The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About890015.tiff_ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. AR2175540 1O O RESOLUTION 0 O ~ o RE: GRANT CHANGE OF ZONE FROM A (AGRICULTURAL) AND C-3 (COMMERCIAL) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, (C-3 , C-4 , I-1 , R-3 o AND R-5) USES AS LISTED IN THE WELD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE o AND THE OPEN-CUT MINING OF SAND AND GRAVEL FOR GRANT o a BROTHERS/FIFTHCOFF COMPANY tw O WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home z Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and a WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the 4th day of January, w 1989 , at 10: 00 a.m. for the purpose of hearing the application of co mil Grant Brothers/Fifthcoff Company, 515 Kimbark Street, Longmont, Colorado 80501 , requesting a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) H and C-3 (Commercial to Planned Unit Development (C-3 , C-4 , I-1 , � w R-3 , and R-5) uses as listed in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance o w and the open-cut mining of sand and gravel for a parcel of land located on the following described real estate, to-wit: or4 v w w Part of the Ni , Section 11 , Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, N Colorado w WHEREAS, the applicant was represented by Jennifer Rodriguez, rz and N co CO o WHEREAS, Section 28.8 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance cm provides standards for review of such a Change of Zone, and m w WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners heard all the testimony and statements of those present, has studied the request of the applicant and the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission, and, having been fully informed, finds that this request shall be approved for the following reasons: 1 . The applicant has complied with all the application requirements listed in Section 28 .5 et seq. , of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 2 . The request is in conformance with Section 28 . 8 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows: a. The proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) district is located within the 1-25 Mixed-Use /- Development (I-25 MUD) area. The uses associated with the proposed PUD district are consistent with / '.. f �- !,< 890015 Page 2 RE: COZ - GRANT BROTHERS/FIFTHCOFF COMPANY the uses described in the I-25 MUD section of the Comprehensive Plan. • o b. The uses allowed in the proposed PUD district will o oo J conform with the performance standards contained in ; o Section 35 .3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. c. The Central Weld County Water District will provide o w water service to the PUD district. Well permits 0 3 shall be obtained prior to excavation of sand and o a gravel pits within the PUD district. The St. Vrain h Q Sanitation District will provide sewer service to a the proposed PUD district. U ✓ a d. The applicant has submitted a traffic impact N analysis for the PUD district. This analysis - o recommends certain improvements for Weld County a Roads 11 and 24 and the East I-25 Frontage Road because these roads provide access to the PUD. The co• o application explains a road improvement district • z will be formed to complete certain off-site road H improvements. This concept has been approved by the Department of Planning Services, County o a Engineer, and Colorado Division of Highways. The road improvement district will help mitigate o impacts to Weld County Roads 11 and 24 and East Ln 1-25 Frontage Road. These county roads and the Nz state highway frontage road are currently N a inadequate in functional design, width, and structural capacity to meet the traffic o a requirements of uses within the proposed PUD district. Access constraints to development will CO be addressed with notes on the PUD district plat N CO and as a PUD plan application requirement. N N PO w e. Part of the subject property is located in the 100-year flood plain which may affect development on the site. Flood plain constraints to development will be addressed with notes on the PUD district plat and as a PUD plan application requirement. No other overlay districts affect the site. f. A portion of the subject site does contain sand and gravel commercial mineral deposits . Extraction of commercial sand and gravel deposits will be accomplished by approval of a PUD plan application. 