safety Traffic Safety The roadway would be designed to current 1 2.0 2.00 design standards Construction Bridge over the St.Vrain would limit the Ability to Phase 4 phasing opportunities Constructability Mitigation for environmental aspects could be 4 severe Average for Construction 4.00 1.0 4.00 Construction Cost Construction Cost New right-of-way,roadway and structure costs 5 1.5 7.50 would drive up the construction cost Total 41.00 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. IPFELSBURG .... (4 HOLT ca 1 ULLEVIG fitw WLiDG COLORADO I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix East Alternative 85-(Weld County Road 9.112 from State Highway 119 to Weld County Road 28) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 2 a Continuity between Communities Compliments the Town of Firestone plan south 1 of State Highway 119 Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1.5 2.0 3.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Reverse curves were designed north of State 2 1.0 2.00 Highway 119 _ Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Would have visual impacts to the mining ponds 3 Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 1 occurs Right-of-way Impacts Entire right-of-way width would be required 4 Average for Community impacts 2.67 2.0 5.33 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Could be utilized by commercial developments 1 1.0 1.00 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Existing streets adjacent to the SW Weld Co. 3 1.0 3.00 Services Complex would have to be redirected Environmental Impacts Wildlife Would impact several wildlife areas 3 Flood Plain Impacts the flood plain adjacent to the St.Vrain 4 River Air 8 Noise Quality Would have minor air 8 noise impacts to 2 existing development Average for Environmental Impacts 3.00 1.75 5.25 Safety Traffic Safety The roadway would be designed to current 1 2.0 2.00 design standards Construction Ability to Phase The bridge of the St.Vrain River may limit the 4 potential to phase the roadway Constructability Impacts to the flood plain and wildlife areas 4 would be a concern Average for Construction 4.00 1.0 4.00 Construction Cost Construction Cost The crossing between the two mining ponds 4 1.5 6.00 would be an additional cost Total 31.58 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. FELSBURG ... (4HOLT h U I.I.F.V I fffitw PG COLORADO 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix East Alternative C5-(Weld County Road 9.114 from State Highway 119 to Weld County Road 28) Weight Weighted Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Out of direction travel required adjacent to the 4 SW Weld Co.Services Complex Continuity between Communities Compliments the Town of Firestone plan south 1 of State Highway 119 Average for Transportation Effectiveness 2.5 2.0 5.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry A 40 mph design speed is achieved adjacent to 4 1.0 4.00 the existing frontage road ^ Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Would compliment the existing roadway 2 network Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 2 occurs Right-of-way Impacts Existing right-of-way could be utilized for a 2 portion of the roadway Average for Community Impacts 2.00 2.0 4.00 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would compliment commercial development in 2 1.0 2.00 the area ^-. Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would require realigning some accesses 2 1.0 2.00 Environmental Impacts Wildlife Would utilize the existing bridge over the St. 2 Vrain to minimize impacts Would utilize the existing bridge over the St. Flood Plain 2 Vrain to minimize impacts Air&Noise QualRy Would have minimal air&noise impacts to 1 existing development Average for Environmental impacts 1.67 1.75 2.92 Safety Traffic Safety Conflicts points may be created with adjacent 3 2.0 6.00 commercial development Construction Ability to Phase Could be phased utilizing the existing roadway 1 Constructability Traffic control would be a concem 4 Average for Construction 2.50 1.0 2.50 Construction Cost Construction Cost Cost would be reduced by using the structure 2 1.5 3.00 that crosses the St.Vrain River Total 31.42 .,� The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. „-� , FELSBURO HOLT & ULLEV I I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative A6-(Weld County Road 7 from Weld County Road 28 to Weld County Road 32) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel No east-west travel is required 1 Continuity between Communities Compliments the"Draft" own of Mead 1 Transportation Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1 2.0 2.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry ^ Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Contains gradual horizontal curves 1 1.0 1.00 a Community Impacts a Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent residences 5 Access Impacts Existing residences have direct access onto 5 WCR 7 Right-of-way Impacts Acquiring additional right-of-way could be 4 problematic Average for Community Impacts 4.67 2.0 9.33 Land Use Consequences ... Land Use Consequences Would connect planned residential areas 2 1.0 2.00 together Existing Development Consequences Would have major impacts to existing Existing Development Consequences r 5 1.0 5.00 residences Environmental Impacts Wildlife Skirts the edge of a duck 8 geese area near 2 Sanborn Reservoir Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Air 8 Noise Quality Would decrease the air quality and increase the 4 amount of noise to adjacent residences Average for Environmental Impacts 2.33 1.75 4.08 Safety Traffic Safety Conflict points would be introduced with 4 2.0 8.00 driveways adjacent to WCR 7 Construction Ability to Phase Could be phased with the existing WCR 7 2 Constructability Traffic control would be an issue on WCR 7 4 Average for Construction 3.00 1.0 3.00 Construction Cost Construction Cost Could utilize the existing WCR 7 for some cost 3 1.5 4.50 savings Total 38.92 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. ^ . FE.LSBURO (4HOLT & U LLE V IC WWRADO 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative B6-(Weld County Road 7 to 5-112 from Weld County Road 28 to Weld County Road 32) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minor east-west travel to transition between 3 WCR 7 and WCR 5-1/2 is required Continuity between Communities Conflicts with the"Draft'Town of Mead 5 Transportation Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 4 2.0 8.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Normal crown horizontal curves can be utilized 1 1.0 1.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Minimal visual impacts 1 Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 1 occurs Right-of-way Impacts Almost the entire right-of-way would be 3 required Average for Community Impacts 1.67 2.0 3.33 a Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would bisect future development 5 1.0 5.00 Existing Development Consequences ... Existing Development Consequences Would have minor impacts to undeveloped land 2 1.0 2.00 Environmental Impacts Wildlife Impacts a duck&geese area near Sanbom 2 Reservoir Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Air 8 Noise Quality Would have minimal air&noise impacts to 1 existing residences Average for Environmental Impacts 1.33 1.75 2.33 Safety Traffic Safety A skew intersection would be proposed at State 3 2.0 6.00 Highway 66 _ Construction Ability to Phase Would have to be constructed in full between 4 the cross roads Constructability Traffic control would only be required at the 1 intersections Average for Construction 2.50 1.0 2.50 a Construction Cost Construction Cost Would not see any benefits of utilizing an 4 1.5 6.00 existing roadway Total 36.17 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. a ,FEISBURG 4 HOLT & U LLEVIG Will I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative C6-(Weld County Road 5-1/2 from Weld County Road 28 to Weld County Road 32) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring a Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 1 Continuity between Communities Conflicts with the"Draft Town of Mead 3 Transportation Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 2 2.0 4.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry ,—` Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal curves can be designed to 55 mph 2 1.0 2.00 ^ Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Minimal visual impacts 2 Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 1 occurs Right-of-way Impacts The entire right-of-way width would be required 5 Average for Community Impacts 2.67 2.0 5.33 _ Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would bisect future development 4 1.0 4.00 Existing Development Consequences ..... Existing Development Consequences Would have minor impacts to undeveloped land 3 1.0 3.00 — Environmental Impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Air 6 Noise Quality Would have minimal air&noise impacts to 2 existing residences Average for Environmental Impacts 1.33 1.75 2.33 Safety Traffic Safety Would be problematic with grade separation at State Highway 66 5 2.0 10.00 Construction ^ Ability to Phase Would have to be constructed in full between 4 the cross roads Constructability Would be problematic with grade separation at 5 ._ State Highway 66 Average for Construction 4.50 1.0 4.50 Construction Cost Construction Cost Would not see any benefits of utilizing an existing roadway 4 1.5 6.00 Total 41.17 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. ^ IP & FELSBURG rd MOLT ULL.EV I ^ fiat WINS I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative D6-(Weld County Road 5 from Weld County Road 28 to Weld County Road 32) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 1 Continuity between Communities Conflicts with the"Draft Town of Mead 3 Transportation Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 2 2.0 4.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal curves can be designed to 55 mph 2 1.0 2.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent residences 3 Access Impacts Existing residences have direct access onto 3 WCR 5 Right-of-way Impacts Acquiring additional right-of-way could be 5 problematic Average for Community Impacts 3.67 2.0 7.33 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would bisect future development 4 1.0 4.00 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would have minor impacts to existing r 3 1.0 3.00 residences Environmental Impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Air&Noise Quality Would decrease the air quality and increase the 3 amount of noise to adjacent residences Average for Environmental Impacts 1.67 1.75 2.92 Safety Traffic Safety Conflict points would be introduced with 3 2.0 6.00 driveways adiacent to WCR 5 Construction Ability to Phase A portion could be phased with the existing WCR 5 3 Constructability Traffic control would be an issue on WCR 5 2 Average for Construction 2.50 1.0 2.50 Construction Cost Construction Cost Could utilize the existing WCR 5 for some cost 3 1.5 4.50 savings Total 36.25 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. ^ , FELSBURG 'HOLT A ^ ULLEVIG WIC I.25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative E6-(Weld County Road 7 to Weld County Road 5.5 from Weld County Road 28 to Weld County Road 32) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minor east-west travel is required 3 Continuity between Communities Conflicts with the'Draft'Town of Mead 3 Transportation Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 3 2.0 6.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal curves can be designed to 55 mph 2 1.0 2.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from two adjacent residences 3 Access Impacts Two existing residences would have to modify 3 a their driveways and access Right-of-way Impacts The entire right-of-way would be required 4 ... Average for Community Impacts 3.33 2.0 6.67 ... Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would impact the Centex Homes planned development south of State Highway 66 4 1.0 4.00 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would impact two existing adjacent residences 3 1.0 3.00 Environmental Impacts Wildlife Would have minor impacts to a Duck&Geese 2 area around Sanborn Reservoir Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Air&Noise Quality Would have minor air&noise impacts to 2 existing residences Average for Environmental Impacts 1.67 1.75 2.92 Safety Traffic Safety Would enhance the safety of crossing State Highway 66 at this location 1 2.0 2.00 Construction Ability to Phase Would have to be constructed in full between 4 the cross roads ... ConsVuctability Traffic control would only be required at the 1 cross roads Average for Construction 2.50 1.0 2.50 Construction Cost Construction Cost Would not see any benefits of utilizing an existing roadway 4 1.5 6.00 Total 35.08 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. .-. „Pi;FELCBURG �HOLT & ULLEVIG : WiitD€ 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative F6-(Weld County Road 5 from Weld County Road 28 to Weld County Road 32) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minor east-west travel is required 4 Continuity between Communities Conflicts with the"Draft" own of Mead 3 Transportation Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 3.5 2.0 7.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal curves can be designed to 55 mph; 3 1.0 3.00 however,several horizontal curves are utilized Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Minimal visual impacts 2 Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 1 occurs Right-of-way Impacts The entire right-of-way would be required 4 ^ Average for Community Impacts 2.33 2.0 4.67 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would bisect future development 3 1.0 3.00 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would have minor impacts to undeveloped land 2 1.0 2.00 Environmental Impacts Wildlife Would have minor impacts to a Duck&Geese 2 area around Sanborn Reservoir Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Air 8 Noise Quality Would have minor air&noise impacts to 2 existing residences Average for Environmental Impacts 1.67 1.75 2.92 Safety Traffic Safety Would have a 1/4 mile spacing of intersection 3 2.0 6.00 to Weld County Road 5 _ Construction Ability to Phase Would have to be constructed in full between 4 the cross roads ConstructabilRy Traffic control would only be required at the 1 cross roads Average for Construction 2.50 1.0 2.50 Construction Cost Construction Cost Would not see any benefits of utilizing an 4 1.5 6.00 existing roadway Total 37.08 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. IPFELSBURG i HOLT & ULLEVIG R+e w Wine 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix East Alternative A6-(Weld County Road 11 from Weld County Road 28 to Weld County Road 32) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness aOut of Direction Travel Minimal out of direction travel required 1 Continuity between Communities Compliments the"Draft"Town of Mead 2 Transportation Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1.5 2.0 3.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Normal crown horizontal curves utilized 1 1.0 1.00 Community impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from existing residences 3 Access Impacts Existing residences have direct access onto 3 WCR 11 Right-of-way Impacts Portions of existing right-of-way could be 3 utilized Average for Community Impacts 3.00 2.0 6.00 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would border a residential land use 2 1.0 2.00 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would impact existing residences adjacent to the roadway 3 1.0 3.00 Environmental Impacts a Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 .., Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Air&Noise Quality Would decrease the air quality and increase the 3 amount of noise to adjacent residences Average for Environmental Impacts 1.67 1.75 Z92 Safety Traffic Safety Conflict points would be introduced with adjacent driveways 3 2.0 6.00 Construction Ability to Phase Could be phased with the existing roadway 3 Constructability Traffic control would be an issue 2 Average for Construction 2.50 1.0 2.50 Construction Cost Construction Cost Could utilize portions of the existing right-of-way and roadway 4 1.5 6.00 Total 32.42 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. a ^ , FF.LSBURG 4HOLT & ULLEVIG Titer WI`'Pc I.25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix East Alternative B6-(Weld County Road 9-1/2 from Weld County Road 28 to Weld County Road 32) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 1 Continuity between Communities Compliments the"Draft" own of Mead 1 Transportation Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1 2.0 2.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Normal crown horizontal curves used 1 1.0 1.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Minimal visual impacts 1 Access Impacts Impacts to existing accesses would be minimal 2 Right-of-way Impacts Portions of existing right-of-way could be 3 utilized Average for Community Impacts 2.00 2.0 4.00 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would divide the planned commercial and 1 1.0 1.00 residential areas Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Existing business parks would benefit from the p q 1 1.0 1.00 continuity of the roadway Environmental Impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 ^ Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Air 8 Noise Quality Would have minimal air 8 noise impacts to 1 existing development Average for Environmental Impacts 1.00 1.75 1.75 Safety Traffic Safety Proposed roadway improvements may be 2 2.0 4.00 limited to the current roadway design Construction Ability to Phase The roadway could be phased between cross 2 roads and using the existing roadway Constructability Traffic control would be a minor concem 2 Average for Construction 2.00 1.0 2.00 Construction Cost Construction Cost There would be a cost savings by using 3 1.5 4.50 portions of the existing roadway Total 21.25 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. a ^ FELSHURG 'HOLT S UL LEVI V IG a wii COLOBc 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative A7-(Weld County Road 7 from Weld County Road 32 to Weld County Road 36) a Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness aOut of Direction Travel No east-west travel is required 1 Continuity between Communities Compliments the'Drafr Town of Mead 1 Transportation Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1 2.0 2.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Cannot vertically provide for a grade separation at the railroad and match grade at WCR 34 5 1.0 5.00 a Community Impacts a Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent development 5 Access Impacts Existing development have direct access onto 5 WCR 7 Right-of-way Impacts Acquiring additional right-of-way could be 4 problematic Average for Community Impacts 4.67 2.0 9.33 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would connect planned residential and commercial areas together 2 1.0 2.00 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would have major impacts to existing development 5 1.0 5.00 Environmental Impacts Wildlife Bisects a mule deer area 2 Flood Plain Crosses the flood plain between WCR 34 and 2 WCR 36 Air&Noise Quality Would decrease the air quality and increase the 4 amount of noise to adjacent residences Average for Environmental Impacts 2.67 1.75 4.67 Safety Traffic Safety Conflict points would be introduced with driveways adjacent to WCR 7 4 2.0 8.00 Construction Ability to Phase Could be phased with the existing WCR 7 2 Constructability Traffic control would be an issue on WCR 7 4 Average for Construction 3.00 1.0 3.00 a Construction Cost Construction Cost Could utilize the existing WCR 7 for some cost savings 3 1.5 4.50 Total 43.50 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. IFELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG a Wage 1.25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study ^ Evaluation Matrix a West Alternative B7-(Weld County Road 5-112 from Weld County Road 32 to Weld County Road 36) — Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 1 „� Continuity between Communities Conflicts with the"Draft"Town of Mead 3 Transportation Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 2 2.0 4.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry a Horizontal and Vertical Geometry No horizontal curves are needed 1 1.0 1.00 Community Impacts a Aesthetic Impacts Minimal visual impacts 1 Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 1 occurs Right-of-way Impacts The entire right-of-way would be required 3 a Average for Community Impacts 1.67 2.0 3.33 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would bisect future development 3 1.0 3.00 — Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would have minor impacts to undeveloped land 2 1.0 2.00 — Environmental Impacts Wildlife Skirts the edge of a mule deer area 2 Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Air&Noise Quality Would have minor impacts on existing 2 residences Average for Environmental Impacts 1.67 1.75 2.92 Safety Traffic Safety The roadway would be designed to current design standards 1 2.0 2.00 Construction Ability to Phase Would have to be constructed in full between 4 the cross roads Constructability Traffic control would only be required at the 1 intersections Average for Construction 2.50 1.0 2.50 Construction Cost Construction Cost Would not see any benefits of utilizing an �^ existing roadway 4 1.5 6.00 a Total 26.75 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. ^ III FELSBUHG&HOLT U LLE V I WUDG vi I.25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative C7-(Weld County Road 5 from Weld County Road 32 to Weld County Road 36) a Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minor east-west travel to transition between 3 WCR 5 and WCR 5-1/2 is required Continuity between Communities Sections of the roadway conflict and 2 compliment the"Draft"Town of Mead Average for Transportation Effectiveness 2.5 2.0 5.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal curves can be designed to 55 mph 2 1.0 2.00 a Community Impacts a Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent residences 3 Access Impacts Existing residences have direct access onto 3 WCR 5 Right-of-way Impacts The existing right-of-way for WCR 5 can be utilized 3 Average for Community Impacts 3.00 2.0 6.00 aLand Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would not impact current land uses 1 1.0 1.00 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would impact existing residences adjacent to WCR 5 3 1.0 3.00 Environmental Impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 .. Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Air 6 Noise Quality Would have minor impacts on existing 3 residences Average for Environmental Impacts 1.67 1.75 2.92 Safety Traffic Safety Conflict points would be introduced with 3 2.0 6.00 driveways adjacent to WCR 5 Construction Ability to Phase Could be phased with the existing WCR 5 1 Constructability Traffic control would be an issue on WCR 5 3 ^ Average for Construction 2.00 1.0 2.00 Construction Cost Construction Cost Could utilize the existing WCR 5 for some cost 2 1.5 3.00 savings Total 30.92 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. a FELSRURG HOLT & ULLEVIG 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix East Alternative A7-(Weld County Road 11 from Weld County Road 32 to Weld County Road 36) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness ^ Out of Direction Travel Minimal out of direction travel required 1 Continuity between Communities Compliments the"Draft"Town of Mead i Transportation Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1 2.0 2.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Normal crown horizontal curves are utilized 1 1.0 1.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from existing residences 3 Access Impacts Existing driveways would have direct access 3 onto the arterial right-of- Right-of-way Impacts Could utilize a portion of the existing rightof- 2 way for WCR 11 Average for Community Impacts 2.67 2.0 5.33 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would serve as a central spine for residential 2 1.0 2.00 development Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Impacts residences adjacent to the WCR 11 3 1.0 3.00 Environmental impacts ^ tNildlile Encroaches on bald eagle,duck,geese,and 4 white pelican areas Flood Plain Crosses the flood plain between WCR 32 and 2 WCR 34 ^ Air 8 Noise Quality Would have minor impacts on existing 2 residences ^- Average for Environmental Impacts 2.67 1.75 4.67 Safety t Conflic points would be introduced with Traffic Safety 3 2.0 6.00 adjacent driveways Construction Ability to Phase Could be phased between cross roads 2 Constructability Traffic Control would be an issue 4 ^ Average for Construction 3.00 1.0 3.00 Construction Cost Construction Cost Could utilize a portion of the existing gravel 3 1.5 4.50 roadway Total 31.50 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. SFELSBURG �. rd HOLT & ULLE V IG Wig I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix East Alternative B7-(Weld County Road 9-3/4 from Weld County Road 32 to Weld County Road 36) ' Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 2 Continuity between Communities Conflicts with the"Draft*Town of Mead Transportation Plan 3 Average for Transportation Effectiveness 2.5 2.0 5.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Reverse curves used to avoid the pond 2 1.0 2.00 Community Impacts a Aesthetics Impacts the view from adjacent residences 3 Access Access could be restricted as development occurs 2 Right-of-way Impacts Entire right-of-way width would be required 4 a Average for Community Impacts 3.00 2.0 6.00 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Divides planned residential areas 5 1.0 5.00 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Impacts access to adjacent residences 2 1.0 2.00 a Environmental Impacts Wildlife Crosses mule deer and white pelican areas 3 — Flood Plain Crosses the flood plain south of WCR 34 2 Air B Noise quality Would have minor impacts on existing residences 2 a Average for Environmental Impacts 2.33 1.75 4.08 Safety Traffic Safety Conflict points would be reduced by combining access from driveways 1 2.0 2.00 Construction As- Ability to Phase Would cause out of direction travel at the phasing limits 4 Traffic Control would only be required at the `1 Constructability intersections 2 a Average for Construction 3.00 1.0 3.00 Construction Cost — Construction Cost Would not be able to utilize any existing roadway features 4 1.5 6.00 Total 35.08 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. Pli FELSBURC HOLT h ULL EV IC felt WinsCOLOR I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix East Alternative C7-(Weld County Road 9-1/4 from Weld County Road 32 to Weld County Road 36) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 2 Continuity between Communities Compliments the'Draft"Town of Mead 1 Transportation Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1.5 2.0 3.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Reverse curves are needed north of WCR 32 3 1.0 3.00 Community Impacts Aesthetics Minimal impacts to residential areas adjacent to 2 the roadway Access Access could be restricted as development 2 occurs Right-of-way Impacts Entire right-of-way width would be required 4 Average for Community Impacts 2.67 2.0 5.33 a Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would divide planned residential and �- commercial areas 1 1.0 1.00 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Minimal impacts to existing development 1 1.0 1.00 Environmental impacts Wildlife Would impact a mule deer area 2 Flood Plain Crosses the flood plain at WCR 34 2 AirB Noise Quality Would have minor impacts on existing 2 residences Average for Environmental Impacts 2.00 1.75 3.50 Safety Traffic Safety Conflict points would be reduced by combining access from driveways 1 2.0 2.00 ^ Construction Ability to Phase Would cause out of direction travel at the 4 phasing limits Constructability Traffic Control would only be required at the 2 intersections Average for Construction 3.00 1.0 3.00 Construction Cost Construction Cost Would have no benefits of an existing roadway 5 1.5 7.50 Total 29.33 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. ,FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG WRD„c; I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative A6-(Weld County Road 7 from Weld County Road 36 to Weld County Road 40) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 1 Continuity between Communities Compliments the'Draf Town of Mead 1 Transportation Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1 2.0 2.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Normal crown horizontal curves utilized 1 1.0 1.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent residences 3 Access Impacts Existing residences have direct access onto 3 WCR 7 Right-of-way Impacts The existing right-of-way for WCR 7 can be utilized 3 Average for Community Impacts 3.00 2.0 6.00 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would connect planned residential areas together 2 1.0 2.00 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would impact existing residences adjacent to 3 1.0 3.00 WCR 7 Environmental Impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 -^� Air&Noise Quality Would decrease the air quality and increase the 4 amount of noise to adjacent residences Average for Environmental Impacts 2.00 1.75 3.50 Safety Traffic Safety Conflict points would be introduced with 3 2.0 6.00 driveways adjacent to WCR 7 Construction _ Ability to Phase Could be phased with the existing WCR 7 2 Constructability Traffic control would be an issue on WCR 7 3 Average for Construction 2.50 1.0 2.50 Construction Cost Construction Cost Could utilize the existing WCR 7 for some cost 3 1.5 4.50 savings Total 30.50 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. Ili EELSRURG ll .HOLT & ULLEVIG octs., Wine g LORADO 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative B8-(Weld County Road 5-1/2 to 7 from Weld County Road 36 to Weld County Road 40) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness '-� Out of Direction Travel Minor east-west travel to transition between 3 WCR 5-1/2 and WCR 7 is required Continuity between Communities Conflicts with the"Draft"Town of Mead 3 Transportation Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 3 2.0 6.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Reverse crown horizontal curves utilized 1 1.0 1.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Minimal visual impacts 1 Access Impacts ours could be restricted as development 1 Right-of-way Impacts The entire right-of-way would be required 3 Average for Community Impacts 1.67 2.0 3.33 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would bisect future development 3 1.0 3.00 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would have minor impacts to undeveloped land 2 1.0 2.00 Environmental Impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 a Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Air&Noise Qualify Would have minor impacts on existing 2 residences ^ Average for Environmental impacts 1.33 1.75 2.33 Safety Traffic Safety The roadway would be designed to current 1 2.0 2.00 design standards Construction a Ability to Phase Would have to be constructed in full between 3 the cross roads Constructability Traffic control would only be required at the 1 intersections Average for Construction 2.00 1.0 2.00 Construction Cost Construction Cost Would not see any benefits of utilizing an 4 1.5 6.00 existing roadway Total 27.67 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. ^ FRLSBURG • (4 HOLT 6 ULLEV I Wi�'Oc qo � 1.25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative C8-(Weld County Road 5-112 to 5 from Weld County Road 36 to Weld County Road 40) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minor east-west travel to transition between 3 WCR 5-1/2 and WCR 5 is required Continuity between Communities Conflicts with the"Draft Town of Mead 3 Transportation Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 3 2.0 6.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry _ Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal curves can be designed to 55 mph 2 1.0 2.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Minimal visual impacts to adjacent residences 2 Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 1 occurs Right-of-way Impacts The entire right-of-way would be required 3 ... Average for Community Impacts 2.00 2.0 4.00 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would bisect future development 3 1.0 3.00 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would have minor impacts to undeveloped land 2 1.0 2.00 _ Environmental Impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Air B Noise Quality Would have minor impacts on existing 2 residences Average for Environmental Impacts 1.33 1.75 2.33 Safety Traffic Safety The roadway would be designed to current 1 2.0 2.00 design standards _ Construction Ability to Phase Would have to be constructed in full between 3 .., the cross roads Constructability Traffic control would only be required at the 1 .. intersections Average for Construction 2.00 1.0 2.00 Construction Cost Construction Cost Would not see any benefits of utilizing an 4 1.5 6.00 existing roadway Total 29.33 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. _ pm FELSBUftG 'HOLT & ULLEVIG Atte I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix East Alternative A8-(Weld County Road 11 from Weld County Road 36 to Weld County Road 40) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 1 Continuity between Communities Conflicts with the'Drafl Town of Mead 4 Transportation Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 2.5 2.0 5.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Normal crown horizontal curves are utilized 1 1.0 1.00 Community impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent existing 2 residences Access Impacts Few driveways access this portion of WCR 11 2 right-of- Right-of-way Impacts Could utilize a portion of the existing right-of- 2 way for WCR 11 Average for Community Impacts 2.00 2.0 4.00 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would serve as a central spine for residential 2 1.0 2.00 development Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Minimal impacts to existing development 1 1.0 1.00 a Environmental Impacts ^ Wildlife No apparent impacts on wildlife 1 Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Air&Noise Quality Would have minor impacts on existing 2 residences Average for Environmental Impacts 1.33 1.75 2.33 Safety Traffic Safety Could be restricted by the existing road 2 2.0 4.00 a �., Construction Ability to Phase Could be phased between cross roads 2 Constructability Traffic Control would be an issue 4 a Average for Construction 3.00 1.0 3.00 Construction Cost Construction Cast Could utilize a portion of the existing gravel 3 1.5 4.50 roadway Total 26.83 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. a ^ ,FELSBURG ^ HOLT & U I.L E.VIG Oto- /'1® '+ml COLOR 1.25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix East Alternative B8-(Weld County Road 9.3/4 from Weld County Road 36 to Weld County Road 40) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring '-" Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 2 Continuity between Communities Conflicts with the"Draft'Town of Mead 3 Transportation Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 2.5 2.0 5.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Normal crown horizontal curves utilized 1 1.0 1.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent existing 2 residences Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 2 occurs Right-of-way Impacts Entire right-of-way width would be required 4 Average for Community Impacts 2.67 2.0 5.33 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Bisects planned residential areas 5 1.0 5.00 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Impacts access to adjacent residences 2 1.0 2.00 Environmental Impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Air 8 Noise Quality Would have minor impacts on existing 2 residences Average for Environmental Impacts 1.33 1.75 2.33 Safety Traffic Safety Conflict points would be reduced by combining 2 2.0 4.00 access from driveways Construction _ Ability to Phase Would have to be constructed in full between 3 the cross roads Consfructability Traffic Control would only be required at the 1 intersections Average for Construction 2.00 1.0 2.00 .., Construction Cost Construction Cost Would not have any benefits from an existing 4 1.5 6.00 roadway Total 32.67 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. a _ rd FELSBURG HOLT ;Si. ULLEVIG win 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix East Alternative C8-(Weld County Road 9-114 from Weld County Road 36 to Weld County Road 40) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel No out of direction travel required 1 Continuity between Communities Compliments the"Draft"Town of Mead 1 Transportation Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1 2.0 2.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry a Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Reverse curves used south of WCR 40 2 1.0 2.00 Community Impacts ^ Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent existing 2 residences Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 1 oowrs Right-of-way Impacts Entire right-of-way width would be required 4 Average for Community Impacts 2.33 2.0 4.67 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would divide planned residential and 1 1.0 1.00 commercial areas Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Minimal impacts to existing development 1 1.0 1.00 Environmental Impacts ^ Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 a Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Air 8 Noise Quality Would have minor impacts on existing 2 residences Average for Environmental Impacts 1.33 1.75 2.33 Safety Traffic Safety Conflict points would be reduced by combining 2 2.0 4.00 access from driveways _ Construction Ability to Phase Would have to be constructed in full between 3 the cross roads Constructability Traffic Control would only be required at the 1 intersections Average for Construction 2.00 1.0 2.00 Construction Cost a Construction Cost Would have no benefits of an existing roadway 4 13 6.00 Total 25.00 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. a ^ FELSF3URG dHOLT Ai ULLE V IG wins I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative A9-(Weld County Road 7 from Weld County Road 40 to State Highway 56) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 1 Continuity between Communities Connects the"Draft"Mead Transportation Plan t to the Johnstown Transportation Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1 2.0 2.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry No horizontal curves are required 1 1.0 1.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent residences 2 Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 2 occurs Right-of-way Impacts The existing right-of-way for WCR 7 can be 3 utilized Average for Community Impacts 233 2.0 4.67 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would not have any apparent impacts to 2 1.0 2.00 planned land uses ^ Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would have minor impacts to adjacent 2 1.0 2.00 residences Environmental impacts �— Wildfire Crosses several wildlife areas at the Little 3 Thompson River Flood Plain Crosses the flood plain at the Little Thompson 3 River Air&Noise Quality Would have minor impacts on existing 3 residences Average for Environmental impacts 3.00 1.75 5.25 Safety Traffic Safety The roadway would be designed to current 2 2.0 4.00 design standards Construction Ability to Phase Could be phased with the existing WCR 7 2 Constructability Traffic control would be an issue on WCR 7 3 Average for Construction 2.50 1.0 2.50 Construction Cost Construction Cost Could utilize the existing WCR 7 for some cost 2 1.5 3.00 savings Total 26.42 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. ' FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Wi`RDG COLORI-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative B9-(Weld County Road 5 from Weld County Road 40 to State Highway 56) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 1 Continuity between Communities Utilizes a section line and existing roadway 2 Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1.5 2.0 3.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal curves can be designed to 55 mph 2 1.0 2.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent residences 2 Access Impacts Existing residences have direct access onto 3 WCR 5 Right-of-way Impacts The existing right-of-way for WCR 5 can be utilized 3 Average for Community Impacts 2.67 2.0 5.33 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would not have any apparent impacts to 2 1.0 2.00 planned land uses Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would have minor impacts to adjacent r 3 1.0 3.00 residences Environmental Impacts Wildlife Crosses several wildlife areas at the Lithe 3 Thompson River Flood Plain Crosses the flood plain at the Little Thompson 3 River Air&Noise Quality Would have minor impacts on existing 3 residences Average for Environmental Impacts 3.00 1.75 5.25 Safety Traffic Safety The roadway would be designed to current design standards 2 2.0 4.00 Construction Ability to Phase Could be phased with the existing WCR 5 2 Constructability Traffic control would be an issue on WCR 5 3 ^ Average for Construction 2.50 1.0 2.50 Construction Cost Construction Cost Could utilize the existing WCR 5 for some cost 2 1.5 3.00 savings ^ Total 30.08 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. ,FEL58URG HOLT & ULLEVIG I-25 Parallel 4Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix East Alternative A9-(Weld County Road 11 from Weld County Road 40 to State Highway 56) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal out of direction travel required 1 Continuity between Communities Sections conflict with the Johnstown 3 Transportation Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 2 2.0 4.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Normal crown horizontal curves are utilized 1 1.0 1.00 a Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from existing residences 3 Access Impacts Driveways and collectors currently access 2 WCR 11 right-of- Right-of-way Impacts Could utilize a portion of the existing 2 way for WCR 11 Average for Community Impacts 2.33 2.0 4.67 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Could tie planned residential developments 2 1.0 2.00 together Existing Development Consequences �„ Existing Development Consequences Would impact existing residential development 5 1.0 5.00 east of WCR 11 Environmental Impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts on wildlife 1 Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 �- Air&Noise Quality Would have minor impacts on existing 3 residences Average for Environmental Impacts 1.67 1.75 2.92 Safety Traffic Safety Safety at accesses would be a concern 2 2.0 4.00 Construction a Ability to Phase Could be built in multiple phases 2 Constructability Traffic Control would be an issue 5 Average for Construction 3.50 1.0 3.50 Construction Cost Construction Cost Could utilize a portion of the existing roadway 4 1.5 6.00 Total 33.08 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. _ , FFLSSURG MOLT & ULLF.VIG �ffi w Wine coz.or ADO I.25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix East Alternative B9-(Weld County Road 9-1/2 from Weld County Road 40 to State Highway 56) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Existing terrain creates a curvilinear alignment 3 Continuity between Communities Compliments the Town of Berthoud"Draft" 1 Land Use Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 2 2.0 4.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Design speed would have to be reduced 4 through this corridor 1.0 4.00 ^ Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Designed to blend in with existing terrain 2 Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development 1 occurs Right-of-way Impacts Entire right-of-way width would be required 4 Average for Community Impacts 2.33 2.0 4.67 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Compliments the Town of Berthoud"Draft" 1 1.0 1.00 Land Use Plan Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences No apparent impacts to existing developments 1 1.0 1.00 Environmental Impacts Idli/e Impacts mule deer and great blue heron areas 3 adjacent to the Little Thompson River Flood Plain Crosses the flood plain at the Little Thompson 3 River Air 8 Noise Quality Would have minimal impacts on existing 1 residences a Average for Environmental Impacts 2.33 1.75 4.08 Safety Traffic Safety Conflict points would be reduced by combining 1 2.0 2.00 access from driveways Construction Ability to Phase Would have to be constructed in a single phase 3 Constructability Traffic Control would not be an issue 1 Average for Construction 2.00 1.0 2.00 a Construction Cost Construction Cost Would have a high initial cost 4 1.5 6.00 Total 28.75 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. — FELSBURG OP �HOLT di ULLEVIG aetat; WL`iPG COLORADO 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix —� West Alternative A10-(Weld County Road 7 from State Highway 56 to Weld County Road 50) Weight Weighted Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal east-west travel is required 1 Continuity between Communities Compliments the Johnstown Transportation 1 Plan '- Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1 2.0 2.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Normal crown horizontal curves utilized 1 1.0 1.00 Community Impacts _ Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent residences 3 Access Impacts Existing residences have direct access onto 4 WCR 7 The existing right-of-way for WCR 7 can be Right-of-way Impacts 3 utilized Average for Community Impacts 3.33 2.0 6.67 Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Would serve the light industrial land use 1 1.0 1.00 between WCR 48 and State Highway 60 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would impact existing residences adjacent to 3 1.0 3.00 WCR 7 Environmental Impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Air&Noise Quality Would decrease the air quality and increase the 4 amount of noise to adjacent residences Average for Environmental Impacts 2.00 1.75 3.50 Safety Conflict points would be introduced with Traffic Safety 3 2.0 6.00 driveways adjacent to WCR 7 -- Construction Ability to Phase Could be phased with the existing WCR 7 2 Constructability Traffic control would be an issue on WCR 7 3 Average for Construction 2.50 1.0 2.50 Construction Cost Construction Cost Could utilize the existing WCR 7 for some cost 3 1.5 4.50 savings as- Total 30.17 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. FELSRURG HOLT & LILLEVIG WIMP COLORADO 7-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix West Alternative B10-(Weld County Road 5 to 7 from State Highway 56 to Weld County Road 50) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel East-west travel to transition between WCR 5 4 and WCR 7 is required Continuity between Communities Would not create a north-south and east-west 3 roadway network Average for Transportation Effectiveness 3.5 2.0 7.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal curves can be designed to 55 mph 2 1.0 2.00 Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from adjacent residences 2 Access Impacts Existing residences have direct access onto 2 WCR 5 Right-of-way Impacts Portions of the existing right-of-way for WCR 5 4 can be utilized Average for Community impacts 2.67 2.0 5.33 Land Use Consequences --• Land Use Consequences Would bisect parcels for future development 3 1.0 3.00 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Would have minimal impacts to existing 2 1.0 2.00 residences adjacent to WCR 5 Environmental Impacts ^ Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Air&Noise Quality Would have minor impacts on existing 2 residences Average for Environmental Impacts 1.33 1.75 2.33 Safety Conflict points would be introduced with Traffic Safety 2 2.0 4.00 ,.. driveways adjacent to WCR 5 Construction Ability to Phase Could be phased with the existing WCR 5 2 Constructability Traffic control would be an issue on WCR 5 2 Average for Construction 2.00 1.0 2.00 ... Construction Cost Construction Cost Could utilize the existing WCR 5 for some cost 3 1.5 4.50 savings Total 32.17 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. a ^ -FELSBURG 'HOLT & ULLEVIG ^ WE.WOO 1.25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix East Alternative A10-(Weld County Road 11 from State Highway 56 to Weld County Road 50) Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Weight Weighted Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Out of direction travel would be required to shift 2 over to WCR 9-1/2 Continuity between Communities Conflicts with the Johnstown Area 4 Comprehensive Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 3 2.0 6.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry ^ Horizontal and Vertical Geometry The corridor could be designed for 55 mph 1 1.0 1.00 ^ design speed _ Community Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Impacts the view from existing residences 3 Access Impacts Driveways currently access WCR 11 3 Rightof--way Impacts Could utilize a portion of the existing right-of- 2 way for WCR 11 Average for Community Impacts 2.67 2.0 5.33 �— Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Bisects a development currently being 4 1.0 4.00 reviewed by Johnstown north of WCR 46 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Alignment is in dose proximity to existing p q residences at WCR 46 3 1.0 3.00 Environmental Impacts Wildlife Impacts many wildlife areas adjacent to the 4 Little Thompson River Flood Plain Crosses the flood plain at the Little Thompson 3 River Air 8 Noise Quality Would decrease the air quality and increase the 4 amount of noise to adjacent residences Average for Environmental Impacts 3.67 1.75 6.42 Safety Traffic Safety Safety at existing driveway accesses would be 2 2.0 4.00 a concem Construction a Ability to Phase Could add additional traffic to cross roads 3 depending on phasing Constructability Traffic Control would be minimal 2 Average for Construction 2.50 1.0 2.50 Construction Cost Construction Cost Would have a high initial cost 4 1.5 6.00 Total 38.25 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. — , FEtSRURO 'HOLT & ULLEVIC WB`'D,c 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Evaluation Matrix East Alternative B10-(Weld County Road 9-1/2 from State Highway 56 to Weld County Road 50) Weight Weighted Evaluation Criteria Comments Scoring Factors Scoring Transportation Effectiveness Out of Direction Travel Minimal out of direction travel required 2 Continuity between Communities Compliments the Johnstown Comprehensive 1 Plan Average for Transportation Effectiveness 1.5 2.0 3.00 Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Horizontal and Vertical Geometry Design speed would have to be reduced 3 1.0 3.00 through this corridor Community impacts Aesthetic Impacts Minimal view impacts 2 ^ Access Impacts Access could be restricted as development i occurs Right-of-way Impacts Entire right-of-way width would be required 4 Average for Community Impacts 2.33 2.0 4.67 ^ Land Use Consequences Land Use Consequences Compliments the area Land Use Plans 1 1.0 1.00 Existing Development Consequences Existing Development Consequences Minimal impacts to existing developments 2 1.0 2.00 Environmental Impacts Wildlife No apparent impacts to wildlife 1 Flood Plain No apparent impacts to the flood plain 1 Air&Noise Duality Would have minor impacts on existing 2 residences Average for Environmental Impacts 1.33 1.75 2.33 Safety Traffic Safety Conflict points would be reduced by combining 1 2.0 2.00 access from driveways Construction Ability to Phase Could add additional traffic to cross roads 3 depending on phasing Constructability Traffic Control would not be an issue 1 Average for Construction 2.00 1.0 2.00 Construction Cost Construction Cost Would have a high initial cost 4 1.5 6.00 Total 26.00 The criteria are scored from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best. a .FELSBURG ^-.. /'HOLT & U LLF.VIC ^ I. 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL GEOMETRY DESIGN CRITERIA a ^ ^ ' FELSBURG HOLT & ^ ULLEVIG HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL GEOMETRY STANDARDS 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Wine Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 50) COLORADO Design Element Values Units Roadway Classification Arterial Posted Speed Limit 45 MPH Maximum Design Speed 50 MPH Minimum Lane Width 12 Feet Minimum Driving Lanes 4 Curb and Gutter Type Type 2 Shoulder/Bike Lane 6' Paved — Minimum Right-of-Way Width 120 I Feet Horizontal Alignment Criteria Minimum Curve Radius 930.00 Feet Maximum Degrees of Curvature Minimum Stopping Sight distance 425 Feet Minimum Length of Tangents Between All Curves 100 Feet Minimum Clear Zone From the Edge of Pavement Feet Superelevation (e max) (M-203-12 Superelevation Streets) 4% Vertical Alignment Criteria Minimum Length of Vertical Curves Crest 300 Feet Sag 300 Feet K-Value Ranges Crest Vertical Curve Minimum 84 Sag Vertical Curve Minimum 96 Stopping Sight Distance Minimum 425 Feet Minimum Passing Sight Distance 1,835 Feet Maximum Grade Break without a Vertical Curve 0.20% Maximum Longitudinal Grade 4% Minimum Longitudinal Grade 0.5% FELSBURG /II HOLT & l ULLEVIG row 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study LOCAL AGENCIES COMMENTS a a a a a a ^ ^ ^ ^ a NJFELSBURG C\ HOLT & ^ ULLEVIG T)) IC ELIWI' _t APR 1 1 2003 FELSBURG,HOLT&ULLEVIG Colorado State Parks t NORTH REGION OFFICE • 3745 E.Prospect Road•Fort Collins,Colorado 80525•Phone(970)491.1168•FAX(970)491-7136•www.parksstate.co.us April 3;2003 Weld County Commissioners Office 915 101°St. Greeley, CO.80634 Dear Board of Commissioners, . I am writing this letter in response to Weld County's 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study(Study). As I understand it, one function of the Study is to seek public comment and local government input on proposed arterial roadway alignments running parallel to I-25, on the east and west, from Highway 7 north to Highway 60. I am very concerned the County is considering several proposed alignments(V/CR 7 and WCR 9 1)that would be detrimental to Slate Park'efforts associated with the St.Vrain Legacy Project. a It is well know by all the Legacy project partners,including Weld County, of State Park plans for land acquisition and consequent park development at St.Vrain State Park(formerly Barbour Ponds State Park). In December 2002, Great Outdoors Colorado(GOCO)granted the St.Vrain Legacy Project partners$11.3 million. State Parks leveraged their share of this funding for the purchase two properties(formerly Rademacher and LaFarge)that added 280 acres to the park. It is on this acreage that significant park development will occur including full service campgrounds,picnic areas, fishing ponds,multiple use trails,and a park visitor center. Further development is planned around ponds near the Southwest Weld County Services Complex. Phased development will occur over the next five years and could reach $13.5 million at project completion. Weld County Road 7 bisects the Rademacher and LaFarge properties. Currently it is a two-lane blacktop road that carries park visitors and minimal local traffic. I can assure you,a 4-lane road project is something State Parks did not contemplate prior to making such a large investment in land acquisition. In addition, it is conceivable that GOCO would not have looked so favorably upon this project for Legacy funding. A major arterial roadway carrying large volumes of traffic through a State Park on WCR 7 and/or WCR 91/2 is not a compatible use. In fact,it is highly objectionable and undermines State Park,GOCO and Legacy partner efforts and desires in and around St. Vrain State Park. Finally, improvements to WCR 7 will come extremely close to a major heron rookery on park property near the river. It is our understanding that the Division of Wildlife has not been contacted about wildlife and habitat issues. We feel this proposal needs more study, an expansion of the project area,and more input from all concerned parties. STATE OF COLORADO•COLORADO STATE PARKS Bill Owens,Governor•Greg E.Watcher,Executive Director,Department of Natural Resources•Lyle Laverty Director,Colorado State Parks Colorado Board of Parks and Outdoor Recreation: Doug Cole,Chair•Dr.Tom Ready,Secretary,Natural Areas Representative• a While we appreciate the need to plan for transportation issues as a result of strong growth in the area,we believe there are other alternatives. Therefore, at this time State Parks is strongly opposed to WCR 7 and WCR 9 I being designated as"preferred"alignments in the Study. Sincerely,arrr Jam .'td1��J`.oe North Regional Manager,Colorado State Parks ^ Cc: Lyle Laverty, Director,Colorado State Parks Doug Will,Park Manager, St.Vrain State Park Dan Woldford, Director,Longmont Open Space Barb Kirlmreyer, Local Affairs Jeff Dankenbring,P.E.,Felsburg Holt and Ullevig a 2 —Jetff.Dankenbring From: Gene Putman [Gene.Putman@cityofthornton.net] Sent: Friday,April 11, 2003 4:27 PM To: Jeff.Dankenbring@fhueng.com Cc: Joyce Hunt --Subject: Weld Co. I-25 4-Lane Arterial Study- Off, 'aye reviewed the information you sent me and have the following comments. , The one alternative for taking York St.