890015 Page 3 RE: COZ - GRANT BROTHERS/FIFTHCOFF COMPANY NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the application of Grant Brothers/Fifthcoff Company for a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) and C-3 (Commercial) to Planned Unit Development o o U (C-3 , C-4 , I-1 , R-3 , and R-5) uses as listed in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the open-cut mining of sand and gravel on the mn o above referenced parcel of land be, and hereby is , granted subject to the following conditions: O 0 w 1 . The following items shall be removed from the PUD district plan prior to recording: o aa. The 150-foot radius around the two existing gas o wells; r- a b. The plat note titled "Internal Roads" ; o x c. The internal PUD roadway system; and ma d. Accesses shown to Weld County Roads 11 and 24 from oo u the PUD district. Lnz 0 w 2 . An estimate shall be provided for the cost of Phase I d h and Phase II improvements to Weld County Roads 11 and 24 a and the future frontage road. The cost estimate may o include a low to high range, based on similar v w improvements in the front range area. Ln [ti Le) r- z 3 . The following notes shall be placed on the PUD district N 2C plat: 0 oa a. Prior to recording a PUD plan plat, a law enforcement authority shall be formed according to CO N State Law. The law enforcement authority to be N N formed shall be capable of expanding to serve other areas within the I-25 MUD area to avoid duplication a w of overhead and other operating costs. b. All streets within the PUD district, except the future East I-25 Frontage Road, are private and shall be maintained by owners of the PUD district, unless other arrangements are approved by the Board of County Commissioners. c. There shall be two accesses from the PUD to Weld County Road 24 , the future frontage road and one additional access. The future frontage road shall align with the future frontage road to the north. The additional access shall align with a future 890015 Page 4 RE: COZ - GRANT BROTHERS/FIFTHCOFF COMPANY access to the north. No access to the PUD shall be allowed onto Weld County Road 24 between the existing frontage road and the proposed frontage o o road. A right-turn-in only access will also be o considered east of the future frontage road onto Weld County Road 24 , as a possible access. icr o u w d. There shall be two accesses from the PUD to Weld o 0 3 County Road 11 . The accesses shall align with o a future accesses east of Weld County Road 11 and not interfere with the intersection of Roads 11 and 24 . % x O • ae. A PUD plan internal circulation system shall include an internal collector street system to deliver traffic to County Arterial Roads 11 and 24 . r x The internal collector system will consider w providing access between the different use areas a, a within the PUD district and property to the south. J The internal circulation plan shall also include a o H pedestrian system that allows access between the different use areas, across the natural drainage o m way. Access to the commercial areas and industrial park areas from the future frontage road shall o align. -crw Lnw � z N Z f. The initial PUD plan application will include a o road improvements master plan for Phases I and II . v z The master plan shall outline improvements, w including right-of-way widths for Weld County Roads x 11 and 24 and the future frontage road. co M N CO N f-1 ~ ~ g. Each PUD plan application shall include a traffic • w analysis performed in conjunction with the study titled Traffic Impact Analysis, The Crossroads at Del Camino, prepared by Felsbug, Holt, and Yllevig, dated October, 1988 . The traffic study shall coordinate with the road improvements master plan. An off-site road improvements agreement or a local improvements district shall also be in place and capable of generating funds to construct the off-site road improvements needed to serve the PUD district and plan. 890015 Page 5 RE: COZ - GRANT BROTHERS/FIFTHCOFF COMPANY h. The required grading and drainage plan for the PUD district shall also discuss and account for the up O effects of the 100 year flood plain. ° a 0 Ln O J The student impact requirements on the St. Vrain w Valley Schools shall be met as part of the PUD plan o application requirements. orx tn- w a j . A PUD plan that includes an existing gas well shall o demonstrate how the operation of the well is acompatible with other uses proposed in the plan. The operation of the two existing wells includes refracturing and drilling to different zones . No additional oil or gas well sites shall be drilled w on the PUD district. coa CO u H k. Each PUD plan application shall include a H management plan to control weeds before, during, o U) and after development. This plan shall be approved w by the Longmont Soil Conservation District. o w inw z 1. The requirements of the Longmont Fire Protection z District shall be met as part of the PUD plan o application requirements . >+ 0a w � x m. A site plan review is required in accordance with Section 33 . 