(Weld Co. Road 11)from 168th Ave.(Weld Co. Road 2)to the southwest and have a nnection to Washington St. is not feasibly since there is a residential subdivision in the path of this alternative. Attached is a combined drawing of the southern part of the study info you sent me with information on roadway layouts in the City —Thornton. Please look at the red line that starts on Washington St. and goes to the northeast and connects with S.H. 7 and then yppuld connect to your blue line in Broomfield's area. This is the connection that is acceptable to the Traffic Engineer of CDOT S and .n the City Comp. Plan. 3],On the same attachment is the connection of WCR 11 to the York Street alignment in the City of Thornton. Because WCR 2/ 3th Ave. is baseline for the 6th Principle Meridian in Colorado all of the section lines are not aligned. I would suggest this 'qnment(Blue line on drawing)because it would be a good connection to the E-470 interchange at York St. and would then provide a good connection to the area in Weld Co. you have any questions, please contact me. ne Putman, P.E., P.T.O.E. ' my of Thornton ^3/2003 t ; ripen- t _- ., :7-7...i.x F,, i„.. a ..i��' (::.kin :y"r'� _ r..'..•4:-,r' -.,7-. a ••• ''..ii i.' *nri& .,"=,.. . -f•:''''...r.......,;•-••.It ..1.1$ ... wet,•:.:1 ,. ..... (.} + ;•7:',";spa--•/�� r �,� i rri (' x r t A r 'l � �� r ` r' 'If!` irJ^'� ',.. .4;,N1% ,,:i) l'—': :.1"1-, I .1' . .. ., I .\\ fit\ 1_._ • r • .. .........11, �_ A I:::' .�__._..►y,,��.._�p,..�y�. CAT TN flit!, 79AR•OTMM 4M.! ADD 47CdC J YtaWI no...w•tt�+vv.•-.at K.IONIA • llt 7hcffnlcm ... x "�"t 4PkwariPi'' ... .w rte' ' :".'�Mnr..... #0+;17000 3�8-�3$733 .....-i n,•►n UU.:.Z'tp mot. .._ AI Il A Jef:Dankenbring ^ From: Karen Cumbo [cumbo@ci.dacono.co.us] Sent: Monday, April 14,2003 6:23 PM To: jeff.dankenbring@fhueng.com -- Subject: 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Weld County a Arterial Study.doc... a ^ a a 4/15/2003 8:08 AM 1 Jeff, I apologize for the lateness of this response. Apparently I buried the mailing somewhere in the stacks on my desk. The City of Dacono can not accommodate a 4-lane arterial on the WCR 9 1/2 alignment. Several subdivisions have already been platted in Sections 14, 11, and 2 (the three sections just east of I- 25). We are not particularly supportive of an alignment along WCR 11, either. We are a little frustrated that we have been making kthis same statement for some time, and still are asked to comment on it. We can not change approved final plats to accommodate this road. The City of Dacono recently signed an intergovernmental agreement with Weld County about WCR 13. This was not an easy process, but agreement was reached on intended use, speeds, access, etc. City Council did not anticipate that there would need to be an additional north/south arterial in that area, and a second major arterial within one mile does not seem to make sense. The City's Comprehensive Plan, the Weld County/Tri-Town Baseline Standards, and our draft Transportation Plan all contemplate WCR 13 as the major north/south arterial. We support that, and are happy to work with Weld County on the design and construction of that arterial so that it a meets the needs of all of the affected parties. If there needs to be an additional arterial, perhaps it should be further east, in the undeveloped land east of the Tri-Towns, but well west of US 85. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Karen J. Cumbo City Administrator Jeff.Dankenbring From: Wendi Palmer[wpalmer@ci.erie.co.us] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 2:11 PM To: Jeff.Dankenbring Subject: RE: Weld County 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study — Hi Jeff, - Thanks for the maps. Town of Erie Staff has reviewed the alignments and offer the following comments. The preferred alignment is the one between WCR-7 and 1-25. This will direct traffic through our commercial/business area along 1-25. We are currently processing an annexation of Section 10, the exact alignment would vary depending upon the — actual development of the commercial properties. The alignment that begins at Sheridan and curves west to WCR-5 is undesirable. On the south end the alignment is — between an existing land fill and the Town's water storage and high pressure pumping facilities. Construction in this area would be difficult and costly. A new High School is proposed at the intersection of WCR-5 and WCR-8, we believe that the - level of traffic generated by the alignment would be undesirable for the school. The alignment along WCR-7 is less desirable due to the existing residential development and it would direct traffic to the - edge of our future commercial area and not through it. Another item we would like acknowledged is the future interchange at WCR-10 and 1-25. If you have any questions please call me at 303-926-2875 Wendi Palmer Civil Engineer, Town of Erie Original Message From: Jeff.Dankenbring [mailto:Jeff.Dankenbring@FHUENG.COM] Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 12:44 PM ^ To: Wendi Palmer; Bill George (BGeorge@ci.berthoud.co.us); Bruce Nickerson (Bruce@Nickersonco.com); Cheri Andersen (CAndersen@ci.firestone.co.us); Dick Wyatt(Fredtown@cmconline.com); Drew Scheltinga (dscheltinga@co.weld.co.us); Frank Hempen (fhempen@co.weld.co.us); Gene Putman (gputman@ci.thornton.co.us); Glenn W. Gibson (GGibson@larimer.org); Gloria Hice-Idler(Gloria.Hice- idler@dot.state.co.us); Jeanne M. Shreve (Jshreve@co.adams.co.us); Joe Maurier (joe.maurier@state.co.us); Judy Ding; Karen Cumbo (cumbo@ci.dacono.co.us); Kirk Oglesby (koglesby@ci.broomfield.co.us); Mark Peterson (MPeterson@larimer.org); Mickey Leyba-Farnsworth (mlf@jehnengineering.com); Mike Friesen (Meadtown@aol.com); Monica Mika (mmika@co.weld.co.us); Trent Marshall (tmarshall@northglenn.org); Wayne Howard (whoward@co.weld.co.us); Dave.Hattan; Bob.Felsburg Subject: Weld County I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Importance: High Local Agency Group, Hopefully all of you by now have received a package for the above mentioned study. I wanted to e-mail everyone and maybe clarify what we are looking for from the local agencies. We did include a full size and half size plot of the alternatives as we have created them to date. The alignments shown on this plot are still up for discussion as well as any other alignments that may be conceived by the local agencies. Please keep in mind that if the local agencies create a new alignment, we will have to make sure that the new alignment connects into something. These revised alignments or comments for the alignments as we have them shown on the plots is the first thing we are looking for from the local agencies. The other item we would like the local agencies to review is the evaluation matrix with the definitions and the example that we provided. We would like to receive comments (if there are any)for the methodology we are using 4/29/2003 to narrow down the alternatives to select a preferred alignment for each side of I-25. If you have any questions about this or the material you have received, please give me a call so I can assist in any way I can. Thanks, Jeff Dankenbring, P.E. Felsburg Holt& Ullevig 7951 East Maplewood Avenue Suite 200 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 (303) 721-1440 4/29/2003 ead Town 2of6 Mead P.O. Box 626 441 Third Street Kind•"A Little Town Mead,Colorado 80542-0626 With w Big Future" (970)535.4477 April 21, 2003 Jb) LE( {EflW{Efl Mr. Jeff Dankenbring APR 13 2003 Felsburg Holt& Ullevig - - 7951 E. Maplewood Ave., Suite 200 FELSBURG,H0LT 8 ULLEVIG Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Dear Jeff: This letter is in reply to the arterial alternatives drawing and to the evaluation matrix that was transmitted to the Town on March 27, 2003. Relative to the matrix, the only significant comment of the Town applies to the geometry standards. The study appears to desire a consistent cross-section of the pavement, which may not be possible as arterials go through different communities or to meet local standards; for example, width of bike lanes. The issue of cross-sections should be kept in mind but reserved for a later date so that the primary goal of selecting a corridor is focused upon. Relative to the alternatives drawing, the Town Board of Mead is opposed to the widening of .. WCR 7 through the center of the community, and thus in effect, its designation as a reliever arterial because of the impact this would have on long-established residents and neighborhoods. In addition, on the west side, the Board is not enthusiastic about a"bypass" alternative that would run between WCR 7 and WCR 5 because it is also perceived as too close to the established Town. It did not endorse WCR 5 as the arterial, either. Some Board members think the arterial should be farther west. On the east side of 1-25, the Board remains unconvinced of the particular pros or cons of alternatives around WCR 9 'A and WCR 11. They question why more emphasis is not being put on WCR 13, since Weld County earlier sought intergovernmental agreements for access management for that road because it will be in effect an extension of Colorado Boulevard northward from the Denver metropolitan area. Accordingly, the alternatives need further study. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincceer'ely,r / �G� , CSC FAAA.,c/ Michael D. Friesen Town Administrator IFELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG engineering paths to transportation solutions April 24, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO: Jeff Dankenbring FROM: David E. Hattan, P.E., PTOE SUBJECT: Johnstown's Comments on Preliminary Alignments and Evaluation Criteria PROJECT: Weld County 1-25 Corridor Parallel Arterial Study FHU Project#99-201 In reference to the materials that you recently provided, I have the following comments on behalf of -- the Town of Johnstown: • The WCR 9.5 alignment that curves to the east south of SH 60 will conflict with a development proposal that is currently being reviewed by the Town. Moving this transition further to the south is probably the appropriate solution. • Evaluation of Alternatives - The description of Right-of-Way Impacts under Community Impacts would appear to overlap with Land Use Consequences and Existing Development Consequences. • Evaluation of Alternatives — Ability to Phase under Construction should consider logical connections at each end of phased construction that don't create significant out-of-direction travel (and thus might not get much use) or that could create unacceptably high volumes on county/local roads that weren't design to handle the traffic or that are "residential" in nature. • Evaluation of Alternatives — I assume that additional details about the process that will be followed for rankings, comparisons, and potential fatal flaws will be forthcoming. As you are probably aware, several residents that live along WCR 13 in the Johnstown area recently met with the Mayor and Town Administrator to express their concerns about additional traffic on in front of their homes. I think we were able to clarify the differences between the 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study and Weld County's on-going efforts to upgrade WCR 13. However, this 303.721.1440 fax 303.721.0832 e-mail fhu@thueng.com Greenwood Corporate Plaza 7951 E. Maplewood Ave. Ste. 200 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 • Mr. Jeff Dankenbring April 24, 2003 Page 2 — concern will need to be addressed at the next public meeting. We promised to keep them informed about the study, and I have attached their names and addresses so that they can be added to your mailing list. Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. B • L771-44-1-4-"Tle terYV--- CtaL/4-4___ — L/ t /�/"uG� II _ P III L5- J / � e�7o - 5-8 ( ja--x—a-to--cvx_-. ,gos3� � - '5 2 � p I! lr✓ vox \ToH-NSTOklw, ctt � � ,y� _ -;-j,A �-� D N) T +k �'t - N10.t it _� « 1 C c0 4 / 3 . 1ck, S own (a 10 3c/ lI u �d 6PDs3,7 ir ^ - !I - ii !! - l ^ ! n ,! - I I i!I ,I Wa ne Howard- Re: Corridor Stu dy Pa e 1 From: <Phil_Greenwald@ci.longmont.co.us> To: 'Wayne Howard"<WHoward@co.weld.co.us> Date: 5/6/03 8:39AM Subject: Re: Corridor Study Mr. Howard, The City of Longmont purchased the Boulder Creek Estates(BCE)property last year with the intent of continuing the St Vrain Greenway through this property and on to St Vrain State Park(formerly Barbour Ponds). The entrance to is located on WCR#7 and has been master planned as the main • entrance and trailhead on to the property. A major arterial roadway carrying large volumes of traffic creates significant safety concerns for visitors. It also creates concerns from an access and egress point of view. With Weld County participation in the purchase of BCE($50,000), it doesn't make sense that the County would allow such development that would have a negative impact on lands that they have supported. As for a major arterial along County Road 7, this roadway will function as a major wildlife barrier for large mammals along the St Vrain corridor and fragments that corridor to a greater degree. The roadway will also have significant effect on the heron rookery to the north of SH-119 and west of St Vrain State Park. The whole intention of the St Vrain Legacy project as to provide outdoor recreation and trail experiences in this part of the county. The City of Longmont's Parks Division is concerned that major arterial development will have significant detrimental effects on those experiences. Any further roadway development to the west of WCR 8, has the same effects on City Open Space. The City's intention for these acquisitions was preservation of the riparian corridor, preservation of wildlife and trail development. The City of Longmont has spent millions of dollars trying to preserve the riparian corridor and wildlife habitat with acquisitions such as Peschel, Sherwood, Hayes, Sandstone Ranch and Boulder Creek Estates; not to mention the planning efforts for the St Vrain Greenway and the St Vrain Open Lands and Trail Project. The City's Parks Division strongly opposes the further development of roadway that has such significant impacts on City Open Space as well as State Park Lands. Sincerely, Dan Wolford Open Space&Trails Superintendent City of Longmont 303-774-4691 'Wayne Howard" <WHoward@co.weld. To: <phil.greenwald@ci.longmont.co.us> co.us> cc: Subject: Corridor Study 05/06/2003 08:32 AM Wayne Howard- Re: Corridor Studer _Pa 9211 2 a Phil, thanks for taking the time to look over the info. I would be interested in getting the info from your parks department as soon as possible. Hopefully Longmont can attend the next Local Agency Meeting on May 27 at 1:00 at the South West Service Center. I do not know if you received notification of this meeting or not, but we would to have you attend.a CC: <Dan_Wolford@ci.longmont.co.us> a a a a a a I TOWN OF FREDERICK Y1 P.O. BOX 435 • FREDERICK,CO 80530 • PHONE:(303)833-2388 • FAX: (303)833-3817 DATE: May 21, 2003 TO: Weld County FROM: Town of Frederick RE: I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study The Town of Frederick would like to thank you in advance for the opportunity to comment on the I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study. The following comments are from members of the Frederick Board of Trustees, the Mayor, Richard Wyatt, planning staff and several citizens who contacted the Town. 1. Arterials should be at 1 mile intervals in north-south directions as illustrated on the Frederick Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. The potential alignments should follow the mile and half mile spacing mimicking the rural grid pattern that has already been established by the Weld County Road network. a. 2. The chosen arterial alignments shall align and connect across intersecting arterials to distribute traffic and provide continuity. a 3. Any potential alignment chosen should be straight versus curvilinear(no swooping). Again, mimicking the rural grid pattern that has already been established by the Weld County Road network. 4. The natural areas within the Town of Frederick's planning area boundaries (i.e. the Godding Hollow at WCR 18 %2 and WCR 7 1/2) should not be impacted by realignment of the road network. 5. Traffic should flow in the one-mile grid as established where present County roads exists. 6. The meandering alignments for both Road 7 % and 9 % could create confusion and restrict traffic flow. 7. Grave concerns were raised regarding multiple traffic intersection within several hundred feet of each other. Specifically, where Road 9 Y2 swings east to join Road 11 crossing within one-quarter mile. This creates a triangle within three intersections: Road 11 and Road 20; Road 9 Y2 and Road 20; and Road 9 Y2 and Road 11. 8. Emergency vehicles prefer the one-mile grid system. Adding new roads would create confusion which would inevitably cut into response times from additional intersection and potential signals. 9. Weld County is planning for Road 13 to be a major arterial. The Town of Frederick agrees with this and feels any new alignments will confuse the flow of traffic. There is a similar situation to the west with Road 7. The Town does not understand why there is a need to introduce new traffic congestion on Road 7 Y2 . Additionally, Road 11 on the east and Road 5 on the west will handle traffic flows better than creating a new half-mile interval. — 10. The Town is concerned about where this will all end. In ten to fifteen years, will we need a road at 13 Y2, 15 Y2 , or 5 Y2 or 3 Y2 ? Isn't it better to keep the existing alignments and enhance/expand as necessary. 11. I-25 traffic is not going to be relieved with two parallel roads through portions of Weld County. I-25 is a major north/south feeder that accommodates regional and national traffic. Alternative alignments to I-25 would only create local traffic issues and not solve the regional and national traffic issues. The Town would rather have funds spent on the expansion of 1-25 or multi-modal of transportation possibilities. 12. Each community has developed transportation plans and corridors based on their respective Comprehensive Plans. The proposed plan meddles with local control and interests which will ultimately result in costly modifications for the Towns to update their Comprehensive Plans and Land Use Codes. The following are additional community comments: 1. The alternative alignments have no rational or reasoning. 2. It's not a good plan —it is a poor plan not laid out or thought out very well. 3. The plan doesn't take into account local needs of the Town of Frederick. 4. There is a general lack of understanding for the need for alternative alignments along I-25—what is the goal? What are the criteria for selection? What are the reasons for creating these designs? 5. Instead of enhancing the community; the alternative alignments divide it. 6. Let local government create their transportation plan —don't force this plan on the Town of Frederick. Page 2 . 7. The County is making decisions some property owners may not desire: a. Cutting up their property b. Creating an urban corridor that could necessitate changes in present zoning. c. Creating roads through their pristine and agricultural settings or low density areas. 8. The alternative alignments will create new traffic patterns and thus connecting them to existing roads (creating more traffic). 9. Making major roads will cause heavy traffic through neighborhoods. 10. Traffic accidents will increase as more traffic comes from half-mile intervals into the one-mile grids. 11. Purchasing rights-of-way could be costly when existing one-mile grid has existing road base in most instances. 12. The alignment for Road 9%would cross and destroy proposed wetlands and greenway for the Godding Hollow (Colorado Hwy 52 and Road 20 %S). 13. On the east and west alignments, the proposal for 7 % and 9 % bisects existing and proposed subdivision developments which does not lend itself to creating strong communities. 14. The proposed alignments will break up development. With the existing plan, can keep one-square mile as developable land without a major arterial bisecting. a a a a Page 3 « Firestone �` A Community In Motion n.Imi June 25, 2003 Mr. Jeff Dankenbring, P.E. Felsburg Holt& Ullevig 7951 East Maplewood Ave., Suite 200 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Dear Jeff: For your reference, last week the Town staff had the opportunity to discuss the latest Frontage Road connection to Road 11 (Birch Street) option with the Town Board of Trustees. As you know, a number of years ago Firestone in conjunction with Weld County, Frederick and Dacono discussed the potential for a minor arterial to serve as a"parallel frontage road" at approximately the 9-1/2 alignment. Subsequently, Firestone added that minor arterial to its comprehensive plan. Approximately one half mile of that alignment is currently in the platting process through the Cottonwood Hollow subdivision. In reviewing the proposed realignment of connecting Road 11 to 9-3/4 at Road 24 (Firestone Boulevard) Town staff identified a number of constraints, including the crossings of Godding Hollow; the traversing of an existing county subdivision; and the conflict with the Cottonwood Hollow subdivision, which is currently in process. The Board of Trustees noted that the original concept was not intended to be a realignment of Road 11 and that Road 11 should remain as a parallel arterial one mile east of I-25. They believe that by proceeding with the development of the 9-1/2 "parallel frontage road", that Firestone will relieve pressure on the existing frontage road, at least to the southern end of the Firestone Urban Growth Boundary. Hopefully, Frederick can work with Dacono to potentially connect to that roadway and continue it southward. If not, at least the roadway can be accessed by north bound travelers from either Road 22 (Sable Avenue) or Road 24 (Firestone Boulevard). Please contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Ovterl Wei/Sell Cheri Andersen Town Administrator cc: Town Board of Trustees 151 Grant Ave. • P.O. Box 100 • Firestone, CO 80520 (303) 833-3291 • fax (303) 833-4863 Colorado State Parks HIGH PLAINS REGION 1313 Sherman St. Room 618, Denver,Colorado 80203•Phone(303)866-3437•FAX(303)866-3206•www.parks.state.co.us August 15, 2003 Weld County Board of Commissioners 915 10th Street _ Greeley, CO 80634 Dear Board of Commissioners: I am writing this letter in regard to Weld County's I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study(study). As I understand it, the Board of Commissioners (BOC) is planning to make a decision on a preferred alternative near the end of August. I would like to discuss the proposed alignment of County Road 7 at St. Vrain State Park. In 2002 Colorado State Parks, Weld County, the City of Longmont, Great Outdoors Colorado and other partners entered into the St. Vrain Open Lands and Trails Legacy Project. One of the visions central to this partnership is the "protection of important river corridors and wildlife habitats". With the continuation of growth along the Front Range of Colorado, the importance of maintaining river corridors and wildlife habitat in an undisturbed condition remains critical to the protection and enhancement of the flora and fauna that live there, and to the quality of life of the citizens of and visitors to Colorado and Weld County. As partners in this Legacy Project and leaders in our State, Weld County and Colorado State Parks have the responsibility to make educated, well-informed decisions concerning impacts to the natural resources under our control, and impacts to generations of Coloradoans not yet born who will be required to live with decisions made today. Colorado State Parks strongly believes that BOC acceptance of a preferred alternative showing a four-lane, major arterial roadway carrying large volumes of traffic through the St. Vrain River corridor adjacent to and through St. Vrain State Park will irreversibly harm the natural resources of the corridor and impact the quality of life for future generations of Coloradoans. a While I applaud Weld County for performing transportation planning prior to growth, I believe there are other alternatives for arterial roadways along the Hwy 119 corridor. Colorado State Parks remains strongly opposed to Weld County Road 7 being designated as a "preferred alignment" in your transportation study. a STATE OF COLORADO•COLORADO STATE PARKS Bill Owens,Governor•Greg E.Welcher,Executive Director,Department of Natural Resources•Lyle Laverty,Director,Colorado State Parks �,. Colorado Board of Parks and Outdoor Recreation: Doug Cole,Chair•Dr.Tom Ready,Secretary,Natural Areas Representative• Wade Haerle,GOCO Representative•Tom Glass,Member•Edward C.Callaway,Member Weld County Board of Commissioners August 15, 2003 Page 2 of 2 I would like to make myself available to attend any BOC work sessions or public meetings relating to this issue. Sincerely, David Giger High Plains Regional Manager, Colorado State Parks Cc: a Lyle Laverty, Director, Colorado State Parks Dan Wolford, Director, Longmont Open Space Tim Pollard, Deputy Director, Colorado Department of Natural Resources Representative Dale Hall Bob Finch, Park Manager, St. Vrain State Park Frank Hempen , Director, Weld County Public Works Department Wayne Howard, Project Manager, Weld County Public Works Department Monica Daniels-Mika, Director, Weld County Department of Planning Services ^ ^ TOWN OF FREDERICK 401 LOCUST STREET • P. O. BOX 435 • FREDERICK, CO 80530 PHONE: (303) 833-2388 • FAX: (303) 833-3817 A August 21, 2003 D AUG252003 Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig FELSBURG,HOLT&ULLEVIG Mr. Jeff Dankenbrain Greenwood Corporation Plaza 7951 E. Maplewood Avenue, Suite 200 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 RE: I-25 Parallel Alignment - 8/15/03 Proposal Dear Mr. Dankenbrain; In reviewing the latest alignments for the 1-25 Parallel corridor between Firestone and Frederick there continues to be some concerns about the proposed alignment. We appreciate the work and dedication in creating a regional plan for moving transportation in - the southwest portion of Weld County and between communities. Yet, Frederick must resist the latest plan. 1. The alignment along Road 20.5 from Road 9.5 (in Firestone) to Road 11 (in Frederick) crosses prime open lands in the Comprehensive Plan of Frederick, along the Godding Hollow. 2. The Godding Hollow is designated as Open Space and as such do not want to see bridges, roads or other development encroach on this planned park and open space area through the Frederick community. 3. We must reiterate that our Comprehensive Plan encourages a transportation plan that follows the one mile grid system of county roads already existing in the Frederick area for movement of community and regional traffic. 4. The Town of Frederick and owners and developers of property along the proposed alignment from Road 9.5 to Road 11 are concerned and oppose the alignment running through a portion of the property that creates a small island on the north side of the proposed road that would be left unable to be developed and cuts across the northeast portion of the property creating a larger island left undevelopable. oma 5. We continue to support the Road 11 alignment to Road 22 or Road 24 with a connection back to the Weld County alignment and Firestone preferred alignment at Road 9.5. Due to commitments that Firestone is making to r proposed development north of Road 20.5 any movement to the east to connect with Road 11 should happen within the Firestone boundaries or within Weld County lands. The proposed alignment to reach Road 11 through Frederick is not acceptable. Further, the proposed land loss is not — acceptable by the town and hurts the future development or options of the owner or developer on the property. We continue to be open to working with Firestone and Weld County, but at present do not accept nor will include the proposed alignment in our Comprehensive Transportation plan. Sincerely, 7 � 6.446?r___, Richard P. Wyatt Mayor cc: Mr. Wayne Howard Town of Firestone a a 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study PUBLIC COMMENTS .,.01 OPFELSBURG 41HOLT & ULLEVIG a ' ems Wilk COLORADO — Attendance List Public Open House — 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 50 Wednesday, March 5,2003 — Southwest Weld County Services Complex Please sign in below: Name Address Phone Number - o . u-�- i ,S G77or-y3.>_ Al2 ,.5--- a c- /6,7.5/ ecJCiP J' 976 s$s VSJ9 SO ACM/2ALL /Z35 NelJEWIAKLE CT lubO rs/L 97e-zzz-9/33 cifis'n 5 L oso6 .,7. ! den 5 dPe 970-s3 s 51/x? ges—£ 4-gti.t%f= 7n3 wC P Izta iO3-772-,F97z - _,Dc_,- ic c �� C r J Zan y • / / 9''# e. Z0 3 -77! -G 5 C - N A If e .lNoq73 3f'cl nye„ 'tee C,')- Li, kJ "7.76-79rz SnAao n {peed e fist- so3 S S. an c-erVailoin br. Eed.. 3/0 SS_(S /3eid of L er,,,r,of 1/apf //V/3 LOCA /3 Aan 0� 303-776oswe - 400ls RoO"p.(.44OJav ! •f/ gy wek /3 4 „Y4 97o sys serYf 5 M . +I , A..-N4 / V6lis ,_)., aWll ,_ l l0 < t� s _ 4€4, 35 2-3 ��a k_eic (-. A-11---Co .3 0 3 _-7-r 1- —> >7 frfrn 1::: -�- r“--cil � 77 e s- ere_ / s /Taste 3.o3. 77 z . a z.z „A016�,, /u\3 ✓[,.)•74o� Ca.e. "tie,d /-3b3-7� 72 -3 / / �7� j 7a,So 1.40 2.,n7.2%.9 er ZF 3o3-.933 - 279 G(/.Spl},4f -iSor`l 224 IA/IGO:iv D2 . MEgp q7o s3 tkpbS LArry `k - Pi FELSBURG lehn&Associates,Inc. - C, H O L TV C Professional Engineers&Surveyors U fiat Willie COLORADO Attendance List Public Open House -- I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 50 Wednesday, March 5,2003 Southwest Weld County Services Complex "' Please sign in below: - Name Address Phone Number 511414 S06insrv, alG IA )(II61A) I . f'1ead %,4rv( a ((On Fe,_ /407-Q- 9 CI- `7 kaAl 4 4ll) GeA , ,�11y a0`ISy C clu5 JuLI3io4 er10 Sa7 71O nefnr� c..,. PAT V I cot q I-< , M - in,- Boa -ti,ci-n-2 ...,5 Ca -Iire-zlQ.-, Webb °I-J15 Wekh Cbitil) 3O3- (oS' -57S4- — rcd &/e.2,4 /I i/ _ Il 1Nlallo c R-1 r are G7n-S3-CyyK KZ4e.1 Jcr)23_ 13 7 l(.,,,rer !1p Err file 97C-i-3f 5,5-4--' I 1' tj-F ( t r e \?I do r. fe r5 C, 1e <e 'v , C q 7 a 53-`1 Sao — I �-4cc�nr ,� If`9 (xa,. ,( 11 r, �s ` , „1., q-24 c2�- 4f: 1,v5d\'s F)l&h r c - r < < . �-' wee oti S ,'lo ie , 6 4.fr 61:. 146 - VY ft/2- fi �� 0.1074(ants f/er Need 770 -to i -7 dec %Sv, S � i,<LN ce,e a-�Y.Ci (/f _ 2>G 7cFoc3.3- , I/`/,�/kn c&S g • 3e✓rf-(e( S159 ( rc. ew- , Create c1c 3O3 833-13 i-) wL FA.t a-m-✓ POBOY6 , /t/1/4d `170535-5"717 7 ill FELSBURG Jehn a Associates,Inc. r4 H O L T & Professional Engineers&Surveyors l ULLEVIG COLORADO Attendance List Public Open House 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 50 Wednesday, March 5,2003 Southwest Weld County Services Complex Please sign in below: Name Address Phone Number $6.0_,) 0lebx(ZZ7 LBtc9 `<6 3f)3, e33 3 p96 SP\ C 3d ANrgrns NEMEAn e.0 S105-3S`-nID pi4fit-f -- 2°Z-rC.en,ir-St L tAJ9'a t X 03 TnZO?Ot C /oa .�ic�.....c.lJ. l . .��vc��-. . .�o3 -.F 33 - 1i.44 Ci — l 16 fit w c- 12 5% 1i v rr/ - 724 -/ 7& — � ✓� ��or �Y�/� Meg 7 f A7& 7709.) three iiG Gq / u/-/� r� ��v,� F .C %-� 22a-6W- 96 a0 ��f ,:re-z_2," 2/`7/ wc _ 7.31/J)%, 970-S87-zS3� l� y-Z7J- t4 c R--7 .1"") eo!" �b1 t/Z O--st- yctr �-\:w,„ . � l�R,.9 � BEM �\� 3S wer2 !;1216 Co. g'oS-ltsos-N-33. �✓ �l e - A-f`1 4-en/nit nit c o at ilk.— Y7o r i aqo 116-7'1 Yno+,\>watt Ctee\a. 7o94-97 141,2414._ /z3 /Li Cenk� vutAO4' cry 303-42?-YRPS G2//'24,O/ z 6I /Jv,/nef ?.2 /7c,--8-) co — 7na,c" // .rutorfi) 27641 cock 20 X/2 24. ni7(O 303772 91/4' �efLZ 37.2- w c C-3 S. /Yea ci CO T3"o Sy Z rvh e �.i .3/Z.F ti/C g_3(O 4?•eao'( Cr) 5U s UZ o13t /L , I/# k ?( 3 III c/2. Z-J for/[,utoN - <c2 e&Sod-- _ / C LISY.R EaS (c 8(c.c( R'a04(stL, Cc) 8cSv( 3d3-' 03 o3cr(o OP FELSBURG Jelin 8 Associates,Inc. H O L T & Professional Engineers&Surveyors ULLEVIG f Wilk Attendance List Public Open House 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 50 Wednesday, March 5,2003 Southwest Weld County Services Complex Please sign in below: Name Address Phone Number I,K qy co (AR 13 bVC -b33-ga /ra-PitAif �. die/ rifted. /94%9 9 Yt i s 7 97'0,-5S5:0 r Jirc Ma") /81io WAGoAi7AiL r!CAD 4172 535- V77(a FELSBURG lehn a Associates,Inc. C1 H O L T & Professional Engineers&Surveyors ULLEVIG VOA' 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study WilkOpen House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you n property within the project corridor? es El No If yes,where? 2. Do you h a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? GS ❑ No If yes,where? 5 41s ` ft c A- /CS (-9„-, 46,17 e 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why (Safety, Environmental, Land Use, other reasons)? / LN ❑ /� 641‘1-7 c� ,47r., iV f4� li �i oc 7,r- No es If yes,where? , /� fre ,44ggeso?SfL 1 LUJ/�� .-. L / c-4-I c/a fiz-, cr ye/„.,,Ael 1(4 .J 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? Name I **ACC �/��{, Send Questionnaire To: ^ Address 2/9 "Itie frAi /C. /24e.-1 Wayne Howard, P.E. Phone 97 7-3C {2-l Weld County Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you/ own property within the project corridor? [aY 0 N If yes,where? 2tI hllu.ol3 Die. Mem 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? Yes ❑ No If yes,where? Roan 5 v5 Coo '7 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use,other reasons)? 2Yes 0 N If yes,where? 17:W0 OF M 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? Name W'sq . And 4so�..1 Send Questionnaire To: Address 241 t-4 u..O1--) be- - Wayne Howard, P.E. Weld County Phone 970- S55- 09-42.C Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 ^ I�'� i� 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Open House Questionnaire wzoanDo March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? Er/Yes ❑No If yes,where? l Wilton D2. M c,› , ^ 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? a [Vies ❑ No If yes,where? WIDFa) - 02S ! � � wHtr I N VesT i tJ M02E acM≥ s (2F};)-}F,2 Ti-m-i4 F)i P.4s1/41PiNG b4f Ti#w}-r Yov ND& 146,1E 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use,other reasons)? a ❑Yes ❑No If yes,where? ^ a' 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? a Name U).Toi}1N) 1 SU S4.,) �x IaS o•J Send Questionnaire To: Address ZLI till L(,vyJ P& nV- p Wayne Howard, P.E. Phone q�D S3S OLIO,S Weld County Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 3564000 ext. 3788 flv, 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study WIWDo► Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? Vies ❑ No If yes,where? 312 c-3 C 2 3 ( to n eckY C Q `7 3 Co 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes,where? Inl ineR4 ct R .. 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use, other reasons)? Yes ❑ No If yes,where? a 1Om ft 7 _ -frker2 Is cc /re od7l 8 LD 0 o se ?oIit,l+ eti bQ-± ArPeir) 1 ono( W cit. 7 - rJrn n4d� t — add Gtr •- � (noma-f'1-er 11pw Iota- e g,nefrPca nd 6acru-fkFu�, !+ W Geoid vYrd ✓ R _ 4. Do you have any other comments regarding th ajerial roadways? ti U i c e a r o uvne$ rre LJI� k- Ve9 (a r- -4✓A I C Vld\ S-p "Id bra / 1' O 1 Iran -Y v :.r c /c l�$ _ -F r�c/�-c Iron, �/a i/ 1 N-'(44 r-e V"• \rt.-i'o en, Name C-Ve✓ 'e ` ct U Send Questionnaire To: Address 3/2Aio LJ c f2 'J to Wayne Howard, P.E. Weld County Phone 970 - 535 - U '&9 co Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970)356-4000 ext. 3788 fit 6 II Crei 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? si Yes ❑ No � H yes yes,,where? 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? )l Yes ❑ No _ /J�E p S/ H yes,where? / a ' Q At--pr LK C/ 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided? Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use,other reasons)? Yes ❑ No If yes,where? 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? Name J / k-] GL� Send Questionnaire To: Address 3/20 (VC C 3,6 Wayne Howard, P.E. 5 3 5 fl 96 Weld County PhonePublic Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 loiter 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? Q Yes ❑ No If yes,where? 87O 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? Ric; ❑ No If yes,where? 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use, other reasons)? - L Yes ❑ No If yes,where? ,J(J 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? 4n-c-er--d a.ngot2 t tort) - - v�!� jc.e ..P ^ Name N'i/ 2Je. rqe '- Send Questionnaire To: Address ,?B70 /1,11--r4 - to 8'Or/d Wayne Howard, P.E. Weld County Phone 5O3/1 - Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 re. I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Open House Questionnaire—3/5/03 Answer to Question#2: The proposal generally looks good. My area of concern is the southern portion of WCR 5 which has been closed near SH 7. I believe the Broomfield I-25 Sub-Area Plan dated November 1999 (Exhibit J: Buildout Traffic Forecast) is a good plan and can fit with the Weld County proposal. You might want to consider an additional lane of traffic on WCR 6 between WCR 5 and WCR 7 to relieve some traffic on WCR 4. Answer to Question#3 The Broomfield I-25 Sub-Area Plan mentioned above routes traffic around the Ranch Eggs Subdivision—WCR 7 between Lowell Lane and proposed Sheridan. This is primarily a residential area and I hope heavy traffic can be avoided in this area. n 1� 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 A. Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? Yes ❑ No If yes,where? 02 I 4-04/41 S ,ect 7t1,4:-_ 4-9 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? Yes No If yes,where? 4s Pm"?' 1;6 cyy L r,u OR w t-a 15 $611444 --#1/.45 5 ,G/la t • l/451-115- 15 /y1AI-h 196-.1/6-1-91.4"E. �v-iaa/".- —r aQLa u lr i✓c /3 r//4r 7-1-645_ 75 on) avcX g' 6Z 1�P Ae/fr S 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why (Safety, Environmental, Land Use, other reasons)? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes,where? 1.O (I- r/Mg b AV' /v0 S 5 4117)-TA:A -r/T- /-DFC a 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? — 55 Cy L 5o 04) 35 /Ave S er% A 4%S 5 v5F_ TO Sri✓F .9 `� 414,1/C c 2T7r,52 .egpviy the /0,60 GU/,4'cf1- ,-s eA cr / , ;t,c /44n 7 Name 24M'` 5 04f-P56 Send Questionnaire To: Address 9c2 I 1,4075 4 V4- Wayne Howard, P.E. Weld County Phone /7441) Cc) Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970)356-4000 ext. 3788 f11; 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study ay o Open House Questionnaire March 5, 2003 ^ Please fill out and leave with a representative or mall to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? Yes ❑No yes,where? — VR I l o ‘nr Dr , r�-E h o l�tea.a , C o 1\! off ot Co . Rd 7 a 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? Yes 0 No If yes,where? Co . Rd . I C t.... ) 4a a 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use,other reasons)? es es,where? No �,,��G anti G% I/ 44 "`/ ., K t -rte Co kae - X tail Celttel, cio'ar, A — 01-att.) .14-rjae- ,a-irfr....,„,i- ta.,,e,c -,;,-40.- 6-L. nvn. .44,...4ir 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? w Name 11r�ene Ger+r✓d Flay den 'r ` " ` . Send Questionnaire To: a Address Jp,1 IIaw f)r /�ecd1 co 805H2 Wayne Howard, P.E. Phone Weld County a Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley,Colorado 80632-0758 (970)3564000 ext.3788 ' et'�'� 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? 2n'es 0 NIf yes, I Che4? Es LA-ICI(oto L1-&is 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? BYes ❑ No It yes„where? I CAST- oF = eZS (. 11O2.f- t. =fn 104,4 O2 QGS�d£N��A ( RGSS p_ A A-to Ai FRoat 4-4u... -to wit) 4:504-£.-Ad 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use,other reasons)? ❑Yes ❑ No if yes,where? vNsu,94-- 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? � 5 i MPS e,A.) R ;d� 'm- kits nA)A Stnn-I( .o 's Name t i ISM g,v Send Questionnaire To: Address _,pat A �CC54Q Wayne Howard, P.E. Phone �3 r- q Weld County 7 ! Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970)356-4000 ext.3788 a ft 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study WilkOpen House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 a Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. — 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? 24es ❑ No If yes,where? 7-hlr1 r Cbie ) 'Weld , — 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the artrials?Why? ' I EYes ❑ No O f k) a�/ - Co71cG rc.n4 y �Lt 1 /J 47,0 If yes,where? ///� / ` / CZr-Q ac Co ✓✓�L(Cle� ac % S re aYNE\Q S 11 �DS S i &.' . — ED a r% c a�.-hr-b / -' -r 9 of � AC , Sep rt 1, Vt 41.r M e. — 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land a Use, other reasons)? 4O4; S''‘-6 [a Yes O No Sccl.5z)/S d L41'n w 4--cle t.4) 7--cow-A-‘62- If yes,where? (31 f+ rr,u n ) Ca .R '>Lr✓1,-C 41.;it kr& DI �e lie (b�)iMu. iJ Q✓v�buit� 722O(r.t e.,,;, Sib,. -ed. C(t),,7 S, /T-L,4Ot ctrie,I a t'}; mA.44,O O . ^ c+ i`Sv1 II LL — 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? AR72.e5 Cl 1 S Q' a u r1 s? tt(r J l.ab,td. 1`.,.110 //:vim /u+S 1$ h h'r r ,l t . -v /b t,` 4,01/4,,4_ /I\Cfu.,,e,d 6-1 2Nc i(;,d• 4r -1�"KS-c 'Pert! R rf /11)-‘ 7'Uu Cf r`N il41.r11�5. C/ Name 2- ; 1 1 _9D Send Questionnaire To: _ Address (b Ia. >'Ui11O2-f' CDR l w J { r tAd Wayne Howard, P.E. 31)3_ e2 Si 5-59 I 17 1 Weld County Phone Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 41fitl'az 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study WI`1D o► Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? ® Yes ❑ No If yes,where? 261 Hunters Cove Drive Mead CO 80542 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? © Yes ❑ No WCR-5 OR ACQUIRE A RIGHT OF WAY FOR WCR-51. If yes, where? 1. This goes around the Town of Mead. 2. I have been told that — if the road is over 1 mile from I-25 it will not be used. That may be true in general but it is not true in tnis area. Example: WCR-1/County Line Road is 4 miles from 1-25 and is used everyday as a North-South artery by many people - at least to SH-52. (If you doubt this try driving on WCR-1/County Line Road at 7:00 AM Monday-Friday) 3. WCR-5 and/or WCR-5} would inconvenience fewer property owners that using WCR-7. 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why (Safety, Environmental, Land Use, other reasons)? ® Yes ❑ No AVOID WCR-7 THROUGH THE TOWN OF MEAD TO SH-66. " If yes, where?1. This will make necessary a school crossing guard four times daily when the lower and Middle schools start and end - Corner of WCR-7 and WCR-34. This would slow and/or stop traffic on WCR-7 four times daily. 2. The school bus for these schools currently stops ten (10) times a day on WCR-7 between WCR-34 and SH-66. This would not only stop traffic ten (10) times a day but also "- would put our childrenat-risk of a non-attentive, or impaired, driver to miss the school bus stop signal and injure a child. 3. Many residential driveways enter WCR-7 between WCR-34 and SH-6.6. A four lane freeway would create significant danger to those who ingress and egress WCR-7. 4. I know of no property owner facing WCR-7 or backing to WCR-7 that would agree to sell the necessary land for (Question 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial road 3 is continued below) ways? NO COMMENTS ON QUESTION 4. QUSTION 3 !ABOVE.' IS CONTINUED BELOW QUESTION 3 CONTINUED: a right-of-way to accomodate a four lane freeway on WCR-7. The existing developments on WCR-7 between WCR-34 and SH-66 range in price from approximately $375,000. to over $600,000. 5. The quality of life for most of the residents within at least a half mile of WCR-7 will be reduced if WCR-7 is Name RS GRIMALDI Send Questionnaire To: made wider 261 HUNTER COVE DR - Address MEAD CO 80542 Wayne Howard, P.E. WIRELESS: (303) 775-5262 Weld County Phone Public Works Department cc: Drew Scheltinga, P.E. P.O. Box 758 e Dankenbring, P.E. Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 Felsburg Holt & Meng (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 fete; 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial tionnl Study Inge Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? Yes ❑No es,where? .�/7 4.1/7/0,--) 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? 4 Yes ❑No �r yes,where? -6cti,.re �u —'l� S GCSE 3. Are there areas within the corridor t at sh/ dlu be avoided?VVhy(Saf , Environmental, Land Use,other reasons)? [Yes ❑ No y fNf es,where? 77 /Lun me. c d a a o-f ,- 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? Name 7 IA tin--L7 h/�� Send Questionnaire To: Address a17- / 41//cJ 4Y_ M,4 41 Wayne Howard, P.E. Phone J S3S_sze7/ Weld County Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970)356-4000 ext.3788 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? --\S:1416 h ❑ No If yes,where? .7 ct za 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? Yes ❑ No yes,where? kx.L S o✓ 3 %2, ? t don+ kmtiu w about-- et )-4 oy tAx_42- 1 +ft (mesh h seat/vice rd -}D oo 4kyDugk 77 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why (Safety, Environmental, Land Use, other reasons)? ,JYes ❑ No If yes,where? "7 2 d/Z ItQ ha s 4 U sphct id-- ttk MMe .1s� qa / ) c ve.� ch� 1.0 9rati P)13 '►h St-LerD144-J; �'?teinerotis IS Cue 904_ 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? Name 444-Atie Su1',11 /1Y Send Questionnaire To: Address 144 mice_ zo 7L—Lifrkt--isosa Wayne Howard, P.E. C Weld County Phone 3 a 3) ( D3 Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 t�f_6 4° 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study WI`1D o► Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or(nail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? es ❑ No tf yes,where? „7 sececQi cc, 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? Yes ❑ No yes,where? c/ 8454 0� S 2≤ - Le55 cv7sfe i4/k A. .v e b'i,.�e:"°e" . J 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use, other reasons)? 0. Yes ❑ No If yes,where? 1AJe-c-F vi' S- 2S- Me he Qp + 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? L./Lote,✓ .1- F1-..,/47 e Name k p a✓r La 6,4 p Send Questionnaire To: Address 1 (7 22 Cie 7 Mead ln. £�`� Wayne Howard, P.E. G . Weld County S,3, Phone (70_ f `Y2aL Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 icie ( 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study WilkHouse Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? 01 �l a clires ❑ No it ti yes,where? d 7,--c: 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? Yes ❑ No yes,where? 1I OA- ,.h a,. c; a4, C ) 0 d . CI 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environr tal, Land UUse, other reasons)? files ❑ No yes,where? MU () 20 orCli a co 4 L e.,,_ & ru c c� . J a 4. Do you have any'^ other comments regarding the arterial roadways? k '� I U _ 1 C3 4'-S . I O , ei,„ d Y--(,,,___ ER‘a-, c�M s 3- LA d a • \, � I °_,, Q f c oa d knn 1-r Name " ,J 6 Send Questionnaire To: Address So 7 At cP r is\\J E Wayne Howard, P.E. Weld County Phone R ?O _37 44) , D Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970)356-4000 ext. 3788 ` � � 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study dY Wilk Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. — 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? vi Yes ❑No _ yes,where? — LOJKa 4 h 0 E5 VJrCS FAST 6 woad `1 — 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? 1'yYes ❑ No — es,where? Lp0 Ruda o-C FRon- ec.. "Rood - U Few es't ckcv*o L -o w, a S tend k \\as Lie hr Covrnvh e(2.icot RUSIRess.3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use,other reasons)? Yes ❑ No — ,where? *, h Con sye . n1Ra_ ion Dc -.- esaen+AL `te e C s - crnSeRt1S alp ou# SC(--Ceji - e n V \ Ro in vvnc-vv -u�_ N\ ea ,oJa ,- \ v e. 1 vn p a ct- an pIRo p ca1 Valuers . 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? to n)+ 11n.k i-k-Is cos C - p U-7- GL maso►'- (� row p-Festd ,l�L �vv�es . We_ Yvtcv e o be �l�A�c�l I i fit,` `S arzer� �o ' d� et- Name L�Send Questionnaire To: fl ai clg — Address a ao Le \, k t, ( 0--0 ,2_, o ( C1 ,2_, Wayne Howard, P.E. 5 �C IA a...,Phone '{ y ,rn 3 PAD 'O J 4D, Weld County 1 _ Public Works Department \ Or]o) 535 YS 215 Greeeey,P.O. rCo Colorado 8032-0 6758 _758 �ku v 1 e (970)356-4000 ext.3788 -y-IliD4-- fat' 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study WIlDe Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? jj Yes ❑ No If yes,where? )j See.. a.4-4.Gct-W✓v<-fii+.4` — 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? ❑ Yes �J No If yes,where? eni ucr i ; 11O fa. 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use,other reasons)? eb w,n.{ J A.A. 7 mead? Sktek a ( cGriely- ^ Ifes,where?Yes El +Wit ; ft, i55fAG1(SC L° A, {0.t �ca�. t't� 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? re-,.e 41T$ k." Name S Spain rL, 'R-t_ y� Send Questionnaire To: Address 1?3 u1.,.w,it-Es Geiser me..0 Wayne Howard, P.E. , pS Weld County () 3 [ Phone R —L 7 3• `t 9 R Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 1. My name is Jim Mechalke I live at 123 Hunters Cove in Mead 2. Five generations of my family have made Colorado their home. Many of relatives were farmers starting from my great grandfather though my _ uncle and his children. From the late 1800s through the turn of the 21st century, my family and I have seen significant changes in Colorado and not all of them beneficial. In the last 30 years, we have experienced the spoiling of an entire state. This to such a degree, that my uncle felt in necessary to leave this state and retire in South Dakota. What do I mean by spoiling? I mean the unbridled, mindless sprawl that has occurred. No forethought to water schools, roads, traffic congestion, and impacts to communities have been taken into account. This quite honestly has to stop. We have an opportunity to turn things around. _ 3. I don't begrudge people moving into our beautiful state because they admire our quality of life. The issue I have is maintaining that quality of life. 4. I moved to Mead because Longmont was no longer the small town that my family once knew. 5. People like my wife and I have left the larger cities for smaller towns for a reason. We don't want the traffic, noise and crime. 6. The last thing we want is another 4 lane arterial blasting its way through our neighborhood and the town of mead. There is no benefit other than the unsatiated feeding of the sprawl monster we have created. And at what cost? The ruin of a small town. I see stores, a park, houses and a landmark church being condemned in the name of this sprawl monster we call progress. 7. There are alternatives besides taking the easy path of laying down more asphalt as a quick fix to our congestion problems. The only affect this will have is positive reinforcement for our bad behavior. 8. The alternative is mass transportation. It is my opinion and the opinion of many that we should at least look into light rail running from Fort Collins to Denver with park and rides at strategic locations. I see RTD busses picking up commuters to take them to high density technical centers like interlocken where there are companies in close proximity like Mcdata, level3, Sun Microsystem and StorageTek. 9. This is just one possible mass transportation solution. In closing I implore you to consider the alternatives before making a decisions that could change the quality of life for an entire community. Thank you for your time. _ Atti40. 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Wile House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 — Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? 40‘s ❑ No _ If yes,where? ookroeatiaC — C r ( 2q a. — 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? — O'Yes ❑ No If yes,where? I involv�� (Y1O11Y (Cu� 5 (u( 1 � �f �� — brcut-t J hc$ Ciro/ c i%y4 cc unl y X _ / Fr- tecO e6, fora inekr) jj e u`)N-h rn lb);ld�/r ic�``t_ Cc , 6 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should e avoided?Why(Safety E vironmental, Land lk�. _ I Use, other reasons)? cirri a _ byes, Yes ❑ No tP where? �L� (�� 3+.10 retj l<e inctire_ vJab O choice_ — 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? t ��ud bo O iiKt , + -OC C1`CieK &/, , -ty ll`�e " t �� a�l�e� i J in ti /cam Nan-CA-AlSend Questionnaire To: Address 6O173fl,I��73 J 7-/ a IS/ , -1-- Wayne Howard, P.E. _ Phone , 2 `1 Weld County Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 - (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 O1ig 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Winne Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? teYes ElNo s,where? 5aO 41.) die)s PC VA-- /O J Q.al err e Cate 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? ❑Yes ❑ No If yes,where? 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use,other reasons)? XYes ❑ No es,where? a / 3 -� eta 4. Do you u have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? �y ' LI 001-42,1 eve a�"'l., s 4 fe eGC��K�/ Q /0,) 510.ee ter ; 71 3 // Name aecl& eA7 49✓��.�s�'`.., / Send Questionnaire To: a Address' -z2 (A/ (10. /Sole 1/24-1:74, AIN Wayne Howard, P.E. Weld County Phone 34)3 (a C 'Ct./a Sa.". Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. "' 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? es ❑ No yes,where? Steriel.5 14+ 104-4 - /14 ,4-7>t cery fast_ 1tWA4Ad-It 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? Yes O No yes,where? Sd' s l'LSD ' 1044144e.a-vu9- 4 ,ao s / -t se . dw� 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why (Safety, Environmental, Land Use, other reasons)? a ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes,where? 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? ,mat imc 1441114-C AV(i> stiCes' 141A:efir Name &?4'4 6. 6'7t;A40424 //p�� ,� _� /,�' Send Questionnaire To: Address 36 f �u* £ZS l ,Q'N4 /'l� /�, 6 0a Wayne Howard, P.E. Phone /)9a r5.-X.1-01"/”C J" Weld County Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970)356-4000 ext. 3788 Acts.;:. 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study W�`1D o► Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mall to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? 0-Yes Q No If yes,where? tOrt3. St a- 5 +5 re"-R3ti - a. 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? EC; 0 No a If yes,where? Lest/d C)a�1 yowl it ID,-cc�oLt c3-,,A_ �JGh, � /y 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use, other reasons)? ❑Yes litt4o If yes,where? 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? DC- N--Occds Name ff ff,uN - Qnr Send Questionnaire To: Address 4-,4c96, Luc ;_ P( .i`e Wayne Howard, P.E. / Weld County Phone CI 7O- £9Cr[�-e704- Public Works Department P.O. Box 78 ` �"6, Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 ttI 0 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study W�`l� o► Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? (VYes ❑ No es,where? a 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? ❑Yes 'No If yes,where? 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why (Safety, Environmental, Land Use,other reasons)? s[ es ❑ No If yes,where? D a? � wad d SY--5L - the it. 6e i ( es& ) 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? ^ �1 — 5S b f.}� 1 ,``:.' 11th 1 i!C e 1-7'- Name Pat/J.r l t Send Questionnaire To: a r Address `i ! Li L Wayne Howard, P.E. ± " Weld County Phone P",-' ,�'a.f Lick C Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 f&t14 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study W�`l� o► Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? V/Yes ❑ No yes,where? Xpi)(0 . iac20 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? g'Yes ❑ No If yes,where? II ^ 7(0 nC�ce (eadc 6�[1 1 T-2 c 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why (Safety, Environmental, Land Use, other reasons)? J'Yes ❑ No If yes,where? Tr, beck ec our sotto j;vision tv Lame erce k we're uey ll (� + :vac, no se SnPet Cance(n l uu bra�e( � v<, uec aCCeSS . Fie k; s-/creen . l is res;de„ ;«I arec,� E -kvyL 'fis & Lac idea r —,e -frai sI Sj e ride - ie -E,-,-cols -6 6e II� ej ult G Highs e oa� . �oeion + uxt VI 411rouitl cur -ham ne-i6 776(( 22 e reads 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? AccScSS 4I solve,, raise •iSSceS °fue�op ti�4ern�,t�oes -a Ca d1�-(Iuin (ad D( som nn . f 'Lc;Name c! Pd2-Pn1 t Elvf� .GA- t Send Questionnaire To: 4t �Je 61tint s�il� ��c� Address CM) R E , Conce(J I ��on Dr Wayne Howard, P.E. We Weld County mot ? W e Phone � �1 - CCI C Public Works Department neeA P.O. Box 758 ql�r,rvi •`a Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970)356-4000 ext. 3788 V� 111 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? ' es ❑ No "If yes,where? O2O7 / -cla»15 aye (w°g,3-2 //e4J 00 rya 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials? Why? a pfreYes ❑ No yes,where? fr. , /J On P weir side 1-/wou�� weA / /SleeSimi/CeSo/1T�I//�`'� �� IT / d �Uv `i /� /� c, /i&e /"7"' 1:! CEgt7-0/(v /oc J�ieI..veen p''�/ 7 ,a_--.2-5: �P5) Rd /3 S e CA /o�,c¢/✓ra7e, 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be a avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use, other reasons)? EYes O No If yes,where? '0 / r( n' r 6eCQK5P 0-114 ld' ^ � �w�f o� /'7e�d S/f.3 /�Vole chi�1 a pro Xinik © f -Me shoo& / n -This at-e4. 4. Do you have any other/he comments rejcar(d`ing the arterial roadways? gi-7�O 1i 7/419( are' de-/ n i e/ need e� 1 9 7T�4� y/o�c 6hmu JLf/OCU/7e 7��`Ht wh ere 147 WW II Ng/l/e J he 4/a /� rxG7 m/1 !�/0ct6CS <4yC�rT4 OWner >1tcd w: // C'�st/d/ u/,O/ LSd 65e - rn 6Y F cc ear✓nC/r 3/ /e5-5 477e�rte• 7' Name qqI t�/// /t a/ J� / Send Questionnaire To: C6 ) Address 0 t/ h`c�rivrt S 4. liceec Wayne Howard, P.E. Weld County Phone 27o L&'— c poO a Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 • I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Open House Questionnaire March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? Yes ❑No es,where? CO& 1 a G �‘A.4- 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? Yes ❑No es,where? 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use,other reasons)? Yes ❑ No riff yes,wwhere? n 1 , a_ a „.4.),AAck a i ro,„ts l'P?-f L4..)}}j1 /}& 1. l 4_lr.(s f Q I F At. tic '- .Q)J ' W)Lc1 Yl O± to >e1.G.-a^ -- —r2 5 AL L1 n tit/ rfi.�(r at-el U �n/ V n i .YCt j" rAte; t 1t1�E C le t« 4. Do you havd any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? Name 'i Zi 1 �4)\ fCt .; Address 9 t It, .: y v' . Send Questionnaire To: Wayne Howard, P.E. Phone S 1- 1 Weld County J Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley,Colorado 80632-0758 (970)356-4000 ext 3788 f1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study y Wine Open House Questionnaire March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? g Yes ❑No if yes,where? isr w//„4.- 4 - / /% ,i , .1/✓ 1 997G 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? aYes No a If yes,where? �` Do ...Xis.r� y�a C 5.7?dS cs- sr/ �r.l n-r fir{ /3`' ea r v.-. d>r.., 77.12<, n�VPU ,a�-.y .^G�e/ 0-1.. GV®.r/ s.� a2r Je trier 4.1 0' ��c I Grow- --2e, Gdi/O/ .O-n r' 1.4xt %c/0°r/ soce:Ve p .!//S a'e/eZ 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use,other reasons)? afYes ❑ No _ If yes,where? - /c1/ 9 - 7/7, 7-5; �0,•'/a a 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? if:: at db „re., Name dee w Send Questionnaire To: Address f � /sa-�/ Wayne Howard, P.E. Weld County Phone 9.7() .�-rf—99'7 Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 a Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970)356-4000 ext. 3788 fgt.; 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study WUDo► Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? r tes ❑ No s,where? 2(4 C� 1 v1/4l C 12. r5 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? es ❑ No a a,where? d q � a ' 3. Are there areas within the corridor at should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use,other reasons)? Iy Yes ElNo where?fil) jaAte cea_49 rt+-ake - �� tif " /4dW (until t; 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? Name (�.� h Send Questionnaire To: Address Wayne Howard, P.E. 470 _0T-7 - Weld County Phone 2 cS 3 4 Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 a Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 - '' (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 1 _ t ` O11jr. 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study ElkOpen House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? es El No yes,If where? -21f2Ctit— Met (5— tef- Q 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? Yes ❑ No espy ,where? 2.0- r /€ ,i a/ (L� �n �— fricts iota ‘()".°e (y 7/7 to y 7 ) 3. Are there areas within the c ridor that should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use, other reasons)? VyYes ❑ No es,where? 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? y e — M Drar feu ote - Sa ra-7 f a G ens ~ Name '�✓ Send Questionnaire To: Address ,2�� (�C /,9)g• 2 — � 49-rip '1'1oall" Wayne Howard, P.E. Phone (s ) 7D Weld CountyPublic Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356.4000 ext. 3788 ' '; 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? -- "(Yes ❑ No yes, where? //Dept OF InEr O 4L"AiG &A-cj 7 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? OYes ❑ No ye ses 43 a , w ort- F z S A0 me 4'6 ( ./-e 8 S-: (-7C. 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use,other reasons)? '3Yes O No yes,where? /� le 7-cc cue �r S'� e &Ax 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? .a-The iteLed Name ,c.///'ar D• *Wee— Send Questionnaire To: Address /�/O� 001-7721/4_� C� ACM) Or. Wyne Howard, P.E. y� a Phone 9 c70—c? o 917 Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970)356-4000 ext. 3788 "STS 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial nl Study Wine Open House Questionnaire March 5, 2003 ^ Please fill out and leave with a representative or mall to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? a rips ❑No yes,where? La Pe &ka Uri 6-s s, cross 5-fr 3 are CR '7 air"' bdtown GW2 310 arm 3 g. 2. �Doo you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? — ( Yes ❑ No tf_ yes,where? ' C R 4 ya + is on y-h e corn mero+col s de UT a s' cud sees y-ke most l°3 lc pa- 1)m 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use,other reasons)? CZ CZYes CR 7 ❑ No yes,where? a �n h Ve✓� u &k Commerc cti evict i S /1,1�c4 fo b l;c rsSe/4mi an atan9 Ca 7, lob GCilone close- .... i Id ten are ^ Sohxl5( f 0/IC bak f sch.00dg)Wh�e , 5modal .... l en ua {lei 'q �a ) r� c� b, Res • C new in 4. Do ,Q,� � , �` � �t�� on G�°7 Sough or �� 2' � yo av a er commen regarding the arterial roadways? Shoyddr) 1- /-d s- 4,0 to q lane5 each wail, Prsf as;T - She /?AjvA, be-Sore i N Ddar-rj U l ants ro h — reS i ervl-ra l urea-S . Name SAP,1lu a a r�AJa tSal Send Questionnaire To: — Address a IQ La' 1 Lotu Dr, / / 2/ Wayne Howard, P.E. Phone q�(�- 635- (�( Weld County Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley,Colorado 80632-0758 (970)356-4000 ext. 3788 1QQu,ldn if ) bc sittpo r new j cl,n viers 4'a pa Oc, off' Schoo I fv a q lane , h.ro h. spy hboa • to 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? es No If yes, where? ,Pd // tUe7Lu.-J /e een q/s, ea 0 91- aD- 2. Do you ave a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? es No If yes,where? /Well 9,5 -- Goad/n f%//ow s rn homes ��u+/41 no V he /nit Acts 4.-5 Muck , �ecstone eX+ Acts a/2ady /geftfl4Cd 14L5 alco_ its et 0S-siL /e /^OU4e, sDe✓e/operfd cool./ he /y) Pond /and orfrurs/f,o.ti 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use, other reasons)? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes,where? ^ 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? ,6e/,eoe /o/anon iS trod .-c/ea. . Sef Ike rc°�yhfs a� ^ wG/ ?OW — ✓,1 e it)re A?orc /fro MakeS 774 ,irr/oe ssi.6leU01 /duck /foie extras/0K Name `i-c/( Cc,ce, rhen ljJek) Send Questionnaire To: Address 77/s t-'- R //r L.onq/ytpn7L &o. &CSo9 Wayne Howard, P.E. / Weld County Phone ,.Pa—,c'a yc, Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 ' ett4; 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study WinC Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mall to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? ®Yes ❑No If yes,where? R1ew;k\owA,t _ t2Z-zWd1‘ow LA - r ad 2. Do you have a preferred locations)for the arterials?Why? -®Yes 0 N If yes,where? �a Ulm to-c coal n biA t wait/vol. 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use,other reasons)? al Yes ❑ No If yes,where? 4 1\ isaal asidwniiat . kids ride bdtcs , 1 )SroLnC\ Sva-c) bc,;(-1303u)SoiN , C rioh• ur*ous -, Mgaa by scKDo11 u c. ll 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? Name WIC b 1 4i M ON h)eU1119 Send Questionnaire To: Address bODUllelkj N , MPG() i 1 l 7 Wayne Howard, P.E. _ Phone q-0 �S - qq Sc,:) Weld County Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970)356-4000 ext. 3788 'i` 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Open House Questionnaire WII1B o► COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? OYes ❑ No yes,where? -- lett WCR7 , W\ c- A 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials? Why? Yes ❑ No yes,where? V-) C C& 5 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use, other reasons)? Yes ❑ No yes,where? ^ c411 � �C �' L `�TL ��''ck,Ln a re *00 C 1oS-_� fio ce7 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways?Vule Name e \rrX Send Questionnaire To: Address 146 (4_ (- e7 Wayne Howard, P.E. g 7 3 5l"-419(� Weld County PhonePublic Works Department P.O. Box 758 a Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 f&Vr � � 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Open House Questionnaire COLORADO March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? Yes ❑ No yes,where? Amde 7, Afkleie 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? reYes ❑ No s,where? keR 5 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why (Safety, Environmental, Land Use, other reasons)? Yes ❑ No yes,where? //,,/1 c 6/LC, 5 rid— Of aft. i -' /4v s o.✓ Sias an tr 9-77-ace 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? 77)54//1 -777 /5litee _ / Ap ea Name �/�41/,` 4/47, ��/ / Send Questionnaire To: Address/' 4 ''/J� 4/�X 7/ $(c,f Wayne Howard, P.E. Weld County Phone 77a `l"3 S - fif G Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970)356-4000 ext. 3788 ; t 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study yc Open House Questionnaire March 5, 2003 Please fill out and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1. Do you own property within the project corridor? Yes ❑No If yes,where? Gi/es� © Z zs % •snt�� 7,7 (4 /401 (c-t-1 2. Do you have a preferred location(s)for the arterials?Why? e iih/Yeyes, ❑ No ��c 2 %Z � cc i-o �.I- 25 yes,where? a a a a 3. Are there areas within the corridor that should be avoided?Why(Safety, Environmental, Land Use,other reasons)? ayes O No a N yes,where? IC-45 O + X /Z- " 112 Horse 13 a( Pt 0o C C'� C( D ccc(2-o1n- - - 2S �'tz c�. • c a �S 4. Do you have any other comments regarding the arterial roadways? P(e9f-e /h D'ok tn -Lp Co/c, t4 [ o wa X776 r� ti ( �/e « / Name �� Send Questionnaire To: Address 20 B (2.4l(0- DR Thectee CO ,S-51 ayne Howard,P.E. Phone %7 O 2 �( Q (Ye )---A Weld County Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970)356-4000 ext.3788 ^ , a Wilk ^ COLORADO r•• ., Attendance List `, Public Open House 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 50 Thursday,June 26,2003 Southwest Weld County Services Complex ^ Please sign in below: Name Address / / Phone Number ^�� Cic�/�l c9-et s1/� (/h Cr ; 6r 3G�` 7 goZ ^ T1 /mc&.$' A % Mad,{7cl /? G3Z 7-17a/vii,ce- /ea, Zj,/(J2C�,' 2/7 : Oar../.,, ��89 .c.)10,-,. 2�-{ "] 4 w C .e '* 7 �"h.`c2 `3 a 3 �8�al -3j y ' rt c-u. t-,-,," ce7di ujck7 f.,. C6 , 3 es_ Y.28- 33�L7 ✓`Kr/s� e , .. .� Re(v1Pt� a 1, r�fa 5(37Z26706 — 6 c )17:4 3 11X(2 13 j^^ 30 j 7 7( — S'76 ^ ..,e--Y--1-4 SAlG anosC'ea q$43 l,oCR I `I 1 lonrn`k- 363-FlSf-08'y 6,- (tit 4.4-l.S+rt7A.. 27 /fo tvt& ? &r , t 305,28 -3 (Sad_ ( sop_ eer p r4.Qa( e Ovo 1 i f l c) - So 0 c1 (0 1—C� (f Y-^ i ea (✓ _ / e • V06 gint--04\ +tea Z a lc-1,1/4.r eQ 64 rfJ.CO/ 3/O-3-Qd'32, //i 5 a r-PA //700 a).C R ,-5-k c_33—65/-x33 Er tee.-- " -�3' -,-I .,rte 9C66. e; 514i :-Th Pt , ---z�c-zZs - N ,IcqqIC ,t; Fr ?a ax-4n- Fc ,-(A. -vo3 -833-t35 - --- -eiC Kr:4 'd e- ak:Ie_Iv 5704 UUcCZ Fi+e- g33 --03ys' flri1t`. arru1cj 3W! Z 2t frvn}a�t. P. 30."— E Lun io 8054 33'77-Llyyt - kw.„ 1-/. /, `/735 lit G Ai 01-2- /e / 3c3 7X- 5,-4 6.,,,, t at d2 ,2C 11Soa 40Q-P., /) - Zai 57. ‘ 303 -1'33 -21/7 - > rM/ crc r- s-760 a ec-e27 s ,or mss,"?` r4III FELSBURG lehn 8 Associates,Inc. HOLT & ■ ULLEVIG L E V I G Professional Engineers&Surveyors .... Attl; Wine ^ > Attendance List Public Open House 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 50 Thursday,June 26,2003 Southwest Weld County Services Complex Please sign in below: Name Address Phone Number 1 p 64 LYD FCc , �r k g4) {7a&WS ).Ye Ik .�c-5 � ,nL&Ax< 453S' (JCR t3 tilic-- ns-tc tty go6EK7- PiQcoT- = C62 6-6 fit- / • T/levenicx 3O3 - &- i&&' Jot-tr! Fettle til7°5v 4°41A Li , J cr. L0ni 3os � - 'y52 Cry siYJ U Air CO eU Sp ^ iiheit/ 174ferx-A/soq/ 9-207 Ereu.; $Cvo so£e.,.-, '0 Aroct 3O3-S1/--Sz7y r. fnMd (Li, rn. . a,/ I 3 9 ?0 Lt, c a -) el-- s e 8to , v - 303 g-any ay -, Clinr y, /Y CQCIla,,;„e ��/-I 9 H+t-.ru3L C-t eder;c ic �-T krPr1s8 ^ -jPPte-s 0zonTPI� `Y3Ca Lair-AAA..% 5y St)?=Zac tonCA'iorft 3ov- 74,239i Sah 14eV &t(so.,. ‘3°a--1Marn,it-i SA E Or FreCQ9nth- 34-' 3--9W-W4 I(We AJI/nrs-en 14/0 ei-ant (I-- .1 .24 .o3- k$V -CO77 - k .ay AA;tier-An 00 @ra,tt ci- fry ic ai a 68 V-0°77 _- ca) -tom 7'er( c.rc✓z47 per, di)3- ) ) z - zay ^ 11,74-420 -17 to ii.�e ,c 393- 4IC?/1/ 6SLae-- / Vi/ 7 WC-,C7 Mete P 2 S'3s&Scc7 pink 1.1 C1\2LSOK\ 48 fl l�Nem()wLb2. Ee€€exicK Tao-4t'F4S1 �c \ L-`1""3 er.r�SOv\ 1 ‘ c � t ` •-, . 1-7-10^114,CISt 17 4/ C R d 7 L.G;,g-4, cuj— co a'os0 Ill` FELSBURG John a Associates,Inc. (\ H O L T 6t Professional Engineers&Surveyors ULLEVIG feet Wilk COLORADO Attendance List Public Open House — 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 50 Thursday, June 26,2003 Southwest Weld County Services Complex Please sign in below: Name Address Phone Number dig; //,et*c N. yrZs- w.eR /3 3o3-ss37- 3730 S,-, m•-• y �� I/�S4-c 1 (2,- 3 S. tic,--. ._�>!- {�/o/ 3t,3 78S-C.-no/ 1Glc /c��e �7- It il c dam, - �,9 /a-emow 97a5 i(Ir At7 303 X74- spy � O 4 eln-cI "\ vTekF ( )\LI\C3 )Q�Sro-r 333- F33-ZFC9b )ollt t 1 ru k_Lt i-} ) �nw i-1 c1-20 cmgi? ditoC1 .. a)e1cNttioohc2ly S ()Q wet a2 303 -cria-`"tiVc y,v, iftN AIONKIC 9P93 co cue✓, 8o A fi i lv cu URA 5� PARk. 7 o .Cs z 4z co : 4- S. r� 'i uokeI+ C� A, of ro�� c 303- $33 - 3j � .. Lie./ /Y c// ✓ / 'CSt. ne -//�cr/ SCA3-6- / 2/30 �, ✓ C pp / eE 48HZ E Eye Bi 0ccie3r-, c (0 t.--t,Su �i.,?'`�'8-L ;it, _e-cf (end. S-77 s/ G oy -Moir"LE, !E' t 3 � '7 � ell) Riots--,t. 6 - kIRK $`t c C.-\-i (o-g.,-ti 303 -43R-4303 bell geeLicy ) &T7 got lie.: ce — A1/e d 4056 /dIA/S6 c/ ( , ZCZ2JCK c, e7c 77-&Z-oao7 -- Serr' 4c7 rc 3q% wc.ri# q -ie '3o3 (G/ 92 s-7 IP FELSBURG Jan it Associates,Inc. /4 H O L T & Professional Engineers&Surveyors ULLEVIG ..... at."4- 4 Wilk ,•-. COLORADO Attendance List Public Open House I-25 Parallel Arterial Study .. Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 50 Thursday,June 26, 2003 Southwest Weld County Services Complex Please sign in below: .� Name Address Phone Number \_ IL's'1�(-0- /tom 7`I.63 Z i1 3a3 . (St .-719S ^ `c•4 'l . k"./ 41S-23 w di, 3 Z VD r3 s-- `/'i33 /V W�C�L� 11' I- lam I I S3-6,37- 779.E (ON SLNYS n b I hnvke €: 333- ?l0 - 701 - ICN1/4 i3A yv 6locp DUoent_ cAe._ ru 303(viSdizgi ^ sl'Yaiuna Ill iSKirn in,c SITS Dvorc•1LCkr . snsat-( ao3*gib-sss7 '. // .Xi35s /U61E/wsre4a Give fircl 3o3- 7fb - . 17l 4-are „ k l '•. 7eRd, v 2 , do 3 - 772 - 115 2/ fi /06dg GOO 303 - 4Q \7 o.�a ? �zc as / Y3 ! _�SIC� ' e/, 97o 3S3 • X31 -• llekf fr'eit r Y ?3 & 702 rtt accil dr. 0.- 4/94/ - (2631- e-aWNi'EZintA : .1b RUC 42 170 - St7 : CLCo 'IJ M \4 2i 41-1 7- 4-1 L S3 W e-rz-i3 57o - s P 7 -S160 - NJ 0 k 4 18 g 9624 lacks 0 303 - 77-6- ('2.4 (o, -- Ap" ut, \ id shoo \C{L ‘k -N3- \p - tColp /Viunfiyu 1-51.trcl utSceg" gb-aj Luckir I l 303 S-3(0- 4oa SAk2,7 611-71 mues QSnt u5sc-h 7"�S w ..f2-1 4 CA--)C- 303 • 776� - 1 ,3-6 -� A/c1k /ti e-f U/dh i l--; 0/ w(144.1; 9 WC wcx // 383 -(c8 2-s-as ^ 6 5 y !f/C ota/G1_ 363 — )76 marl? ONFELSBURG i�,A\\lehn 8 Associates,Inc. -., (4 H O L T Tilt 1 Professional Engineers&Surveyors ULLEV fit WI`'Dc COLORADO Attendance List Public Open House 0-. I-25 Parallel Arterial Study Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 50 Thursday, June 26,2003 ^ Southwest Weld County Services Complex Please sign in below: Name Address Phone Number .2,c SCA 7--tc: Ceiy 4344,24 fc c ,z 6s v.) 35—/ --.5-51 £1--t i' t 5Z4>-G-7? S7/y .c3VO?A IL c-..-Z 6.2-v) ac - cr.2 3 7 (o 73-3 —aazr4.L � S3 (; CG2rr--. r ,tfr 363 772-1124 em...,--d� �(ok-f-,.,_ I 9.70/ beg 7 303 651 a lv1-itkQ- Aerie irk 3 Li a // �S � � ea ? 3 3 -�� , a33? ;/1 I uM.A 73Sr [/ti 3D 707- ph: I C'7 Roe ce.0 ( 01 550 Kin.bi4.2tc._ sr 3o3 -657- 833 r4� 1c r -r) 3.2E42_ A.,e/d ,' S 7 30.3 Bad'- fr 9, y ! _1 (Any J ?' Cf?1�YJGn " 7 .. aZe \ tiJ,eLQ_4.Sc fay LucR (I 303 et/FL l.7SG ^ er \Do (o w.or. A Th co 1 \jc,R 7 3D 3 48-158 6 Ai.r..r\ VOcr 9Q") [At I ) S3-ash a : )n+...3 Ls nil y gs V / E * r 3 0 ..3-- `7 .. O ^ a a - ^ IP FELSBURG lehn 8 Associates,Inc. (4 H O L T & Professional Engineers 8 Surveyors ULLEVIG i 4 I-25 Parallel Arterial Study -- Wilk. June House Comments Sheet June 26, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mall to the address provided below. 8 / ^114 NCP\AXISeitO VIA fitiC_--- rs vt-A nu, ( p 6+ iv ciftellyrs pytky,3/4“ , loktict .. 09 Wu? W c��G,' t-(,* CAVid-e 04 T XJ I 9fAk Am.44 ('into( 0k Vv-c WALK) 11b ciU4 fin)ye1- 69- to ��75AA itibe. rot,( 12)404)- SILte 4 1-1 S W1CQ vt 0 a f boa gAiti 71,-a-aCized dL v(-QA A L4? 24& p( , c /A/ (A I-A (A u Q (JAW rat (a au r Ar 0 use (me dub 4frit a: ®I e [Ca,.. ( � rRuAd oft-P.et . Ike WA" (,OQ,cfi— i- fon IN Name /'�G YtM CO( r W Send Questionnaire To: ll(.4-44_ 1� i U : ,,,, (i� ^ f, P 4 ( knit �1 r 3 / Wayne Howard, P.E. Address ��11 VS l h�n �e t.� Q � ��l� Weld County7.-2 '7C — t Public Works Department Phone z(� —Z 7b P.O. Box 758 a Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 a 5-DA4 . 6t3e4 LE hat) Pujtk_ Ce4-/ rfritzk ' tr.; 1 f1-25 Parallel Arterial Study Open House Comments Sheet WILD . June 26, 2003 COLORADO r� Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided • below. �p ,y( b u r 1J� r F� r PIN Y $1 ��t1 s.' -OA) f-u^—"r ! ; t 4 � o\-- -Mer.., �.. LA'`n 1 tow ,• y-t.:4 (,,) f 1111 C I W \ ( ' , A sflc ; t i4?- ,s i u e.rse # u);tom&(A-CA O r. YA ( kx,Lx ( _ f n a { ;.,.- ! r j,. f;.' ,f., LUC < r ( r ;y 1 ^ i % I\ C I f 4F CI ; t ;.�.) ;1 t , ; �.t -4t)h c.� kao A LT 1 10, Name j!`(C 4 f L `11 Send Questionnaire To: / � Wayne Howard,P.E. ^ Address CT/ll G�-i U " Weld County ^ C Public Works Department Phone "` • P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 ^ 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study lll��'D� Open House Comments Sheet June 26, 2003 COLORADO r-. Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 4 / Kh 6-41ervses 0/ 46,45fit J DA' Send Questionnaire To: Name ili /b` XJA'd/S J Wayne Howard, P.E. n Address ' y Re/A ea) ( ,7L f 4H-4 mon { Weld County J Public Works Department Phone 5 7%102 41.7(24- P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 till 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study Open House Comments Sheet June 26, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below.✓41 y //OrelereY1 G4 f/J�.r ri?er10 4b444 g-//i of rj°trt ersr c. d0cy ST fel Big 2 c'arr te,- Cv ) Cost ALr 3► 7, c,dsT /94- ' East Are- 4 a, ell-1-lsz A& &, cmn (ger in" Ont. A17- Av GVC_3dT L95 Aer 36, c - am' AcT C-2 �adj ger C w\Qdr ACT 3 , t ct- Sr a to 3 ctdvv e gds ) - P/eva-k 04 -nt c.d a s . , 'b≤n -% rr,c(L c!e. 34-07-62 ,,,c per -kryi, /acat -A to 31 sr c�r-UC`-t cy- dc.-fans hr otic-�44S! Al 470 4 "5' A4Theryf SZ L=' Ably crf 414 0-3,‘-3 r-evc s 62.- e avp-r? d 2e s ^ Ar,a Las to /eo 61 d d C41 f 64fs ) I ' i Send Questionnaire To: Name - S �'ti/)0a." / _ /� ,/In Address (Ug 4/14/1424 ^( Rd VJ 4c Weld CountyWayne rd, P.E. Phone 3t3 - 08b J 7?j ( CO.) P.O!Box 758 Works Department Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 Atzr. I-25 Parallel Arterial Study I Open House Comments Sheet wine June 26, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. L T f rw prior1+y i t Y -efmlr, "kr tiff i'. L1/1 1-1.5 ikovut(� to Up,rale. Wcg 13 SieS?. /U1 -t/ry1 `to re este vcec ((.rt - D -wow upq yai;�'�j � k'CD 's 1+' 1/ it, a oS � goal . th ?act ) tdds n`!`f&I 40 ytakt S MY-!Lti Cif it iTLtc.t kilns/ n' ri U . ib �. Wt J � y CAN,. y t ccco.hd hypiss c1i o f S jd r 5 ' WI )! man, 60-71 e4d S 7 #11- Send Questionnaire To: .� Name Rr""v �!rho vi ' Wane Howard, P.E. Address 9^�?„ .), 4i r.' , ( �GvL b Weld County , Public Works Department Phone `,,,t'n r i� ( ;'r7 P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 flits I-25 Parallel Arterial Study Open House Comments Sheet Wilk. June 26, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. I 4,31Z-4- Wak 3- +o &cL t-C ci-rtkr C.i 1 If ? �.. CrA4 ' PKALc cD _`F c ptA- i3 tQ..Qs1A.C¢MA 4 \au&k 4var&nr\ P.t�C�iWY7. ko re (p-t tt C3 r-'4 N vta C '7r :k l U 05 �, fr,v-L G s vv\ecitktrweept , k-c,kii,e. ; pmerk.Jr kliwf J o 4A trm&t . Pt...,e w-ev-p Sro-kr CIA° chi FAARA...av ^ rt Send Questionnaire To: Name Q �. 1}P t' �y`�r Wayne Howard, P.E. Address at E ( ( G p�sam'! Weld County Public Works Department Phone '?02),- to St- O t P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 lar f+ 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study . Open House Comments Sheet June 26, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below.,_ _1- a.'n O2 s-C —&. nil Gt_ t/LI // d /t 1/ -tiL Au yLiacti a el d U ,� ?fir niat.4-,26.4...." //4} 497/k ' � Send Questionnaire To: Name Ve //� Wayne Howard, P.E. ^ `T�J Address /b dra,eu.. Weld County Phone 3O3 M,l 4o 77 Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 f �( VA I-25 Parallel Arterial Study Open House Comments Sheet p June 26, 2003 ^ COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 9--�Q � ro KI /5. b(),_ AL4L „i. r Ap AA0-2c-A1. 1.e-c-u_ L—x a 6.,rr,te._,,o, c �. �i4 N4> .0 P� 14 Ad/ .r 0.r A Q .07"T.-1 e ;.l p, ,Ulf . ice` gel Send Questionnaire To: Name 4.2144 '^ Address $$Z.2 L[ ii `/ Wayne ld Howard, P.E. Weld County ?jB `sj g7j 3 o`Z /j Public Works Department Phone 7 P.O. Box758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study mire� Open House Comments Sheet June 26, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. (GYP ��oci/a/pt e f c-r- C'i s f' ,1AT. r> c/�P/wneh /yAw • j/7 417c/ PQQe/ 1P Send Questionnaire To: Name F cn/ 3r 41 rc4rhPn Clbb Wayne Howard,P.E. Address 77/x- LLJr/ // Weld County Public Works Department Phone (jai? R2 — P.O..Co78G, Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 , At':,P; Wink Attendance List Public Open House ^ 1.25 Parallel Arterial Study Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 50 Wednesday,July 9,2003 ^ Southwest Weld County Services Complex Please sign in below: Name p Address Phone Number 15A 15A. zigo r, 4,,,-/ cop 1- �- rCo . (o Col- 1Z?S _ f . c96 t.2 `3s-3587 air MA-2r,NI -Qf tiok3W tg'zviuC / 94.10-5-3s-iO3_ s— , Sennfr CQSM 513"1 CJCR?o? Plan-tv Il.t_, Co ?OCAS 910.535-9a90 .. c_5- �� 1431 1 (e C5'4- Cte_ai Cep Ai oI:St 97O)353-83Io �AA2 Ex; i (733 wELi) Co )a0 7 REYL740vo ab 920-5-32-2g3 i r, idaS 5p4 11 /l oo S/ I.0 t�c, 5- era ea ses-gZ 57. .170.530" I:3a -- //99t we, -q-- L a.vgg/iai— R—oSoc/r 33;1;c I' loco. Litton 17494 Lot, 4 Les n9 ,,-I eGso4 C30). ab-58vt r\Oflt.. PC's)1J WY)6C 1 AcR'Z ✓ r/ ✓ ., 1?�l?tI�t2�' t 1 �c7L1JkJ c�4 �u .*� ��'l (0"7 ^ I tc cu, g yc ,c at- "boo (A4-4-IL4 4, &/Zo ; 71e e� rimiiir,44._ /a-PiP /c 9Q o /A/ C- 2 7 �J roe." /CSC/s/ /t/.62,e 7 / /-27n (97695-35--v,/,� It Dfrifi PaXUJ5 l °1 1, 2-5 t )U2 S ISE1_'nHb0P gi0532- 35 / — Niek '6Rc_gi I, lll18 8 UJ a12r7 1,.....r ("OSbu (3A C78 8S`18 Lk .. `ti-wt45S -96)Nix ex 5-15- d--tectA t Cc Tt S4Z M i t S-3.5-112-Do A frrn/i.v <7 92 to R Ln,vtym0.✓ . 71- Bocow 790 ,fasv65 4� ,,\o'-,. - l b l- U�,..r �"� nc- \II\9 ova Co cg u€Dy• 30lt65'1-13 8 IP FELSBURG lehn 8 Associates,Inc. r4 H O L T & Professional Engineers&Surveyors ULLEVIG Wilk COLORADO Attendance List Public Open House I-25 Parallel Arterial Study Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 50 Wednesday,July 9,2003 '-, Southwest Weld County Services Complex Please sign in below: Name Address Phone Number Sw zk-*h-E /-I"u-R+tc,t - Ktcgtc !3 sf' PA-aKeie ate . Le-a• co .3o3 YBses-y3 11R��D plot kf C1B G FLAT,go., 10090 z-2S Row LONG3,otiT -o. F' T9(>cRD. 303- 4BS- 4os'o &c& Atph2A<< - /Mreu cr'r fns /roisiniclLLE c can *- 9i6 -zzz -9133 1 / 7A 2OCkSX ,I/2e. ,S'5.s 23-27 .. / 76 r al(fZ 5' Pc k fzece, fDJ J2fCL11 jar Z.�� i 7.5751, ups 73e-f.n.a..caf 9'70-33T-- Y3/.3- ^ -71-_u Id,ErTheiAtAt 39C≤ 734/7"; .Z Asci% 303-EgJ-}� a, i c4' d �11�/t .30 3 x'33o sla O\ ttcie nasa-,_J iv7scKt, Lsi Q., ud '7 363 > > z-67 ( z b at_ LK) R_so-t--7 , i n , i .. 1)/m tsC $73o t- 'cA 3f' thRe1 xt 5,'b --511s---:?2 0 �a.c4_L, s'm f( / 7/-f ci f2 3 lrn.ead 72O -53.3'-YQ36 P r &,4-cc,- N1Fri-0 70 C35-y2ye / ot J tynok 3 150 rtes A A, /?o 1 6 w alRJ s- Ai edei ct 916-S-35_ iea 33 `_\ k`�,.�E y ()\ \?,`f.:(L ..- r e.J�\\e Q1v•S3S•L�a$� C,ARDL . DRfIIS 33t � WCP� 3 � cb� >ck cl7053S4�36z. " •. FELSBURG lehn a Associates,Inc. (4 H O L T & Professional Engineers&Surveyors ULLEVIG , 406) , Wi`ik Attendance List Public Open House I-25 Parallel Arterial Study Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 50 Wednesday,July 9,2003 ^ Southwest Weld County Services Complex Please sign in below: ^ Name Address Phone Number - tic-Lt .c Xe wcc 2-( G'r&( v, en,. 5-3s--0 6c 0 b//!)1t1l c If ,_ L I .- 1 -1--ti i v, cy efausv-r\ 3l to ikciw&s A Lk !Mead os-og. C HuC1-C iyt2s Li99 g ce 317 1.,4rtvxoi-L 9?o-r3-r-2/o 9 / - 04/t h P l,a7jrAo , Nils- r{ c.,7 iea-al GO 1Yo--5 35 -- 9a la a-oh A r Las s /O/(1dP,J),. 4 70 5-3 5 vy/y ,rc e I 1-opts ah /6Srf 4/7 ,%,60/cc 922,--4-.7--r- q.c--7'7 ^ Lam CJa.iLary i19 �) fe-rS Crn-eec+/ A.(asus+/ .535 - 5100.2 1 y (tiltrejt itq Iv M5 Cevir A drat-9n 9'29-asat _^ Krttsrt ).Jhi1-ii-t4L- asSL9Sq ,'i'kp pR- d�sic n.X g'16-535---1og� -71 Ce-c-c .2/- / ! K/ 1..� ! s/* /. O r-�r� �G�.I�� L d'- �- ^ c 1��-, Gil a�' sr°,--��.� il,ead 47,ST 9C--4i 4 (p 0r /fig " - 4 S-� Sf P!c PRA P¢.��7 , c 2 c L/� *RR vcbs Vo t.)A 1-f- ► 67 5, t. l CSC )' 4 �,-1, - 9 76 S 35- cl S87 : i /a yz/c) larR �lo Vi cs ,.N, en. 17. —53.2-0390 i 7//��c Za' l!/ i,./ vi- /77r.-79.7 er., 9 7a 631-se9:or ^ 417( eldvrt / Ste//3 S,7 (., D C,. J olu.ctori, gf?D - ,,r) ? -or?b - fit ic.. $friGk/an i L ✓6r t loi �na4_. frall Pk1 ev;/I'e in - r,rv72, s_ pi FELSBURG lehn&Associates,Inc. (4 H O L T & Professional Engineers&Surveyors ULLEV]G Wilk Attendance List Public Open House ^ I-25 Parallel Arterial Study ... Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 50 Wednesday, July 9,2003 ^ Southwest Weld County Services Complex Please sign in below: .. Name Address o Phone Number ^ Steve ne,a Zak-ctn.-IL (//J- 98v9 ( �AA E 9c lemon n o; lei e h n o2-9y6 7 C 7 7r,e SS 2 -a s-/d 's►n cdo e/ /3(3 -tev.i-sf. De,.)..r 3'J - 4 -J3. -"DAu11) 6, 1313 cArs fT 1J rJ� 3"-g ?Li32a3 t _ 39-cis a s p i2� 9 m- 49 ( - ohs? Rniki + J o)/CE /4 6(f,nA.51" A 3C7 KoniTI/ff eiOK( AI& 0 7a 99701/03 *yr V-- n w�- --- 6-3 sL c/? 3 7 eL� _ c� - 9 7d 3 s_-y.3 7 . ^ P'lc4 i3 & AA, ZVI 5SercAc.dr M ej Co S 7o s3s- 13Q cc, - Jul UM/oil' COPPC6 9440 s 216.5 3 0213, Jottxxro 0176-587- 5266 Lore A Q (ANC, IS% stet /KS-a7 cc) v, (z.„., 1r --)20-5-3 .S -U 42,3 W 1 I-i-k. \J 142.7 $' to tie 7 kofc,ef .Ca. ,s,ay2_ 970-S33�cgGo Vogl, jocv,r/L67 5-370 i!lfc,.'u;Tic T, Js611U5%accd 1 roc, 9 -970 577-2107 11"1 r We kecsle r 15n 1 GJC Q 1-3 (-lam I,/Ie 97n 535-OSo 1 Rxcan►� �-€ y Iry *D (3 J�C to I�F �,1/4oct , ci SoS ss - SS/p J 533rD w� f2 3gs �laPv lle �17535- '(37� .. Sc .2A- cat -' P..� /oa U,A . 770-C3 S 9toZ_ `` , 41-) h/ . . -Cif,0.0 '.."-Q- +. - "v._.. 2 23 F'- RI'_L.4 A,. }ti' ',-k_h .* i' i;`, cm- , 't a4, 11 atc,c,, (1`21,z et-74) f1!- 7/Y9 - S&fi.d, \it 10 Aki ilc4 C+ M(lac\ q90 -535 - 44uD IP FELSBURG Jelin 8 Associates,Inc. (i H O L T & Professional Engineers&Surveyors ULLEVIG Wilk Attendance List Public Open House ^ I-25 Parallel Arterial Study .- Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 50 Wednesday, July 9,2003 Southwest Weld County Services Complex Please sign in below: .-. Name Address Phone Number S L 1..,o.11c-ev- Zz35 Z,.e Ace. 6"-e-elay 35Z - 12_151- A- �ARQy 11Ab.f)LESov -Po ol(77/eACTI c,�fCo . '0/6W! o,87 9/o-u -u r AL-4-SM,I —FaAvr d..74 1-7 ?! Cezua41 Rat&o, 0m-513 4'Ir9 -.5:1<-9178C ^ /Two -k- tr546A tr-��erJ5et /3 RP/ Alcg ) 9,U Cis -V64q°J awsi F1JT t e73 D L f'(c,,..,,i-d, '.,0') 301, -- 7W-i92.1_ ors � M 7Ds1>it 56/1 17R9� 0Q ,� Mio,oi , CD 17D-a �z� - i80 c�nn2 vhgn c2Sb eCc ;tkr, 4Ut mu 303-705-SZII 0en%) c Clirr s l );1)ci. .? 5`03 tdc/I. 36 PI ectai, a u0- s3.-- c/3.5-y Stis a.. Joy-4 `dr cl u.. /g C a-S CO a-yr% Mr..:I ill c4_ S—S�J.s- 1//.3 2 — r ./;-)-7 , 1� a?l6. /iZteU ;Snail 7a.- Ald `w0 d J'P:—r b/ ^ j • 6f//7,gA /� r I-'c& Coke' /4( s •1Crto.-i CO So s- 4.-1//�S g• T)cck/S 5/9 eV r O Y d /738a u/CA / 3 ?/ay/f-✓i//, 53S- 9{c/tf — "C. ,.c1r.c. 2013v oicws D2 -sati6,tlroton - se-7,o9S j -- i 1w \i/0(F��,l y21 s ` sue �u��O • h t- 17 Z/ _ //�4��nectar 303-6S'2/3o bili- ci_ rf (,),1 1 g7/ (c / on7t`a,hli 99n-S3 Yosy - `LE tia,4az? -ce qc 6e, 1In -D q7b --ss--.in? : C ct.5 Co,aw X9-4- &Z•en-a& 1&.v-t riCA0 if .i /7 " • FELSBURG Jelin a Associates,Inc. --- C, H O LE IG& ��/� Professional Engineers 8 Surveyors ULLV g., iMpcit Wilk .-., COLORADO " Attendance List Public Open House I-25 Parallel Arterial Study ^— Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 50 Wednesday,July 9,2003 " Southwest Weld County Services Complex Please sign in below: " Name Address Phone Number Vlit Li Pet-rL , 55si loc. Or t4ca1 S�3s --1-f; etLi rwt 3, �' milky n Ma/1)atc' O-, Meat Gas- IN i c Ter' !-o 4)e/ r 4:, N/�' -C - icigr Pc-X,,,/ Luc a e.� �33/b , It, CdC-4 _ Lt 9 7O-535 OL 4Y U� v )7.,..-/X:4-1-A-�:. 277/ , Or. mr4c,� 970-S3S-972 3 �cei� .r 5.o.L -2-5-rt CA L:12 -9 Mta cs\`\0 5)5- 9 cis- , R DLtan e Go e' ke I-cr /1 fl akst v e1/4, &- ?70 535- 4(11 M 14vL..- .ai 1,a1 HI/ lc ueSa,.Trc : I 117e S' ZS r, 4 WI 1 --Uewt ti NA)aw LcA Ib fi .vu,,, Or R-70-ss-- yal � iGc rmanrANN z6eto St?E NA Da 11JE e.D 19O "OYs.a J o t/ -- Cos°ev cog owe ao ftfrAcic u int-a lyr 9�-sar-o91s- 7'v 4 ez-cm,,--( oZ a la 717- er 5 -(.,..4.a., /19t.4 43 76 S3 s- O, 2_ 1"-- -i_4- C.. -A' •Y879 WC/2 2 V p .?O3 8 774 -9/ 9 27O� c.,7 L/277 tile/2 2 y % y , c-)yy,,.o,.7' 303- 2,4 - 9/89 g!tr,,,, .. L-NiLr v 313-1 -Nthrnk - c td cI -1U5-354 l0 Rrri-d; - it °olo ? We l, 1/4P o Cruel q l'S__kS-74,sc F., . t 1 AurAA Act ccMndvr ≤3s- ¶ q-,7 2eti ,Nwi-(- nao at so, h,oat/dK 1 ss7— 933 es .i FELSBURG Jelin a Associates,Inc. ,. (4 H O L T & Professional Engineers&Surveyors l ULLEVIG a Acet;; Wilk COLORADO -.„ Attendance List Public Open House 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study ,,, Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 50 Wednesday, July 9,2003 ^ Southwest Weld County Services Complex Please sign in below: NmeAddress Phone Number ILL_ sec 2740 c , 669974, to/9 /2 l C.4,6A.. ;�n L „1-02,5--Ave? .�"-A ' 520 .S'a°S`% A T / iNEaR cANNzw d9os 5 //CM/ 56 9 '76 -33-7-O7 /O"-- - c t4 E brie h))T��q 159dd oW '7 /kid 914- 535-0s97 {' Gtr.V` i U_ ,f-i-,t'Z cc)G2Sy 970 -1? _ ` r6v 71-ti,, 2 777 - aacq Dr. /L/u/f S 20 - S 3 3-/%Z/3 -- / 4r Stkoc--o" �-L c7 Gam' lip ��`e A,IL `t 7 0 - ,S-3.�Y z S' 1 -. I11G• _ . 02(0.'7 3 "1—c.,. -1. fln.k 95 - c33 Z673Gfid deA. )fie/ 4 70 -fir-923j e{ly �or9Qn5 h a?1,S 2 Serena- ?)r. YYCca4 976 - S 3 S- -5/6 .. I a VVe S (LOAM it l0-1 S, 1 a 0+ AU.a i-10) 535-48 7 l2r-0toLOC It / r ( (fel19)1 533- ,-1 Lo -e.. Ci et•-"8.4-i--- Zit "3-23 ,ie.-eb.q Dv •• flo 27,- s aS% /f6 3-7- EEarS" it'., a 720 .2/7 7/89 F122/01 40 MM arih-C$ CV70 X35 0347 C4,oV/O jillnIC tiler2 /r / r / r 7 44e,y / .>-ia, H /71 S �I0 C4 tutpAci giC53s- 0231 OP FELSBURG lehn a Associates,Inc. (4 H O L T & Professional Engineers&Surveyors ULLEVIG ^ Wilk Attendance List Public Open House I-25 Parallel Arterial Study Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 50 Wednesday,July 9,2003 Southwest Weld County Services Complex Please sign in below: c b5o Y Address Phone Number 1 l� (2 l �, ] L,�q ( q t( IQ� �tk'3 } p�'Jni ��'�it..i✓ ��'�� `off ._} '�'20 } s-t t Jf 'E LF1st 2GJv �i "_! !G t_ j ) , xr ;'I )LeD`/ rw 1 \ Cr 11+ - �1-€' ..!T�- ?"�. f t l �" �_ K..�.. fir- �aKe- 5prot4st- /b920 c� S Ate/5d 97v- MC s )(6,T !) J- � v. 1f • Nl@a4 // 0-73 - / re1g cgs repQPt=N7-F2 2°RFraC.at Ayr / Mr4,-& $>mEw? 44P • sir . Lk$ bbb3CYN k•ku - 2KT 2Vr..>' SeViNlie Eit-0 tY514Z 4 53S°IL I�larK + Trif ,c� ��r�:1't � sk' i5 -,z) Sere no, T> React r' 4-/a q7D 53:-1g1 _ Cc-a (tQG <re AOrt (2o .. SOP' C4 tl` ��,'�, �E� ��"tx2 Ar x%,4( =5 <14-T of C'r. �IP1) 1 >o? c.c '7 JVpa Go ko54Z 49/45-4 • '" I r-A. A-L`'..�''1 l-. ",5,`.. � I A � . V c1`._- f _ •1)1r FELSBURG Jena a Associates,Inc. (4 H O L T S Professional Engineers&Surveyors ULLEVIG -- COLORADO -� Attendance List ^ Public Open House 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study Weld County Road 2 to Weld County Road 50 Wednesday, July 9,2003 Southwest Weld County Services Complex _ Please sign in below: Address /0 Phone Number iou9,as �ry M l/1c.r ,gZw1 f pe4 J.� ce Oe no- S'3 ( � --o?ai/ ,�LrEn/ teVwcr Iyen Etariftr, steRD 970 - s-3s-• cyst?' ----Irec / YIy7Cto 3 o tr 41 - foJns .h reN G )'� �✓('l•' ( `✓.:(2. J� 2 b �j J� t 1 0 �.� fJ>'� . J•f 1.�-,..! �(�' �'1 }..'r /! 2 .. e r 1 J✓ Fl "� G:- I� xqL C 0+1 lrTi/l.f` /x 't / ' L1 e• oaui 1 F . _ . / f _ • _ I j/ 4l.m jT / r, si X1r k -'_f ..r ,_' (.s P' t- e ,r. -l? �`'c.� 9 t c Ir t'y -... `6 '.<1 .�.'t-/ r✓f'. ,j: ft/ a--/ vJ � `:/ - �� /-'t 7 I ='lam / - ^ l 1='1 YE- I ?-.4/4 ✓i T_ _ t _ _ ` _� / Ago it & rte! &7-z el m e,--,e -- /i 6 mi y -/3_e/� -pro 'S 5-3s-412 s: �y' FELSBURG John a Associates,Inc. CH O L T 6: � Professional Engineers&Surveyors ULLEVIG 1 '�' I-25 Parallel Arterial Study I • � T'* I Open House Comments Sheet July 9, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. rig) 134 )-7, In 2i ri cL. (o .11 00. Send Questionnaire To: ^ Name Wayne Howard, P.E. Address Weld County Public Works Department Phone P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 1Ufi' r‘ I-25 Parallel Arterial Study ��'D� Open House Comments Sheet July 9, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. ARC. Y�l I!—a lj r ase,gig e. loco"' %'Lr_ zJ wed r ,11-1-7— Stave c� 5. 3 .ells. j%elleo- /cc-nu AIc 4,7d, .{,y L . /'e J,lyl.✓ct0J /fsti a y /' • &nuJ'J ca..) f of litspy//� ✓rte/1-e- « 4,A - _ Name /ro JGr �� Send Questionnaire To: Address 2d 1 /�yfJ 4"C_ - r11elt-r Wayne Howard, County P.E. Public Phone 970 flC 542- 2 -P P..O.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 `er.iw4 ? O4 efA, A-c teat I-25 Parallel Arterial Study Open House Comments Sheet p July 9, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. CS). pro ` .r o, 4Q ' Gas o �v -\Kt O4o. )•••• y \e.v.\aa> 6�.\ \111 (t � �-c\Ceak�, . VaSc� �cenI . , un � m `(�Yofl_ a n . c,0 - V.Sa c »e., AUL�_ "WN\ rAD COX% bf A.6C.> big G.lii, P4 D' VSO �_ q c p .o _ n __v� v v� nota vr.n0, 9 Y, \I-S k o> �n \t.IN. >ess\satSc^ Q• n l V&1 _ "� �� 'Sk1V.O-0 o "w\9-rka ok.n 1‘4D-At 7a .. \\Q6a \t% SIk VD .Q4.Q.1w\sAbR2 , O,xi k \NV) 'Qv K Otok_ , ^ ..-. Name C,Cc.,cra_, Send Questionnaire To: Address 22r,b t.1 ti o lbrl Wayne ldCounty Howard, P.E. Weld County ., Public Works Department Phone r-15\r\c\Kl pAiS ' &N 6 P.O. Box 758 (970)Greeley, Colorado 83 832-0758 � ' � �,� (970) 3564000 ext. 3788 ` �n9n,� 3-K OO _ .- I-25 Parallel Arterial Study Open House Comments Sheet o July 9, 2003 ^ COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1 `� I am rifest" 7o yocty pre-rerreA a /tivAreavI av/MismV(!, ism seyrfi e,in' $ ox road � bet-we€,a v-04,4 / 24 0 2_11a tdeslof .. Z ,zs'. 'lkis sect,en wok ld etf r�Y4f- #v t L. 7� r mJdfe o-F Soin e erVtke last ?VI n,e wtwalift 1na12f-(e* e,451 o- Lop9Mo,J7 r � T Loot, IA also a(e54roi virtlared rs pay taau areas awd /mind a very /Lyle Bike lie rou tookev yo to N etc) 10 /nok at more /GA) / Iisf ieuelopr.rs ao(to rs 1A) en Mail'? Such /arre 41vl erreuoc4 ble decisions, • Name A. L (0 Al Send Questionnaire To: Address 119 911 tA/C 2* 7 Lot Nov/ r6Soy Weld Wayne ldCounty Howard, P.E. // C Phone 3O 3 ?6 S-49-72/ Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 ^ to I-25 Parallel Arterial Study .. Noe Open House Comments Sheet O July 9, 2003 COLORADO ^ Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. \1C \iz i V3,36, b`� ��41.t� C�,�1.4 c , \ \)`tom \�c'�Q - V\O.>.f�llO \\ •,tom tkd 1_e.. e ��.- \ . E\Q \c_) • cs nG! ,111 c \\\N\\�Qla�e R Ql\R , nSJR4 \-7J\r s Ar, Atka a a ^ ^ a^ Name c�ap,tZ AC�CJ Send Questionnaire To: Address \ t3 4 Uy',t�. 1.9»w.ew ('O �S�O'� Wayne County Howard, P.E. � Weld County Phone J��— a.��-4 n�� Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 a (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 ft 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study �� Open House Comments Sheet o July 9, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. As a conearroa3 ceside-k 4-n LOQld Crtu,ly area urge r, i5 m} t,>4'id Yn" ark riot couke rthri rnad. .3 and beic o,- roes ,Zfo anaa . q4. II•kis is in bc-th bask- in4reA- 4O 41,42_ envirarren* and (... 1::11C-Ce.. as u]tt1 as humor. 4rk2CPsj• Y-c yn,., build /o(or read in cSt4Cf nerhAral (ArtCa p0eu14ti'o„ nF erta EayW,bftat hGan5% P cyrkaS/ ,W l crr.lo rh;ca 41a antic - chore ha c s-1<sbed Open - pace is, C1liicKly eepteiri.q dtio ko re:y;d grntrAharr4 beCort,i a s.. rr►JC& prQcics4 r<'`.i PQU, 7Q.SSt zSecnnr * Ii)kak tAkka lanA ;5 k- rnt.L,- 2 pnzieved 2nr ihtP •O try 14- loan& ;cnv ckank erlAcakicr.-cac3ors ^ as t.JQl1. yr, my i5 *Ar♦ .F li&e I !saute- „nkchec 4a kcx dxuea_ ck,o.ry Rlp;ct ty aryl 5e-r.okW� rfluo 1- lee_ cero ba-Cete trk i1 -hors t t- tib nand k1� enSl.re._ •• 4hak TIAAtAre eine!'nk%brtS ualik V\avc &rhalintu bolt airV2rzr3 clown -i1 rc40, �ll,Qan cflOv% a 5uCh im?ctc �,a dciors cat -third be Ai-v. • Zit i• At-- hGS t1QtKn i.UJ',1311t¢ ctr,d -hno tit.2SVcc K` 'e. ^ Name Send Questionnaire To: note, �}4cor, Address 11gqunG ?� Wayne Howard, P.E. 9 c ` Weld County Public Works Department Phone G3o3)- , o-5s':; P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 ^ 6 fetes I-25 Parallel Arterial Study Open House Comments Sheet July 9, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. opprs_saA2 / `1 o your frojecfecl/ C lyn ion? �r- ^ ,SJ P e ovi't S OA rre, 4 ro 742-/c✓io TO o ds .04 (=rill :z 5rIm o-F- S- as- y✓r ?roposv/ wo% A ,y; n-s Lyre 4 de .1-ri✓inend -} fie 2 co /t31 Jr( al one/ en i/dr fire vt, / -6- t AeR /- of -1-At. Sec-hnn o-1C /gad et,I- (Ai o cif l ( Cvniint -thro 1_TA -{ !,e river qni (me* land arers. "Pis Qcf or ^ ci ettcrti-rn iclovlel AP Agr„1 (AJi/ --rlor4 On Le -lCauhq i ono-F /J �rver (o/trelor wa✓!cl irnpac¢ ct re #/I, a1 +he he /4-4 JWell tbeirij crr-.. qJ( oki, 0341 and Au✓!'1gn h cc_up chi vi-.S, d {-o b¢ p Q(SP Ft/I w 9 (nor- n 4.44:r / Ye S Wi t 4-he d-es4- 6'F nor q1 t" 1i l y / fa#Aer +A to ,2/1 y7 4,-/-7 r. Our h en Y-c -e ad pt ) 4- 4..1 brisk ^ Name -� &Pic6rk Send Questionnaire To: Address I 1 4 y (-1-2-P1cc. �d, Wayne Howard, P.E. civil Ca eon Weld County Phone 3d3 - 776 -.r"7 Public Works Department / P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 V� '1 f, ' ; I-25 Parallel Arterial Study Open House July 9, 2003nts Sheet COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mall to the address provided below. 614,4 EJ- Asa fa...d o&n �r P��h �ia+e�.t S ,L .�F 7 .1�its �iy'4uJ< `i culhave, €/evasf1-4, f �atfs -,4F'&fv, et.-F and t,J,/drGte t n -ed term_ r 7lre c' eriikte/imed a" m -nhti Lfin `P eitihic9nmetat e JLJ,//dL `i4, ratel atAi d esit c,9p✓-hthi S. Z4S p(ap Sett zZ „aty &oJd cz,,t i rou sh / r /?F//etr l bid 7-/41 ,5 /Wni �C �451�' /2Ubn-*ou"S /)1/ar-&till fixes deeralt e a,k H-r&de tN ORrdr My 4--‘444:4, A►ome s/et-efgi 4e land( 04 &lti4 my biro-Wier )s it0e ) £s OcJri742414417. 0/y. �L/ �/r�f� �7Le 6,Lioo �1° ! aim CG-�?'6rld lath�3 fP eta /Gs h fib f 1/414-r ��:��/G�YI" kh, TLiT TG /U�f- t ≥q-t Ora iiianP / / f Pit°a� ('!!G cidi.Kageor Svc I oG�n GJIfL/1Cwr/�61atli 1i r (iadtem /l,Pvecs<</earid ^ /1e:its-tl)/e f 1 P!7on 7*, s;,„trtakticerny envronmehf and er,4/0 riees. thive 9.7),7„ <Arar�f/ �4/vra o i., !JAllard skl e 6. e h�5 pr ved over) 7;i �., p)i Std G'a29U }'c4W!e se f7C�L�.rTL�/'1 s 7i71sz,/z 1/„ frt, j ^ Name ,�s?.'rf/ty gam Send Questionnaire To: Address :8O� 1'L= 0611/e Sf C,2 `:1 &) sa_S?t Wayne Howard, P.E. Z, o _ Weld County Phone ?c,� yp jS Z Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 3564000 ext. 3788 Ant 4; I-25 Parallel Arterial Study Wo'D� Open House Comments Sheet O July 9, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. e1 we C � 74 . i—e_a 'n 76''122 e r P //,064/7 ate! _ d •t4-"(Valid"? �ll , .r /mac A (l-tt,Le r eA ;i a� mac/1t2 ttat G .. Mar- —_ lb /1 n /.� y�r t `�1 �:i.. P, dr'-ae A—. ._d-C/L0 Let U —et .�� , - - Name Oa ,6t tL Send Questionnaire To: Address _/7137' to PI ok 7, WeldnCotard, P.E. Howard, Public Works Department Phone Q 7e - -iThs- v?• 7— P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 Ara-A/ale earn./,a/c'• nFt (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 ft+V4," 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study Open House Comments Sheet p July 9, 2003 .- COLORADO re- Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. wQ Ova ort i--m >: rorYLcr of CR 1 •r• CR 36 Chic srhorne Looctdd J9R cif .rrrc ¢-/y in-pactcd a r +-g et (t( r o c Li-e wart t o n Rd, `7 rou9h `PLo +o Lc, v O"F ill enet. We_ Strongly a ad ¢ 49-k Las, .c.�5f3'cal l y 5 44...p por t -Q r a &-r rod roc- +e 12y pa s c ? n9 +LLD to 4.43 n of m tact O n 1-he L4_00' 5+ 5 Pd e , -71,L0.44 c coot-4.1c1 be rtei.1 n r►act l t -tpe c l- to ccc.rreet* 11omc S ci-ncI -roc ¢tek-Fr "aw+w-c dW.v(2-(Op r»rzn.+ h+ /y pay ru2crz 55a.st- y road coo. yS earn I nee pre vQ (Kt n-15 -co r- tFcct�.-e IBS 4:142 n 1'5 . I Send Questionnaire To: Name C0.�h y Cam I —7 O, el CR —� Wayne Howard, P.E. Address Weld County Phone Cot "l o3 35- O8 10 Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970)356-4000 ext. 3788 �$it_� 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study Open House Comments Sheet July 9, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. ,�/ �J lane:. `?(t K e9.iy ty' . ' .� . , ,' Send Questionnaire To: Name J �: i" ,. •_ /, Address ) /L 2 G- t tiC/c 2 I' aC. U l Wayne County Howard, P.E. Weld County .. , .0 , ,- Public Works Department Phone `1 J . 'r a= „ c P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 ^ , 6 I-25 Parallel Arterial Study wineOpen House Comments Sheet July 9, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. crt lity7 -16Eadit A-0-ttet ^ Send Questionnaire To: Name • Addres © or Dr Wayne Howard, P.E. ih ! Weld County Y Public Works Department • Phoneme �o w✓1 ,f P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 tbe I-25 Parallel Arterial Study Open House Comments Sheet o July 9, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1n� flak MY. Y �'1v. ` 0in9� 0.4 C.94-‘,O; t \TA In A.Z U-V 2 Sa (��',.a-.Ss I1 <,.p ( � ^ 8o CA0 o)vx' '? a %Q \Il Z1 \SsL o o r' � V,tia.vv,� ^ C �^ o ��vJ Zinppn, J n a ' - S \ (_� �-\ Gouu (�vnnvkn S VkA ( �a� qRnn �s'�hi or A e1� - lo��R 0 �� `� 0'L St v.. a_p pvv, , p� -\-Q cdr;v� �i„1 ) o� vv ; e) c 14-c-) . \\ �y+ l Send Questionnaire To: Name c.. -tc.e M+�lnnag�Qv- \\ `` ,n Wayne Howard, P.E. Address 3lc`t tt\Au, 4 \R L � 3v Weld County Phone q10 535— DlA03 . °5 H Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 fq474 I-25 Parallel Arterial Study Open House Comments Sheet mimeJuly 9, 2003 .� COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. f 41/4 Mier cf- TAAAA.A 4.49.-ketri ^ 4414 / ^ ot.NO -0411.22e4 / / A / nage. La: ac 4101 _/�/L_ /.(//LI' L /L -. . �, d r, o LUC 2 '7 O :4PP-re-( (4J 22 0.1 Name FVN Hof u 6 f F/✓I A_S j£A Send Questionnaire To: ^ Address 3 C7 Nu,uitR S eY C E- Welld Wed C Howard, P.E. County 5/-1O Co 5 o S'ci[a Public Works Department Phone P.O. Box 758 CI /7 c> Cij 6 V6 3 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 AolVt;;; 1-25 Parallel Arterial Study Wilk�� Open House Comments Sheet July 9, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. "thri 5-72o 7r Tr0324 `7b -1tAy 00/nS (. I1 LtJlweIA) 7 c 4 2d S A 2ok. f. rr (A4)..-(d 65 Rc� 5z� 'i2 " "7 >C y. A-7" 2 Li'1vL F-c uc4 Cry T4 /n1 „4 briza. A CA 4(44,7c4 2t. 7 u,ocJc LE co4r,2 0 vt- y- /4/ J n Roos 7r w,-) O14 sy7; s AM'S 9/3 1Ogoi r —CU itt5tk 4177cr-(^(oN '74tgT wocid �Fp_eykki2 vim( (AL car IC �r `0'�cSN AJE e-Acrea..- - f 2 A o -a /-r c,-5?— 4-/U,-y bat 7 Gc77Z c d cit" /24.-7 Zr T c.ci4c9 ez_ f it/Ls o,7c q1/4-< 7. 74.y N�v42 akA 12) Lt 2z/1i2 coil Or ;.T r�� ,;A7 to d 6 deft* o Roc», St IQ 4t ,/ t Act- iuoc//ci ` £r cAly Zr fS ^ OS 7t /4{-4(Z . Aio [7 /S -. �/O V (3#4,-/ OO JcLE& s �� yo c L c�Fflc ae 7 yo (A.f rz c ,2- bi/�e615S /v -1- &LID (AI c( I ( ✓ 2 ?/Ltgr) ea7 bc-"w ::Fti Ac7 H-t7cj ..ci A4 K2_ 4_ "s _ P6e-- 1tcs t.��t't, � z4s� c4 ft- hs .,-t 477,).E_ 2/7- cees 70 peushcci i4-(O2 v- vtfL cA ( 9C{L c oW/ AS ba &L /07 (4 U 2 Arcrel^- /1tit5 - Po (r,-Tcd.- £cue 4)ciez- Gb�s ,2,q . OpL ' Ggt fa Wit 6z acs . / cL •. ^ Name .v,.v /174,11Send Questionnaire To: /y37 n / �S (1f4 �T g0NS Wayne Howard, P.E. ^ Addresscy ry (�'CCi C._.CJ Weld County Phone [ Q Cr2( y Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 ,,1 "alel 1.25 Parallel Arterial Study Open House Comments Sheet WElko July 9, 2003 Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mall to the address provided below. — West Alternative B is objectionable. 'It passes too close to Highlandlake. This arterial should go right thru Mead on CR 7. Mead says there is no room for it but that argument is ludicrous,there is room. Maybe a few twists and turns may be necessary, but there is room. The Town of Mead deserves a major arterial like this in order make it a"real town." Putting the arterial west of Mead encroaches on the integrity of the Highlandlake ^ . historial district and should not be permitted. However, if the arterial just has to be placed on the west side of Mead (which is ridiculous in the first place)then Weld County should be obliged to recognize the area between the arterial and the Highlandlake community as a badly needed open space buffer area and should be obliged - ^ to purchase it at market value. The lack of any kind of a coherent comprehensive plan by Weld County is what is causing all of this uncontrolled growth in the first place. The County Commissioners have abandoned what used to be an excellent comprehensive plan where county development was required to occur adjacent to �.,. existing urban and town areas and not helter skelter all over all of the county. As a result, mass development chaos is resulting all over southwest Weld County and will continue to occur in the future. I urge Weld County to purchase the area between Mead and Highlandlake as open space buffer right now in order to protect the integrity of this area as development occurs in and around the Town of Mead and in order to keep the area clear for the future arterial. ^ Send Questionnaire To: Name Lawrence M. Jensen, CPA Wayne Howard,P.E. Address 17029 WCR 5, Mead, CO 80542 Weld County Public Works Department ,., Phone 303-651-3626 P.O.Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970)356-4000 ext.3788 Mead Arterial Document.max f e % I-25 Parallel Arterial Study Open House Comments Sheet W��e July 9, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. T wot&I d ) i kt- 10 sS /112_ �'�5 M ralte I nad be titni1-- as -1- r rtJ¢ 5-/- as possi Cots4- A/ f. , c:\ Sc 5 nJ g /read!„\ Glick ( w; ,r6 7,c No,se from 77-25- a,�d ttJo I d t/L2_ it) bpi 71i e ^ 4nd UM 52 2cartn as -f-dr- awaLI as pass;6jQ , Its-e. Cis tv.ertodal and 1'nk iA-/ A,0t /d / e T/),2. b12 174 r a Ai �c Errl . Tier 14t (Ai an �ti 4r;n btti ei O1 .. hICAI. +if'a. c mad sIr� Clow , t -2S ? etc - `'6 11 SL 010€.2_ 7 cool-Jr]. , u49- / GI l21 en 9'A-e_ -�Y.et ko tc,� 4fl � L�r;;r1 .S7fi jiitTSOQk S�J�re o tA,t a 6, 71 -f � -1 ►c b�lwl e / p„r/�o s.e 76 - nLAI�l/?1� l + &)LXl 1i F o2,S t4r 1k s6cyYlF rMc&n/s oz.-1 ^ dont' W//th/'t M.C 1C0711elar,Q / rocids... ) / 1ST lItiOut d GI ISO G 4G U2 / l /l:fr LOO SIL ;frvt ar1� 7zJ P S t7t b I c s{Ip�t 4O w v�S/hCivn.�/ci 77 2P rn S. 1 /10111 Eat 614 Pr - a≤L; er U�nr- eomn,u, 4s -Z^ for YO In l n2m 21`Ous - Name 'LLD/1 105-7A 5©,� Send Questionnaire To: Wayne Howard, P.E. Address (Tc9q(D e Mead Weld County q Public Works Department Phone l�C;� � 9 9 O P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 .. • .. ip.; I-25 Parallel Arterial Study ElkOpen House Comments Sheet July 9, 2003 .^, COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. 1 n J Tf, e Wes* A Re-.cvy4'� ( Pre-Petra) ;,I Segwlor., T 7- v sit.,s q 7 G or t c A �C/s rPc ei for 1 e. ✓L s./ (2€'10 1_ 14 ��/ ( r;L�r�i shy ,, /� af Gma.7es r1a �. ..--.5c, (/GS _ J ) ,-. pe t efe.2 �y I a' ay • (5) 1- ,..5 - ,..5 �i-" i Q Il �-�r , iiV`� n / �J C .. p 1 w u / Hce. elc(-rn rooc(.i.�o C .0en k. ,1� 'Leis., e i �o / / �_ '� ."^es L L h e*-, �c /� 7"., e ✓`c�.oC- c Cow, /,S a PI �p ^ // l Q 1 ----- neP ItA tie / Lraso l7� LX� oc r ryia a y /qne r - wpa (4-(' a -)e-gc- /r4 4=uz l hrCA , s I 71) i �oJ e - P - - // �� ✓A) VaS7-)kr ,. `/'o /�1 e S Ni /t - 71,E ( v-�e-C I a ceS // Cr S - t"1e f l %1 / Q ; -re 1v1 5 clre t o ;�e,�1 -277/ 1,..su ih A -'ar less -ecrier,7211-?‘tee. To - w,e---- P too1{._ fV ti3 c e x/S/ /J r� ✓OocA i.C�7 d v / Send Questionnaire To: ,.., Name L 'rco it s I I f ', r Wayne Howard, P.E. Address 7 West Vet-, -/ Public Works Department ,rleac Weld County Phone 9 .2:9"--S3--C-0-3n/ r P.O, Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext.3788 I-25 Parallel Arterial Study �� Open House Comments Sheet o July 9, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. lat-a 44,etle Af-f44 t teto et3 ee g ^ C 7 /Pt a l juie_ 2xtt 0 / 2a 42 --flail—MI./pillar, z trt. -,p 4 f . � - ,pa -. � -- deA42,-, d4- �I�h �rt1 j le��i�r�o .. . „ a Name Waif ai 1/4>C1-4,7Y4 Send Questionnaire To: 17 Wayne Howard, P.E. 2.. Address 3 iate le '"-d' ee �fN e Weld County Phone 9 71-13-r-9Z 3 3 Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970)356-4000 ext. 3788 mat ,f$V11 I-25 Parallel Arterial Study Open House Comments Sheet wige, July 9, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. u-'m — AIo-r u s C ; . C 711-4-1/E- t--e'-SS /Al Po i .. .01 r ' Send Questionnaire To: Name ' in-l< 'f "- 4 .)j Wayne Howard, P.E. Address."---1 ` ( Weld County ^ �✓ _ ✓ ;,' Public Works Department Phone P.O. Box 758 < Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 / \ I-25 Parallel Arterial Study ��I�� Open House Comments Sheet ' July 9, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. / / / kb vc( .1�,h^''4 Arg r-z� „L I g @.MG1Z Y le / '11 e re- a /l✓Vl_+ / hi At /.tam 4TZ..:Onr�j , gene_ .:tie '/s. c1ld Nc.aJ 17-e here- let,i :.) & view .r7--s- o,- hArg-t,tor+ 0 ,-T n s zs 4-6,2 , Cu v-ea- NnoI / /� l- �,- /t ea.E 74 /se /�Ze. b1f.� 41) ry n� e L. e �riie L I )'vteA--A a J fa./4 `FA i r. r -u Flan ar-' ow wry 4-4e c,,.Jx.-41-0— �� le - ��✓ : P- 'i Le Get nC n itLe 0.IC rc M 31 ru *de "LeArtk.--0 .. /14:b..7 -1r o - I vu 0s At J Aloe 4r>< a4ti C wet( v��- Vito_ t& /ILc wz z� - /�ullNl� Z0, 7 {A 4 &ice a4-107att lAnzi O Loyd - tr +C G ,'(2 Lsi otc ,Att kv 7ieI'3i -- fir= k vl2c - a e�� n cz„� 1x t- ^ Y) Ap itr Cif` ZIP G -d2 Dom- 15V4 CL INLAILLA�-& flto r ✓W 44) 9 - Q a- ATL -fry C �/, /yS _an/J�,,, /�L.2 / ��C..�.f//��j/J',r V' teat d^+�'�/, V d 4 .„2 MMrL '717 / et 4 5 " eft i e —� 1 G' ^ Name li -1 f Send Questionnaire To: i $QV Wayne Howard, P.E. AddresseTh?U k ' MLA C) 80142_z- Weld County 9701.5-3C r- Phone Y 7 Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 ^ (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 -�y('/�- di p o ///r fitI ez ^ a4 Al `\IyI.i1.Ly .1 memo 1-1.4 rn fik- O_ w r. A arm►, 1.O ov�L ev,r Syskim _ also 4 co"-+'2t-c et e 4,76 j pr co ttoo A _ zr j2, '� 0 O,-�- ita %t� , - buy ticfrli PT Cattit'S ( kki Ls ,� P,, Ewd row it ? ... ,.... Ativ: y , I-25 Parallel Arterial Stud ^ Me July House Comments Sheet July 9 2003 .. COLORADO .... Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided - below. Tam a - ea<de,,r ' iieentr./l —4-co—o-_,,,/ ,�� . "(del? JV _ Qnxel 6c)26 a r 64-) 6Jdc( (°c 2i 5. acu rpww( o ca. .. ,uiocl -4,,,,.,v ,Q /.(714, G� a-G a-c0_4'4prop�.�,/� i,c oltsc/irc/� ..e.....erzt ^ r�,� �( rxcce —r/vd.' ' ,4„d h(�riu� Jr ten-/ .�.eaf al me ^ G� le,//, /.cie ,-ate_ ,v�� ,r te a-1� -e ��,..z .' /6` / / / ^ %/ i.GfiJJ.,/ ,�tCe-ric tl�-t7 Sr/aur --Zrz/ra.„Aft -a .- �i via,/ .ui 7:wc -.t c 2l Olt —na cc/ C6i.7c/ .-/in 7/ sr=[. . r2/o/e£e� / f,(/.t lloy/t� //G �{xy��/n°c//t ,�i � vm ,�1,� £/f //?c'�-c/ //i�rc.-c��,-�,i/ 7//1,LLL��`�� a .CL a#7ocir�cl2414.5 .Ln- 2.4i/c.F.ne or,)o/ra.lc . L&-a/ Clau c s ate. ^ (/Le,`;} �c-v�rs, i<-r _ma a^iY/.r .ca It/ �ifiCrG2,Gl�a,E.c. / - e/ s ^ a ! % / (/ ^ ,7,/va.-c-ced (Lex --er#c� ,.l.�.o . (.�1�-d `L/ /f.C(�c� �cc,--1 or` I" u ax „„2.rLi r vG0///J e//2�L?acc...ceJ /iGc,lt�n 9G- ^-�f C� .,e 9r//--Kt-er �4r-G-tivi .w. L/ /Li 1,-ti, ldo%reri%C Uaaac .Q 1AWa.e-u Lo GG"xi ` J.. /1 riri Ale dGcl� �l/�J,��o . /1 �a�l /Y�90/f /�-c�-(,L •' .Grnre-,c,5 �nnn.ed Zl a --4/6-/ .2-Li (An Are a-l' ,� -an (f V/i�2i r // f r iii Send Questionnaire To: Name �ccc C ; Wayne Howard, P.E. ^ Address /67/f ('2 S-- Weld County `n�^� q Public Works Department Phone )'V7.Lt / CC) 76'. yat P.O. Box 758 ^ Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 ,. (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 feNI-25 Parallel Arterial Study Open House Comments Sheet wokJuly 9, 2003 oan COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. `ring p•_ -. Tr 3 'to Sea. .�.. .r) f *L, �0- ^,ice'p�' u( ( _, �„ r r . -- 7. a '�:i..c_. !rt.n lY- V.a.♦� . t�_JC 5-a 5 hh r ,t- Ss2 � �'�'?1-9J a tn. Ga"FPnar �� '� f1J� � � V=2c,� ��+., '. a I". a Send Questionnaire To: Name .7\-4' t-.• Wayne Howard, P.E. Address l l S C 09<:-.•. - ti . . :,>.:., ... ftc Weld County Public Works Department Phone 5 O — (c r.-= o (. r !) - P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 .. " (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 I-25 Parallel Arterial Study WIlk. Open House Comments Sheet July 9, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. .frioz p me/2„O,,t-,-O _^ QCca�'- Lt f t h2 P� //) n .ftr c ri/n ��P P— 74..A2 //Yt P /e A (�41..P P� d1 .Pr Or 14)c,e7 4iv1e L AakL ^ ^ i/ v Lv Cc- ,41frIXALT �Rc a k4'vr C�,(�F . B� S cell' °kr-frit k ^ eo/%QAl -OA-ts-cc Name tiger) r) W T h I /_Qf vet Send Questionnaire To: 1 J// / i/ tore a Wayne CHoward, P.E. ,., Address `T(O 7" J �CC Weld County Phone 9-70 — 5 3 S - /9 Ca Public Works Department P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext. 3788 r-. r• feat.' I-25 Parallel Arterial Study ^ Wine July House Commentsomments Sheet Jul 9, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. r - J ma /s }'✓//1j/v/&�rpc-l/r ©d�-� r ,mac • /27'4/44/6. .O/4/ ^ G�/CL-n/ Z- 4071 S:c .1427 5 a £, ' %-',Q C ac /y/-7-9-67.e ^ Name 61492.,' rict-1, Send Questionnaire To: l Wayne Howard, P.E. Address/4/Y- (ii/ / Weld County Pub^ Phone OA 0-3c;- r{/(p P.O. Box 75g ic Works Department Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970)356-4000 ext.3788 r, ^ ^ f14'44 I-25 Parallel Arterial Study Open House Comments Sheet IIIlk. July 9, 2003 COLORADO Please provide any comments below and leave with a representative or mail to the address provided below. Alf$--C PL/e11-2-VAJa sE *it ' t 13, p oly //U i t" ?Ct P)4 7ZcAj 3 r r O FS ('OrV?fO 20(,rim t -Pre vt lug- C/UE,14 vic..Li� ca3 A 12 S'U ( P AJ ' O F �O�Vt O '7-fi'I u Inc) ° ' ' ' 77_14-x, A-f2 r !tics vrrc PL -i Aiu AJOY LU&.i1_(_ rik-fov0 (cf - W eovoN ^ ^ ^ ^ Name C9 (/(/i Ci/c Send Questionnaire To: 4rz Address l' / 6- C---1 •> ,A8 Wayne Howard, P.E. ^ iV� Weld County 9-2c7 rs �_ _ �-�� Public Works Department Phone P.O. Box 758 ^ Greeley, Colorado 80632-0758 (970) 356-4000 ext.3788 ^ /1. • tY• i�-. COUNCIL FOR BALANCED PLANNING a; Post Office Box 548 Johnstown, Colorado 80534 , y., Tel. 970.587.5260 Fax. 970.587.5465 April 2, 2003 Mr. Wayne Howard, P.E. Weld County Public Works Dept. P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632-0758 358-4000 ext. 3788 Fax: 970-304-6497 .=tu- Dear Mr. Howard, 4 This letter is in response to the Four-Lane Arterial Study Questionnaire and Open House of March 5, 2003. Those represented on the Council For Balanced Planning own property within the projected corridor, from Highway 60 to Road 32. We strongly suggest that the corridor be comprised of Road 5 and a new option, Road 9 'h, which would avoid many potential problems, Including destruction of numerous farms, ranches, businesses and homes. 's To be more specific, Mr. Howard, for the following reasons we of the Council for Balanced Planning strongly suggest not Including Weld County Road 13 from Highway 60 to Road 42 in the proposed artery: ;. 1. Road 91/2 , which has more dry land and fewer homes and businesses is the preferable artery. 2. Clearview housing development will have a large number of children and dogs who n would be endangered by the artery. gam. 3. The Hillsborough Ditch Company is currently engaged in litigation which could complicate the expansion as the ditch crosses Road 13 between Roads 44 and 46. 4. Hillsborough Ditch Shareowners are opposed to the expansion. 5. Several farms, ranches and other businesses would be greatly endangered if not destroyed if the expansion took place. 6. There are too many entry points to Road 13 In the stretch of road In question. (See map.) The entry points include driveways, sub-division entries, farm and ranch entries, silage pit roads, ditch roads, dairy roads and other crossings. r 7. Incidentally, we request that signs for 35 MPH be placed opposite Clearview and at half-mile intervals between the railroad tracks and the comer of Roads 13 and 44 .— since there have been some recent auto accidents In the vicinity. We feel that a new Road 9 '/z would be the best solution to the proposed arterial expansion,As you know, Johnstown is strongly opposed to the expansion in the area in question, as well. Please -- refer to the map for our suggested street-sign placement. Please be so good as to inform us as to the time and place of the next meeting, Mr. Howard. We look forward to meeting you and to seeing this issue to a workable conclusion which will be amenable to the many individuals, families, companies, farms, ranches, dairies, town citizens, ditch share-holders and other businesses which have a keen interest in its peaceful resolution. Specifically, those opposed parties Include: Harmony Farm, The Hillsborough Ditch Company, (Robert) Starck Farms, (Ron) Starck Farms, KMR Angus Ranch, Podtburg Dairy Farms, O.M. Productions, Inc., Stolley Enterprises, (Mark and Julie) Nygren Farms, Ben Spaur Farms, Steve and Ellen Schultz Sod Farm, Frank Farms, Clearview Homeowners, town of Johnstown. Sincerely, Connie nnie Shaw, Count' for Balanced Planning r COUNCIL FOR BALANCED PLANNING.dOC 1/121021:30 AM Oa'. r- T0 'd CODS LOS 0L6 Wt' SS: 60 £0-£e-21dtl -2- • Officers, Council for Balanced Planning Connie Shaw—Tel: 587-5260 Fax: 587-5485 At: James D. Wright Robert Starck Keith Russell Julie Nygren cc: Mr. Roy Lauricello, Town Manager, Johnstown 587-4684 x118 (Sect),— Brenda) cc: Mr. Troy Mellon, Johnstown Mayor cc: Mr. Dave Hattan, Contract Transportation Engineer(303)721-1440 cc: Mr. Mike McDonough, Contract Planner(303) 588-7887 a 3y1.' y�' 44 ' P'W L yASim !s^ Y1 k R4 Aa a\ COUNCIL FOR BALANCED PLANNING.doc 1112/02 1:30 AM a Z0 'd S9*C LOG 046 WV SS= 60 £0-£0-21dtl COUNCIL FOR BALANCED PLANNING Post Office Box 548 Johnstown, Colorado 80534 Tel. 970-587-5260 Fax 970-587-5465 April 7, 2003 Mr. Roy Lauricello Town Administrator, Johnstown Town Hall Johnstown, CO 80534 Dear Roy, Thank you for making time to see the Council for Balanced Planning this afternoon. After further discussion with our members, we have decided against requesting annexation at this time. However, we would like to let you know that we will be discussing the following topics: 1. Our intention of officially requesting, herewith, that the Johnstown Comprehensive Plan be re-drawn to designate Road 91/2 as the primary Interstate 25 Corridor rather than WCR 13. We would like to see this completed on paper by May 15'", 2003. Since local towns have been asked to submit the views and plans of the affected residents and businesses in the "I 25 Parallel Arterial Study", please note our input, send a copy of this letter to Mr. Howard, and send us a copy of your letter to Mr. Wayne Howard of the Weld County Public Works Dept. stating our intention before Friday of this week (the Apr. 11th deadline). We will be staying in touch with him. For the following reasons the Council for Balanced Planning believes that Road 91/2 is by far the better choice as an Interstate 25 Parallel Arterial Road: a. The current land use of the terrain for Road 91/2 is dry land and would disrupt fewer homes, farms, ranches and businesses than Road 13. b. Road 13 is an inappropriate and undesirable choice because the section within the proposed future Johnstown Beltway (bordered by Rd. 50 on the north and Rd. 44 on the south), more specifically the two-mile stretch between Hwy 60 and Rd. 44 has many hazards, obstacles and egresses. There are three bridges, twenty egresses, one blind hill (next to Hillsborough Ditch) and a steep descent hill (Rd. 13 and Rd. 44 intersection). c. The Northern Colorado Comprehensive Plan has cited Rd. 9 1/2 as the best solution for a north-south arterial road, running from Mulberry in Ft. Collins, to Denver. We agree with that assessment for many reasons, which follow. \crd. Roxbury Ridge was built with the Rd. 9 %four-lane road with median with point c., above, in mind. The houses in the development face away from the road for that reason. e. No town wants to have a four-lane highway running through it. e. Air pollution from two additional traffic lanes would adversely affect property-owners as well as the town residents. f. Road 13 is too far from Interstate 25 to be practical. A parallel arterial is designed to be close enough to the highway to be useful and appealing to drivers. g. It is inappropriate for semi trucks and trailors to be using Rd. 13 which was not designed for such use, which is far too dangerous for such use and which would create a series of"disasters waiting to happen" demanding continual and extended usage of our town rescue and fire department vehicles. h. Road 13 has already been the scene of at least one human fatality, one animal fatality ("Suicide Hill") and a recent severe collision which resulted in driver fractures. i. Reckless, inexperienced high school drivers use Road 13 to drag-race, endanger;,-)5 the lives of residents, live-stock and domestic animals. To drag-race on a two-mile COUNCIL FOR BALANCED PLANNIN2.doc 4/7/03 1:51 PM -2- stretch which has three narrow bridges, twenty egresses, one blind hill and a steep descent hill/intersection seems foolhardy in the extreme. j. The additional noise from highway traffic of additional trucks, cars, and campers is inadvisable and undesirable for local residents of Clearview development as well as the many other property-rights advocates who live on Road 13. k. We feel that developers should pay their own way and not try to hitch a free ride on the backs of residents who have worked diligently to maintain the unique character and quality of the town and its attractive surrounding area. I. The Council believes that it is everyone's interest to maintain a strong business climate and vital economic activity among business owners of Johnstown. This prevents urban-blight and the dismal helter-skelter lack of planning which has created eyesores and traffic grid-lock in many places in Colorado. We do not wish to see strip-malls popping up in fields which would initially suck business from our strong downtown and eventually result in vacant, hard-to-rent units which become targets for vandalism. m. The Hillsborough Ditch Company is currently in litigation which could complicate any plans to expand Road 13. 2. Speed Limit Signs: to work with Weld County to have speed limit signs placed at four points on Road 13 between Highway 60 and Road 44. (See attached map.) 3. The Council feels that a four-way stop is needed at the base of the dangerous intersection of the steep hill crossroads of Road 13 and Road 44. 4. We'd like to arrange a follow-up meeting with you for the period between April 21 and May 15'" to assess our success and progress. 5. We'll also work with the county commissioners to bring about the above desired changes. We are very interested in your input, Roy, Troy, and Mike, and look forward to a cooperative working relationship for the next several years. Sincerely, Connie Shaw and Council Representatives: naN Robert Starck David Stolley • Laurie Stolley Jim Wright cc: Troy Mellon, Mike McDonough, Dave Hatton, Wayne Howard. COUNCIL FOR BALANCED PLANNIN2.doc 4/7/03 1:51 PM Hwy 60 Carlson Blvd _ _ Entrance Silverbell Dr. Onto CR 13 RR CR 13 - REDUCED SPEED LIMIT 22180 SOUTH OF HWY 60 Farm Entrance ' CR 46 Ditch Road 21706 21653_ Hillsboro Ditch BLIND HILL 21605 — Little Thompson River —~ —Corm Entrance ^ 21419 21 452 Farm Entrance_ ^ 21119_ Hillsboro Ditch CR 44 New .. STOP 4-WAY STOP Council For Balanced Planning April 7, 2003 Wayne Howard 125 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Stud y . Page 1 From: "Jim Gold" <jim.gold@mesanetworks.net> To: <whoward@co.weld.co.us>, <jeff.dankenbring@flueng.corn> Date: 4/16/03 10:47AM Subject: I-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study r� Gentlemen, Please allow me to informally introduce myself-Jim Gold. I have spoken with Mr. Howard in regards to the above mentioned subject. I currently reside at 5910 E. Conservation Drive, Frederick, CO, I am also the home owner at the same residence-which backs to WCR 20-for the last 3 years. As I mentioned before, to Mr. Howard, I am strongly against the widening or expansion of WCR 20. I have great concern, even now, about the traffic levels that exist and that could be heightened even more by the proposal, also the declining nature of my property value(present and future). The existing pavement elevation of WCR 20 is at the same or approximately the same height of my back fence elevation (top). This in turn allows the traffic noise to go directly to my house without any deflection. Not only does it contribute to the invasion of my quiet enjoyment, invasion of my privacy and my hesitation to enjoy my backyard/patio, but the current safety of my neighbors and my household. This is due to the possibility of vehicles leaving the road, by sliding in the winter time or bearing off WCR 20 anytime, directly into the backyard of all of the current residences that share my same north/south property line direction. This has happened on at least two occurrences that I know of. I have tried to petition the Town of Frederick to allow for a heightened fence elevation, but to only receive the reply of"All of the residences must agree and construct the same fence height". I was also treated in a manner that was not very polite or professional. • "N I would like to ask your assistance and contributions, to my list of concerns, as well as to the required process to raise the current fence height limitations (currently 6'to my knowledge)to at least 16'and convert the existing wood fence to a block (8x8x16 cmu)wall for safety reasons. I believe that if WCR 20 is going to move forward with the expansion, that the County and City governments should be liable for the costs. As the continuation of home and business construction skyrockets in this area, as do the taxes and permit fees gained by the jurisdiction, that my considerations be presented immediately to all of the required jurisdictions. I have already incurred approximately$8,000 in costs to landscape my backyard in order to try to deflect the above concerns since I am not able to raise the height of my fence (which would have been least costly venture). I realize that I purchased a home 3 years ago with WCR 20 behind it, but did not realize that the traffic levels would increase as they have, or that WCR 20 would be considered for expansion or that the jurisdictions would allow for the urban sprawl that is currently effecting the reason why I moved to this area in which to gain taxes at my personal expense, whether financial or private. The only notification that I found in regards to the study was taped to my community mail center. I am located within 100 feet of WCR 20 and therefore directly effects myself as stated above. ^ I would like to invite you to visit my residence to personally inspect the current conditions to verify that my concerns are valid. Please feel free to contact me anytime at the following numbers: mobile phone 720-280-9545 or residence 720-494-0508. Your time and efforts are greatly appreciated. Warm regards, James"Jim"D. Gold, AIA Registered Architect State of Colorado#203661 ^ a a Wayne Howard - Re: 1-25 Parallel 4,-Lane Arterial Study Page 1 a From: Wayne Howard To: jim.gold@mesanetworks.net".GWIA.CENTDOMAIN ^ Date: 4/21/03 7:35AM Subject: Re: 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study Mr. Gold: As we discussed some time ago, WCR 13 is not a part of the 1-25 Parallel 4-Lane Arterial Study. As you may recall, I explained to you that WCR 13 is already considered an arterial by Weld County and most municipalities that are located along WCR 13. I cannot respond to your dealings with the Town of Frederick. If your property resides within the Town limits, you must work with the Town to resolve your differences. As future road work occurs along WCR 13, Weld County may be working with the Town since we both own portions of WCR 13, but currently we have no plans to perform any road work along this area. -� I understand your concerns and frustration, but let me explain again, Weld County does not have jurisdiction over roadways annexed and owned by local agencies. a ^ ^ ^ ^ a ^ Page 1 of 1 Jeff.Dankenbring From: LEVINBEAN@aol.com Sent: Saturday, June 21,2003 11:22 PM To: Jeff.Dankenbring@fhueng.com Subject: Ruining the town of Mead Dear Mr. Howard and Mr. Dankenbring, .. I cannot even begin to express my frustrations with your plans to ruin the town of Mead. Your"Parallel Arterials Study" is maddening to the residents of Mead, and from what I understand, the Town Board agrees. The solution to the congestion on 1-25 seems relatively simple, and so much less maddening. Widen I-251 It seems that if the State and the County could work together on this project, that 1-25 would not be as outdated as it is, and people like you would not be attempting to destroy small town America. I spoke with one of you on the phone, and attended your last open house. I found the way you talk out of both sides of you mouth to be transparent and insulting! It was obvious that neither of you had really met with anyone from the town of Mead before you started drawing your pictures. The residents of Mead are not opposed to controlled growth, but we are opposed to a four lane highway running through the center of our town. A town of which we are proud to be residents. Commercialism can take place along I-25, it is happening south of here. The town of Mead does not need to be an alternate route for 1-25. I know we discussed that your current plan involves three schools. Kids get injured, maimed and killed when you route highway traffic near schools. Would you want your kids to have to cross a road where the minimum speed is "40+mph"? That speed is your quote. Promote commercialism to your heart's content, improve traffic along 1-25 to you heart's content, but do so closer to I-25, do not ruin what we have, what we have worked so hard to achieve. We have a great town, with great schools,with great people, and with great kids who are safe and protected. Sleep easier at night knowing that you did not have a hand in destroying the happiness of others. I know that I am not alone in my sentiment. Sincerely, Susan Levine Proud resident of the Town of Mead 0.1 6/23/2003 Page 1 of 1 Jeff.Dankenbring From: Mr.X [idgaf55555@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday,June 22,2003 7:07 PM To: whoward@co.weld.co.us Cc: Jeff.Dankenbring@fhueng.com Subject: I-25 Parallel Arterial "Study" You did nothing but lie at the last meeting. The routes were already decided before any "Study"was done. Tell me: • How much did it cost us to have you BUY a "Study" that concurred with what you wanted? • Why waste more money on "Open Houses"that have no options? This will not happen without a fight! Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only$29.95 per month! a a a a 6/23/2003 Page 1of1 Jeff.Dankenbring From: AINSLIE J BATES [aulinebates@email.msn.com] Sent: Monday, June 23,2003 3:27 PM To: Jeff Dankenbring, P.E. Subject: I-25 Parallel Arterials Study .— Mr. Howard; My home for 26 years has been on WCR 7 between WCR 4 and WCR 6. This is a beautiful, semi-rural community full of families, children,wildlife and peace and quiet. Seems like every government entity has its eye on our area. Broomfield and Erie fought to annex us, and development plans have ranged from a prison to a strip mall to low-density housing and light industrial. Your arterial routes are the worst blow yet. A highway between our homes and 1-25 will create a wasteland of the whole area and devastate our entire enviromnent. Highways bring noise, litter, and air pollution. They displace the wildlife and will destroy our privacy. They will permanently and completely ruin the character of our community and the quality of our lives. I have seen traffic on 1-25 go from almost non-existent to a state of constant congestion and I know it needs to be alleviated. I don't think my lifestyle, property values and peace of mind have to be sacrificed to accomplish that. It was my understanding that this entire stretch of 1-25 was to be widened, which will ease congestion. In addition, when Sheridan Blvd. was slated to be expanded and extended onto WCR 5, the newspapers reported it was specifically to alleviate traffic on 1-25 by providing an alternate north-south route. Now I have to have another highway--this one in my back yard—to alleviate traffic on 1-25? No. Enough! I have two questions. The first is, why can't you either put your arterial route right next to 1-25 or else tie it into the Sheridan Blvd. alleviation project? Sheridan runs by the dump, which is nobody's cherished homestead. And secondly, will our input at your"open house" meetings actually affect the final placement of these arterials? An open house sounds like an invitation to see what's already been done. If the open house is nothing more than a token opportunity for residents to vent, but our opinions will have no impact on the decision, I would appreciate knowing this in advance. I am sending a copy of this email to Mr. Dankenbring as well. Auline Bates .004 6/23/2003 01. July 2,2003 e Wayne Howard,P.E. Weld County Public Works Department P.O.Box 758 Greeley,CO 80632 Re:I 25 Parallel Arterial Study Dear Mr.Howard, I have reviewed the alternative routes that have been proposed in your I-25 Parallel Arterial Study. I think that the concept of having parallel roads that close to Interstate 25 is flawed and unnecessary. Weld County Road 13 is located 2 miles east of Interstate 25 and would be a viable alternate route to I-25. The Boulder — Weld County line located west of I-25 4 miles would be an excellent alternative parallel arterial to I-25. The above option would eliminate all the concepts and alternate arterial routes that have been proposed. If the above proposal is not attractive, I would suggest that the alternative arterial located west of the Interstate coincide with Weld County Road 7. This route would preclude the damage to many hundreds of acres of Class I and Class II agricultural farm land, which may in the future be partially preserved as open space. On the east side of the Interstate, I would suggest that the parallel arterial follow, Weld County Road 11. I also think that where the arterials located east of the Interstate converge close to the Colorado Highway 119, interchange is not a good plan. This will create a substantial amount of congestion in the corridor between Colorado Highway 119 and Colorado Highway 66 adjacent to the already overloaded interstate. Item number 5 in your information letter states that development adjacent to the arterials will be responsible for the construction of the arterials. I think this is unfair to burden the adjoining landowner for this cost when everyone in the entire area benefits. I especially object to any of the arterials running through my property, which is located in the Southeast Quarter of Section 11, Township 2 North,Range 68 West of the 6h1 P.M. Yourconsideration of the above suggestions will be appreciated. Sincerely, Margaret E. Hill Cc: Jeff Dankenbring,P.E. Felsburg Holt&Ullevig 7951 E.Maplewood Ave. Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Page l of 2 r ; Jeff.Dankenbring ^ From: pauli1028 SMITH [pauli1028@msn.com] Sent: Monday, July 07,2003 10:19 PM To: whoward@co.weld.co.us Subject: Project 1-25 Corridor Study in SW Weld County Hello, My name is Pauli Driver Smith and I am on and represent the Board of Directors of the Highlandlake Church, Inc., which is a historically designated State and National landmark. The church is physically located at 16896 Weld County Road 5,Mead, CO, and mail to us can be sent to 16778 WCR 5, Mead. The church building is located in unincorporated Weld County in a small historic community (dating back to 1871) named Highlandlake. The Highlandlake Church building itself is unique to this area and to Colorado as it is virtually unaltered since it was built in 1896. It has not been added on to or modernized as it was closed as a church in 1916, barely 20 years after it was built. Since 1916, a local board of directors has maintained the building as a community center. Additionally, the Highlandlake Community has been in the discussion and planning stage for many years with the view of eventually becoming a historic district. We as the owners of the Historic Highlandlake Church, are very concerned about the close proximity of this proposed bypass to our building. This church building built in 1896 was seriously damaged in the March snowstorm, leaving an already vulnerable building dangerously close to collapsing. We have obtained an emergency grant from the Colorado State Historical Society to temporarily support the building until further grants and funding can be acquired to repair and restore this only landmaked building in the Mead area. However, it will probably be years before we can raise the funds needed to finish the needed repairs. Even once repaired, the building will remain somewhat fragile, due to its age. We only became aware in the last few days that the group doing the transportation study and the town of Mead is recommending that Mead be bypassed where WCR 7 enters the Mead town limits and instead be routed along the west side of Mead in unincorporated Weld County. This proposed bypass would be about 800 to 900 yards from the Highlandlake church. We the Historic Highlandlake Church Board of Directors, as well as the Highlandlake community are extremely concerned that the location of this road, will seriously damage the historical integrity of this community and physically damage the historic church building as well as the other historic buildings in this district. It is our understanding that since our church building is on the National Register of Historic Places, that it is automatically considered a Section 106 and thus is protected under Federal law against any project that uses Federal monies. While we understand that this is a County and State project, we are also sure that Federal monies will be eventually used in the implication and building of this project. We, the Board of Directors of the Highlandlake Church, have not officially received any notice of this project or of your plans, nor have we received any reports of any mitigation studies showing the steps you would be taking to protect and preserve our historic building from any damages the construction of this road will cause as well as the future damage that will most certainly come from the vibrations and noise caused by the heavy traffic that will use this road. It is our understanding upon reading the Section 106 guidelines, that this study should have been at least started by now, certainly before the final recommendations are presented to the Weld County Commissioners for approval. We would like r 7/8/2003 Page 2 of 2 , a copy of any such study that has been done or will be done in the future. There are additional concerns about the environment. The land that the road is proposed to pass through is not only valuable, irrigated farm land,but is home to an abundance of wild creatures, several of whom are on the threatened list. It is even possible that at least one endangered animal is living along the banks of the Highlandlake outlet ditch which this road would have to cross. Have there been any studies on how this four-lane road with a median will affect the wildlife in this area? We plan on attending the open house that will be held on July 9, 2003 at the Southwest Weld County Complex and will be voicing our concerns there as well. We also anticipate that the majority of the citizens of Highlandlake will also be there to express their concern and yes, outrage, that this road will probably be forced upon us by you and the town of Mead, who heaven forbid, would not want such a road through their town. We hope that you will listen to and consider the concerns of our board as well as out community as to what the negative effects this road (where there has never been a road before), will have, and look for a better, less damaging and intrusive route instead. Perhaps looping the road closer to I-25 where road 7 comes through the town would be a better solution. Thank you, 40.1/4 Pauli Driver Smith -Director of the Historic Highlandlake Church,Inc. • r. 7/8/2003 Contact Person:Pauli Smith 16778 CR 5 Mead,CO 80542 July 8,2003 o. Wayne Howard,P.E.,Project Manager Weld County Public Works Department P.O.Box 758 Greeley,Colorado 80632-0758 Jeff Dankenbring,P.E.,Project Manager Felsburg Holt&Ullevig r'^ 7951 East Maplewood Avenue Greenwood Village,Colorado 80111 To whom it may concern: We,the residents of Highlandlake and other interested parties,wish to convey to you our strenuous objections to the I-25 Relief Arterial Bypass that is proposed to run within several hundred feet of our �-. proposed future Historic District.This area includes numerous historic homes dating to as early as the 1870s and also includes the Historic Highlandlake Church,a State and National Landmark that is currently in an extremely fragile condition. The Historic Highlandlake Church as a registered historic site,is automatically a Section 106 building,and as such is covered by federal laws that require mitigation studies to guarantee that the building will not be harmed in any way by the construction of the proposed highway or by any and all traffic that will use this road in the future.Have you done or started any such studies? We are additionally concerned that the future Highlandlake Historic District will be impacted by this highway,damaging our historic homes,destroying our historic atmosphere,adversely impacting oar historic community with noise and pollution,as well as cutting off one of our more significant historic structures—that of the 1880s Gateley Boarding House and Hotel-from the rest of the district. r- We have additional concerns about the environment.The land that the road is proposed to pass i through is not only valuable,irrigated farm land,but is home to an abundance of wild creatures, including foxes,coyotes,badgers,skunks,raccoons,the occasional deer and elk and mountain lions, ^ over 130 species of birds including several species of owls,hawks,Great Blue Herons,Whooping Cranes(threatened),Lewis's Woodpeckers(almost unknown at this elevation),White faced Ibis, Wood Ducks,teals,grebes,and assorted rodents(the Highlandlake inlet and outlet ditches are prime Preebles Jumping Mouse(threatened)habitat.Have there been any studies on how this four-lane highway with a median will affect the abundant,but decreasing wildlife in this area? r-. Finally,we realize that despite our objections this bypass may still go through.If this indeed happens, ,., we are asking that you consider purchasing the land between the west side of the proposed highway and Highlandlake to be used as an open space buffer zone.This land could be bermed and landscaped ^ in such a way that the view of the highway from Highlandlake and the noise and vibration pollution from the highway will be minimized.This will also help rovide and preserve n eded wildlife habitat that is rapidly being lost due to local developmen. — Sincerely, LT/4wC/ e®af 9 ^ iefr j2alt.° er,O / f�,,/ `' ✓/ %, 'r . SOT' loAit-vot_ ntritt f / i cliAb'///4)4 S, e 9%4142,ereade" jai _ Hice-Idler, Gloria • From: Harrywalker@aol.com Sent: Wednesday,July 09,2003 7:29 PM • To: Hice-Idler, Gloria Subject: 125 Weld Co Arterial Study Open House Comments Gloria, Thank you for your interest at the open house. I hope I wasn't too much of a bother. This is a subject of great interest and emotion for me as well as many of the residents here in Mead. I hope these comments help ^ By way of background let me tell you were I come from. I am currently a Trustee for the Town of Mead, however these comments are from me as a private citizen. I have lived in CO since retiring from the Air Force in 1996. I was a • Colonel in the Air Force and spent a lot of time dealing with large government budgets, infrastructure issues, and long range planning issues. I have both a • Masters degree in Systems Mgmt from USC and am a graduate of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces with the equivalent of another masters in National Resource Strategy. So I am familiar with the issues of large scale infrastructure development. Now to the issues of the I-25 corridor and this specific arterial system. First - having developers "pay" for the impact is sound. Although we must agree that this is just a cost pass through to the taxpayer. Second the concept that developers must pay because they bring extra volume to the road is only part of the issue. Yes, development brings more volume but in this case the volume is already too high and this arterial is needed with the existing volume. More development will only exacerbate the problem. Now were do we need a reliever road system? The East side of I-25 can serve as a relatively high speed reliever road within a reasonable distance of I-25. Why? Right now the east side is still relatively less developed than the east side in the northern reaches of CO. With long range planning a four lane • limited access road can be developed along existing major rights of way that could connect with Denver. Look at 9 1/2 and 13. Either of these two could be a backbone of a good reliever system. The town of Mead has oversight of this area and could work well with the other towns around the county to make this a viable solution. In fact the Weld County says road 13 development is designed to do just that. But they think it is "too far removed" from I-25 to be of use as a reliever. This is probably were we disagree the most. A reliever ^ road that is developed along existing (familiar) rights of way that is within two miles of a major interstate is not "too far" away. If two miles is too far out of the way then C-470 would never be used. Hwy.. 85 would never be used. • Hwy. 287 would never be used. The argument just doesn't make sense. Putting a reliever road within 2 to 5 miles will be used. People will use it if it "` reduces time. If they insist on putting a road through small towns that have existing population those towns will and should limit the speed for safety reasons. This will not save time. Then the road can be 1/2 mile away but will not be used. So the issue is what is reasonable and familiar to the residents. If the people traveling I-25 aren't familiar with road 13 then they don't live ^ here and this project is really to construct another Denver to Cheyenne road. But we have been told this is not a new highway but a "reliever" system so we must conclude it is for the residents not the transients. And locals will use any road that is paved (even not paved right now) to get where they are going in a shorter time. Now the west side. Between I-25 and the foothills there is already major development and imminent development. There is a valid need for a set of roads to move the local residents north and south. This is different from a reliever system to reduce volume on I-25. Here the concept is that with the number of ^ larger towns (Longmont, Berthoud, Loveland, Ft Collins) on the west side of I-25 putting in a "reliever" system there is really nothing more than • connecting those towns and the smaller towns that are mostly residential (Erie, Mead, Campion, Johnstown) . So we have I-25 then CR 1 then 287. The same arguments 1 ^' apply about the distance away from I-25 as above. In this case we are really trying to get the people to not use I-25 for any trip that keeps them on the west side. Unless of course your real objective is to build another Interstate between Denver and Canada. So to get those people between the towns why do we need a road that is not along existing right of way? Why not use CR 1 or CR ^ 3. In fact CR 3 is the least developed along the corridor right now. Again this is not an issue of distance but time. A limited access road along CR 3 could be a logical west side road system. It would be able to draw traffic from �. 287 as well as I-25. I would prefer CR 1 only because it would be a better system concept to "relieve" or add real capacity to the whole system from 1-25 '^ to the foothills. CR 1 could be a major addition for through traffic from Erie to Loveland. It would also draw traffic from 287 and I-25 as well as give locals an easy way to get around between all the towns on the west side of ^ I-25. Finally the issue of the frontage road. We need to stop trying to tell people that the frontage road cannot be improved. The right of way exists. The issues of safety have not been adequately been made. If there are studies about this I would like to see them. You have right away on both sides of I-25. Each side could be one way if it is an issue of opposing traffic. If it an ^^ issue of the interchanges, those could be made into flyovers with off ramps. The cost of that would be high but couldn't be an order of magnitude bigger than constructing this 25 mile corridor on both sides of I-25. If it is an issue of snow removal that could be given over to the towns along the way. Again it doesn't seem like anyone is listening to the residents when they say that a new road through their property is better when all you tell them is the frontage roads just aren't a good solution. You have not presented the counter • arguments in a way that makes sense. Saying "it is not efficient" doesn't sway anyone. Prove it. And until you do you will not be trusted. (Not you but the officials who are pushing this project) . I know this is an issue that is a long way off but it is an issue that needs • to be planned. I fully support the County in the planning process. I think they have done a grand thing by starting this process. Now they need to stop • thinking like bureaucrats and think about what is best for all the residents of the county and state. And lets be honest about the real objective. If it is a new mini-interstate lets admit that and tell everyone. If it is really a • reliever network for the local residents then being within 1 mile of I-25 is not a driver but a county desire. The local residents should not be dismissed ^ when they say it isn't a goal of theirs. So lets stop being transient and be open to good solid suggestions from your constituents. Thanks for letting me give you some input. Hope you can get the Weld County folks to listen a bit. Harry Walker, 119 Hunters Cove Rd, Mead, CO 80542 • 970-535-4002 Harrywalker®aol.com .-. ^ ..^ i. 2 VINTAGE HOMES AND LAND, LLC July 9, 2003 Mr. Wayne Howard, P.E. Weld County Public Works Department P. O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632-0758 Re: Southwest Weld County Road Alignment West of 1-25 Dear Mr. Howard: It is our understanding that as part of the north-south arterial road planning ^ process for southwest Weld County, the County is considering placing an arterial road along half section lines as an alternative to enlarging existing roadways. As a property owner and developer in the Mead and Frederick areas of Weld County located west of 1-25, we hope that you would understand the hardships of having 3 north-south collector or arterial roads on a section of land. For example, placing the new arterial on the west side of 1-25 at approximately Road 6 would then have 3 major arterials on a section of land; i.e., the existing WCR 5 and WCR 7 with the proposed WCR 6 in between. In addition to how this proposed road alignment would effect existing land improvements, we a believe placing the responsibility and burden on a land owner for development costs of installing infrastructure and cost of 3 major arterials is extremely prohibitive and unfair. We hope you would concur and consider this fact when making your final decision. Should the alternative arterial route proposed for the west side of 1-25 along half section lines be finalized, how would Weld County consider the hardships to a land owner? I would welcome the opportunity to speak with you or any member of the 1-25 parallel arterial study and can be reached at 303-703-2998. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Paula Lindamood fra Project Manager %c: Jeff Dankenbring, P.E., Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 1805 Shea Center Drive • Suite 250 • Highlands Ranch, Colorado 80129 • 303-703-2998 • Fax 720-348-1327 TO: COMMISSIONER GLENN VAAD WELD COUNTY, COLORADO DATE: JULY 14, 2003 (Delivered) From: Frank Grimaldi RE: WELD COUNTY I-25 PARALLEL ARTERIAL STUDY Enclosed is a copy of my letter dated July 11, 2003 and the letter, etc. sent to the County Commissioners by the Northern Region Office of Colorado State Parks. During the past week I have spoken to Colorado State Parks representatives. They expressed a definitive resolve to prevent the I-25 Arterial from crossing Barbour Ponds/ St. Vrain State Park. The Colorado State Parks report that the Division of Wildlife has not been contacted about wildlife issues and that: "This is a political decision that will made in the Governor's Office". Personally, my concern is where the bypass around the Town of Mead merges with WCR-7, My letter addresses this issue and only this issue. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. 0.1 • July 11, 2003 D EE v EE U `-' JUL 1 4 2003 Robert W. Felsburg, President FELSBURG,HOLT&ULLEVIG Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 7951 E. Maplewood Ave., Ste. 200 Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111 RE: Weld County 1-25 Parallel Arterials Study Dear Mr. Felsburg: I am a Colorado Certified General Appraiser am required to state that this is not an appraisal or feasibility study. I am commenting on the above referenced project as a private citizen. I live in the Town of Mead. My concerns pertain to the West Arterial in Segment 6 of the map dated July 9, 2003. Enclosed is an enlarged copy for your convenience. I will comment on the three alternatives which bypass the Town of Mead and are predominantly blue in color known as: A6; E6; and, F6. All connect to green colored Alternative B7 to the North and A5 to the South. A6 connects B7 in the Northwest to A5 in the Southeast by merging onto Weld County Road 7 just north of Colorado Highway 66 and just south of a school bus stop. WCR-7 also has a large functioning ditch along the East side of the road. In my opinion this is the most unsafe and least desirable of the three alternatives. The corner of Highway 66 and WCR-7 is the crossing of two section lines and is already scheduled for partial development which includes single family homes. These homes will be a part of Mead and alternative A6 would then not bypass Mead. It will further divide the Town. This appears to be a short term solution to what is a long term situation. An additional school bus stop may be needed at or near this corner when the homes are built and occupied. I believe implementing alternative A6 will cause significant traffic congestion, accidents, and other problems at the Highway 66 and County Road 7 corner. The safety issue alone indicates alternative A6 is not acceptable. Alternatives E6 and F6 both merge back into Weld County Road 7 south of Highway 66. E6 may be preferable to F6 because E6 runs along a midsection line and traditionally development occurs along section line and midsection line roads. When the safety issue is considered both are far superior to alternative A6. I have added a suggestion of my own colored in red. This overlaps parts of alternatives E6 and F6 and connects both by continuing E6 along the midsection line and connecting it to F6. You may want to consider this option. —. • aalk Robert W. Felsburg, President Felsburg Holt & Ullevig July 11, 2003 Page Two At the July 9'" Open House Weld County Commissioner Glenn Vaad brought up the possibility of renaming this road, which is a bypass around Mead, as County Road 7 with signs or other methods to continue the flow of traffic onto this bypass at both the North and the South where this separates from WCR-7 thus preventing traffic from continuing on what will be the old two lane road through Mead. This makes good sense to me. Thank you very much for taking the time to consider the opinions I have expressed. If you have any questions feel free to contact me on my wireless phone: (303) 775-5262. Sincerely, aos,44:4: Frank Grimaldi Enclosure cc: Weld County Commissioner Glenn Vaad Frank B. Hempen, Jr., Director of Public Works ^ • ••In YS .� �vLw,1`n,�i1" Am :.. ' r 1 ti `t. ��. . o't�€-'yi',�1II t° lI I.F' vi�' {'• ,.t Ve 1-71 ri�y� II r r rip .. .!,,,,,E. l l�wes I��,\i,`, .,yF�W,{ 4 �. 7;64-6t.." IiF`ty _ ;1' #J- >" ^ .... ... t,. x v ..0:7-.4_,p I \-1- ,. k4i r ,' '','y ,... k L 4 tccte Ne.iM v� F- _ I- ,Y G ,n` - {;- I y" •'1' ® •l� I '. ,r'A•✓ �'q ` 6, , �t �1 ,. it -: iivivi l\Z n i " • ® �i 3P ^ r P m � r � � 4 �ey+L t'rW®'r ;�Itu ' � n'+YJI \. F�k I IIL ni :•Fi !�yP�I: y ,�: .1. ff}y„J. I',1:4.1-..,':'W- Mx1 uj a u ‘i.„$2,2--..5.,,,,,,, "` h+7`" i s+, 's ry!"mf }?k. 1 C 'n x Ft ♦ ;u 9 (((�� a.. -. v k ,•,, .. wt. .-,":',!t::‘, w �'v gl.0 dy, E°t 9" Pt r c •_:t !! ry.® rA�il JeI �4-4Yrr a4 -.P.‘,3,;,- ; ▪ ;,AI trey CC!LWn. _ ;c P— 'kr-16 ' �®i°®W siniret x : tea : P'; ,, m`w; . 0 za„algr,7..9ld/ a' vn ° ' 'r. Y^� ke/ y u qC�' 4Bf'OrY ��6�lit +E, .iwz 'x' -Ti,�- T I r if:: °4 ♦ `it ,, ; / � k NN,x .:. Viµ � _. �i�s'r. 1�1 ..,,,,....-./.„�P^ '� A'k' ; a�bw 4.'Nk��' ,„:'..-.-,t'4'1,-"vw,:r,4" La, , gI JL r. ¢a dmYY m :IIIIYI II s t` ^t,1� I rt` ,A I + \i ♦' ,� � p�, � .1,- v ��®Y®.a�W� fix lr' �GY a��jlai2�1 �'`Y»'�:°. ail/ Pyy, . 4•• w .� n� ' II .•. - e ��On.a V� ♦ .y}�ir'r�AAI r ! r "rp`•.. F4 'it !. '" j n f '\�i.sftd r 'X �' �i':.t s}�1 to '.yti n ' 1< Z ^ ,.. 'T_�'y" jL :" —�.F5 ._..... C�N."e. �., a b_ _R dt' ru'.nJi 2 c ,-'F rCp .4r a1.ra,-.'^ ,'Y 5a —r.iq.:. , tgy. .-r, .*_co , i 4 --44 4:11: t :::: ' L' .,�; r ! n` n'��K 113 br"f? :1'ryr ,,'; Rrr ti P }; �� '�- p er i' NBR 4 'r rM %,tl .:.r 1 1,pt r , • "r ^� t? \\ p • .• . cry1t - .J �! y2.:,,,i,,,-4:1,!1: +44•;.y 1. r'f. . d' �'v � w»%. r r r'! '" ` ''',...-.,..41,0:4„.4D' , X11 Ja[' 1° 4 N 4 t„---- ■y .iuL l':wSLJ 61' n ..Y ti %teg o r r� V v ii a 2,`..g i' a�° �-it,. ,r. __-.�' Ry t Y fM'I 4f �tAy ,y6WFti _ 4 r - i ?xe e �' r: I. iii{ n: GB . ,i; x "4,41N I '%,4 "0.-3",'”,1 „........7p,--,vl� a Ati f + �r ry' f SCHOOL +_ 7rMD? 4X3 J.. ."4u a -1:.-c/-* i7"r r( i tia z s ''I kI r. y tia - L', in / ^ s f ,� ' j''I, r� je.4 Y a 4,' -z.-4:+1„, �� .yam ♦?iv V� �'aP�••��' YI I v �, i 1p r � Rit' � Ir� �+fa• �� ''s W >:S .'mot 4 i >I f733 ,•Y .,e al' ♦ - r,7 . ®^�1 ti ._ ♦ i'lr..,. IN .. � ' 1▪ u t // III• r kilt;", G v�i / . �P �9/t t, :. I -F a i e� Mile ) '",. ....,,-..,.„-e.:,...7„. ,ii.. : ,f"^' a w o ff , i .- rF l _ 1rc ` • f �'�"� � � ^ r : y I �1 V ,y ♦'9!�R�-•" ° '5" .�^ 02.7 ♦ .•,- ! ;. .� 'A Mp .� Li 4 ^ °L '. µ3' '.SMYi. yJ,.I "'rip+:r;.. �I dl �f Ov ,�® rv + t . III. r;` .^ '�� 'tee '^4�� ,may h° n,v. y., ® '� n r II Mil: '� it-41,v \� ( +g • �!i�cEp i iii, as a°U[� •" n liar X1;1 d. a '� . J I �tdp, 3 "'"" r e C rJ '�'�. . Tr 11141 „'/ �t�� "till qt ir:<2 6r'a t, ` ®a t� t1 y'.�yJi 1 .f ,tom ' �' �- .�. .t '_►yam ., Fl�i54r �^:. ®® 4' ® i ,,` ►.r ( s X14" r r.J_' .e...�.�®® t r t +4 Ih t \�l- AO. Nayne Howard-Arterials Study Page 1 r. From: "Chris Conway<chris@wildbasinoutfitters.com> To: <whoward@co.weld.co.us>, <jeff.dankenbring@fhueng.com> Date: 7/14/03 10:18AM Subject: Arterials Study ^ Gentlemen, ^ I am not convinced of the need for the alternative routes that are being recommended. Growth of new housing&commercial developments are minimal, negative impact to wetlands and State Park lands is high, and the cost to create new roads where there are none seems unwarranted. How and who will fund this proposed road system? Jeff said at the recent meeting that the State is abandoning title to the frontage roads. Why not have the county assume ownership, and expand as needed? Here are a few other questions that I would like to have answered: 1. Why is the arterial study based solely on North-South traffic? ^ 2. What studies have been down to provide additional"diagonal"travel to major commuting destinations (e.g. Boulder, Longmont, Greeley)? 3. When is 1-25 expected to expand to 6 lanes north of Hwy 119? -� 4. How does the proposed housing development(Weld County Development Company)just south of Mead impact the proposed routing of CR 7? 5. Does the approval to build a new Life Bridge Church campus near Hwy 119 figure into this need for expansion? If so, explain how. 6. Why are new roads being considered that further reduce both farming and open space when viable county roads already exist within 1/2 mile? Before the county spends more money on this plan,why not mail out a questionnaire to every Weld County household explaining what the plan is, what the cost to each landowner will be, and ask them to return a ballot that says whether they would support or oppose this plan. While I believe that we must plan for the future, I also feel that it needs to be supported by the people it is designed to help. Chris Conway Wild Basin Outfitters, Ltd. Tel.970-535-4779 Fax 970-535-0479 ^ CENTEX HOMES 9250 E.Costilla Ave.,#200 Greenwood Village,CO 80112 July 18, 2003 Phone:303-792-9810 Fax:303-792-9811 Wayne Howard, P.E. Weld County Public Works Department ^ P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632-0758 .w. ^ RE: Weld County Comments for I-25 Parallel Arterial Study Dear Wayne, Centex Homes has requested annexation to the Town of Mead for the property located on the southwest corner of Highway 66 and County Road 7, currently owned by Bruce and Marsha Frederiksen. Centex Homes has reviewed six alternatives proposed for the area between WCR 28 and WCR 32 for the arterial alignment on the west side of 1-25. We understand the need for the arterial and commend Weld County for looking into the future to plan this transportation connection. Centex Homes believes the West Alternative F6 as shown on the arterial study diagram dated July 9, 2003 is the best location for the arterial road. This alignment will provide the traffic connection desired by the County and the Town of Mead without disturbing the existing residents of the Town of Mead. The Town of Mead has voiced a strong opposition to the arterial being placed on County Road 7 because of the impact to the existing residents and the center of town. Mead takes pride in the small town atmosphere it has created and would like to preserve that atmosphere. We all understand traffic will increase in this area, with this study we have the opportunity to plan for the traffic in the future and not be short sited and compromise the core values the Town of Mead has established. Centex Homes believes that the F6 alignment will allow the Town of Mead corridor to be preserved with the atmosphere that currently exist while providing the traffic circulation just west of the main part of the Town of Mead. The F6 location will provide for a 1-A mile corridor between 1-25 and the Arterial. If the arterial is moved closer to 1-25 it will not be effective in pulling the local traffic off 1-25 because people will still use the highway since it does not have lights to slow them down. The separation between 1-25 and the F-6 arterial alignment gives the driver an option for short trips while preserving the Town of Mead corridor. Several towns in Colorado have experienced a major arterial through the heart of the town and have either added a by-pass or are in the process of getting a by-pass. This study gives us the opportunity to design that by-pass road before it becomes a problem. The alignment of the arterial road is critical in the development of the Town of Mead. If the arterial is placed anywhere within the first 1-14 miles of 1-25 it will dissect the Town of Mead and demolish the quality of life the citizens of Mead have worked so hard to preserve. Sine ly, lAiLne Seaman and Acquisition and Planning Director ^ , Cc:Tolen of Mead, Bob Acker,Mead Citizens for Quite Mead II,Jeff Dankenbring FHU ^ 1 O I U +�f'yi 1f L ± r` j 1 + _ ,,. "'"t�" r #^ °yi,try . 'ymur$ V r 4*�L'4 • fi �•y 5 ' ww '::-; . O 8 )4,.p J * -- s. .,:::?:,z,.......:,,,,,...1..,:1/4.7„.,:m.: `� *s$,✓,v a.t ,* " t 44 2" �t,�hykyzIr rj County Road 7' w �,. .� ' ' a.ae •' i, '3 ' �' "_ , re' ,•,,, �� V�* + e Ydµ'r iii id ti jg O Z Z4a + 1� � �'\N O C. <g Lst. Y r 3 !•' �:' 2 ,- r cr (//) i 44413. , •- ..s+�..�... w rtr. i. ,\`� \ice \4 i wo d p Y{` ,� W '44 9i }' iN K �rF< ri LL. ILL - p O A k Yom# r t o 5.' 'xi'tr:I i� z •Ccu 4 r XIY •, w \ r z e w NI,-• � c �- 7 N �, n k g Pi •pC7r! W ,55v i .----44-r.1.4,9? ' � +I "�'' i. fi , `5‘ ‘k.' 555 L4 ZA�s :,- a. 4. 1 g� • ,....-5.444"55 Ariv,p +l v b.A W t r , p i tiv+� \ ��•�`''�A� �� V �. ` v4,51V-4,A a.' ,} „ n" + s4.e�,F tr� tiH z t '� F,F+ •tbli Fz a5 + .a :r r 4. iC ( 1 ( `( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( TV: JGrr LAr1Ar.L n 1 , �rc.L uLAL lrevl; yr J J THE TOWN OF MEAD * RIGHT SIDE OF MAP * LAND A•471AN.WELD COUNTY,COLORADO ARCHIIrx l� (RE: CENTEX) perspective I balance 2681 West Alamo Avenue Littleton,Colorado 80120 Phone(303)734-1777 LAND USE LEGEND Fax(303)734-me S UBCO NS ULTANTS Residential Commercial Land Use Acreage %of Site (Units) (SF) DEvE x°o;s �. MD Medium Density Residential +/-105 ac. 66% 420 IMO r ^^3°° oommem.ay..C13 eau - �.Pmt ratan .. '//�/'////A C-MD Commercial-Medium Density Residential +/-28 ac. 17% ENGINEER 3 possble alternatives SEAR-BADMAN .--. 1)CommerciaUReswar ial(17 ac.cam,11 sc.res.) 44 182.492 2)All C.0 ',bust Alternative(28 ac commercial) 0 380.148 onioc,r A..arr ...� 3)All Residential Alternative(28 Sc.residential) 116 0 Ico Caftan meesa ROW Right of Way +/-14 ac. 9% 22 "�""" PU-MD Public Use-Medium Density Residential +/-10 ac. 6% 2 possible alternatives 1)Public Use Alternative(Elementary School Site) 2)All Residential Alternative 40 CERTIFICATION Well Head(200'R-No Build Zone) 2.88 ac. 2% w �o� ,_.. cur een .Ae eo uw.craer a r are .m:1v A.Nan es sa. _ TOTAL: 160.17 ac 100% 420-576 192,492-380,148 "6sN.A. IM°" Main Entry Secondary Entry Residential Collector Road NOTES: ti�`° � ISSUE RECORD 1. All Medium Density (MD) areas (4-6 dwelling units/acre)shall AMn.w eut..p0 be developed with a minimum lot size of 7,000 s.f. per Town of _ Mead Development Code(section 16-8-40). ---. _ --- 2. All roads, acreages, access points, and open space are — - illustrated for planning purposes only. Actual road alignment DESiGR GIAC and parcel configuration will be subject to change based on CHECKED' BAR GJAC engineering and development code and final plat requirements aRQ EC7r o]C,5 DATE by the Town of Mead. REVISIONS °"oz4J 3. Total site area is 160.17 acres. Parcel acreages and percentages are approximate in nature, and therefore do not PROJECT total 160.17 acres or 100% of site. i.. FREDERIXSEN FARMS ANNEXATION ve-e- APPLICANT r CENTEX HOMES Contact Yvonne Seaman .�. cn.n.Eoa Now.m 2 1 rz 9: 2 IY 50 E CoLo� Are 06 P.(5031792441C @03I7f0-0811 SHEET INFO CONCEPT ^ 0 200 110 000 PLAN El) "` Scale: 111 = 200' SHEET NUMBER L-2 - Weld County I-25 Parallel 4-lane Arterial Study Submitted by: Jeff and Dianne Engelman 18110 Wagon Trail Mead,CO 80542 970-535-4776(evenings) 303-924-7173 (days) dj@engelman.ws • General Observations •Can't stop growth o Growth can be controlled with appropriate infrastructures o Plan should be made available to the public and to future residents o Maintain the existing characteristics of the area •People buy in an area because of the surroundings which should be maintained o Settings like views,trails,feel of the area o Plan landscaping on the current settings or the known future settings WCR 38 • WCR 38 a 2 miles from Mead exit—3 miles from Berthoud exit o Current overpass would need major reconstruction • Keep WCR 38 as is—an I-25 overpass • Prefer that the 4 lane arterial be placed at WCR 40 a 2 miles from Berthoud exit—3 miles from Mead exit o New overpass could be constructed allowing ample room for frontage roads and exit ramps • Continue usage of the underpass connection between WCR 42 • Continue usage of the overpass connection at WCR 38 o At the Berthoud/Mead town limits o Good divider/land break/open space to distinguish the two towns as separate entities o More parties to share the cost of the interchange—Berthoud/Mead/County/State ... WCR7 • WCR 7 o Compare to Hwy 287 in Longmont—a 4 lane road that is always bottlenecked. o Between Hwy 66 and WCR 38 there are 31 access points on west side — 47 access points on east side—total of 78. • Keep WCR 7 as is—a low speed connection to housing developments • Prefer that the 4 lane arterial be placed between WCR 5 and WCR 7—between WCR 40 and Hwy 66 o Compare to Hwy 287 at Berthoud—4 lane road bypassing the town o Allow east/west traffic connections at WCR 32 (Adams), WCR 34, WCR 36, and WCR 38 o Consider orphaning WCR 34.5 o Consider orphaning WCR 7 where it meets the new bypass at WCR 40 and Hwy 66 — forcing residential traffic to enter at WCR 32, WCR 34, WCR 36 and WCR 38. o Deter north/south traffic on WCR 7 by having stop signs at the major east/west connections listed above—encouraging traffic movement out to the new 4 lane road o Allow new 4 lane arterial to carry volume at higher speed with less interruptions. NICK N. BACRIA 11488 WCR 7, Longmont, CO 80504 (303) 678 8398 tampitul(a,mindsprin¢.com pigletuc botmail.com .. "Man always kills the thing he loves, and so we the pioneers have killed our wilderness. Some say we had to. Be that as it may, I am glad I shall never be young without wild country to be young in. Of what avail are forty freedoms without a blank spot on the ,. " map. ALDO LEOPOLD Every place in our country has four-lane roads. Yet there are only few places that have what we have here, in the Barbour Ponds area. The birds and the animals that come here, come here because of the plains, the water, the grasses, the trees, the ponds, and the lack of four-lane roads, bridges and major intersections. A four-lane asphalt road that brings a lot of traffic right thru the middle of this wild-life paradise would be the finishing touch for this beautiful site. I don't think that the Blue Herons, the Bold Eagles, the Pelicans, the Red-Feathered Hawks, the Canada Geese, the Deer and many others would enjoy seeing their homes being invaded this way. I keep hearing "we don't know what the animals would do". I am not an expert, just an old casual observer, but I believe that most would end up dead on the road, hit by cars. The rest of the population would slowly disappear. You don't see many Blue Herons, Bold Eagles, deer and Red-Feathered Hawks downtown Denver, Boulder, Longmont, Chicago and New York. I think that's because over there they have too many four-lane roads, bridges, buildings and other infrastructure. There you have your answer, (regarding how these species will survive in a new environment). I believe that my place will only increase in value, if a four-lane road goes in front of it; but, at whose expense? We can certainly build a huge road thru sands, wetlands, rivers and swamps, no matter the cost. And if these wonders of nature die-off....well, we can make it look like their fault. I am not really too sure if there is a need for a four-lane road right thru Barbour Ponds Park,just so farmer Nick can drive to farmer Bob on a new road...Can't the four-lane road go....say, around the park, rather than thru it? Sincerely, Nick Bacria •- WWW r., Acre per acre,the majority of land in Weld County is East of I-25. An arterial on the east side of I-25 will serve far more people and commerce than one on the west. Please consider that the majority of commerce in SW Weld County first moves North and South and that drivers are not likely to drive west looking for viaducts to cross over I-25 in order to use a N-S road. Also, an arterial on the east can be connected into the E-470 toll road on the South end. In time, with help, it could extend all the way to the Wyoming state line on the North end Submitted by: William P. (Bill)Renner 204 Willow Drive Mead, CO 80542-9700 (970) 5354909 ^ ^ .01 .. Oak _ _. ,_. �ten• � Ida FS £ =SIN � 1 I a, a , YniL2 � ...- £ I. 4 a' 0 Faa ie • ?l 6 • 4 Mkil ' }d # 303.721.1440 fax 303.721.0832 FELSBURG H O L T (St Greenwood Corporate Plaza 7951 E.Maplewood Ave.Ste.200 ULLEVIG L E V I G Greenwood Village,CO 80111 Hello