4 .5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. N 1- -H H ro w n. The requirements of the Boulder Reservoir Company, the Army Corps of Engineers, and Colorado Geological Survey shall be met as part of a PUD plan application. 890015 Page 6 RE: COZ - GRANT BROTHERS/FIFTHCOFF COMPANY The above and foregoing Resolution was , on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 4th day of January, A.D. , 1989 . o / BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS o ATTEST: 1 — r "E'"u-P WELD COUNTY, COLORADO o 0 O Weld C i. k\a$d Recorder and CI rMe to rd C.W. Kirby, Ch rman Po 3 0 1Ns ) gue 'ne o nson, Pro-Tem o w veputy County erk a EXCUSED DATE OF SIGNING - AYE p APPROVED A TO FORM: Gene R. Brantner George ounty Attorney a) a r . L cy a) C.) in O H W cr H 0 CO o en W in a, r- rz Nz N O J W. a CO tfl N CO H W 890015 ZHEARING CERTIFICATION DOCKET NO. 88-77 -RE: CHANGE OF ZONE FROM A (AGRICULTURAL) AND C-3 (COMMERCIAL) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (C-3, C-4, I-1, R-3 AND R-5) USES AS LISTED IN THE WELD COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE OPEN-CUT MINING OF SAND AND GRAVEL - GRANT BROTHERS/FIFTHCOFF COMPANY A public hearing was conducted on January 4, 1989, at 10:00 A.M. , with the following present: Commissioner C.W. Kirby, Chairman Commissioner Jacqueline Johnson Pro—Tem Commissioner Gene Brantner Commissioner George Kennedy Commissioner Gordon E. Lacy Also present: Acting Clerk to the Board, Mary Reiff Assistant County Attorney, Lee D. Morrison Planning Department representative, Rod Allison The following business was transacted: I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated November 21, 1988, and duly published November 30, 1988, in the Platteville Herald, a public hearing was conducted to consider the application of Grant Brothers/Fifthcoff Company for a Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) and C-3 (Commercial) to Planned Unit Development (C-3, C-4, I-1, R-3, and R-5) uses as listed in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the open-cut mining of sand and gravel. Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney, made this matter of record. Rod Allison, Planning Department representative, entered the favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record and asked that Condition #1 be amended. Jennifer Rodriguez, planning consultant, represented the applicant. She presented a general overview of the proposed project and said there is no problem with the recommended Conditions, as amended. No public comment was offered concerning this request. After discussion, Commissioner Johnson moved to approve this request for a Change of Zone, subject to the Conditions as amended. Commissioner Brantner seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. This Certification was approved on the 9th day of January, 1989. APPROVED: / , r V �tdnf BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: 6 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Weld County Clerk and Recorder X,X and Clerk to the Boa C.W. Kirby, Cha an -BY: dJNn7t2s > eputy County Cl rk acquel Jo ns n, Pro-Tem 111111 EXCUSED DATE OF APPROVAL Gene R. Brantner /v/�/I it George n y /� a v //G TAPE #89-1 DOCKET #88-77 PL0337 i; B90015 ATTENDANCE RECORD PLEASE write or print legibly your name , address and the name of the applicant or Docket # for the hearing you are attending . TODAY' S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS: JANUARY 4, 1989 DOCKET # 88-77 COZ, A & C-3 to PUD - GRANT BROTHERS/FIFTHCOFF COMPANY -DOCKET 488-82 USR-ACCESSORY BUILDING LARGER THAN 1,500 SQUARE FEET IN A ZONE DISTRICT - CHARLES E. & KAREN A. WALKER DOCKET # 88-83 USR-LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION IN A ZONE DISTRICT - FRANCIS ARENS -DOCKET #88-86 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE-Cal - ROBERT COMER, DBA PLASTIC ART PRODUCTS NAME ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING ( earnat0/g.444-4-1 //J_ 11,J2 F. Ink 91. % �0 .'d 88-111. �l If//� I r r / • het. ,nn.4 I34ai c G,-.,,;� I ,L` Lpwi 8x'1'7 K-) a\ 1�( Z4a�,� 4Z3 P,t c St "ric�h-,�.T 88 17 (1) //41-c----t--, ii.‘ 0 141-Y cx -.�G i xr Y 88 - 77 ( iuo '/'2a-,v -77(1,-1,16A- ') /Sorg Alt ea 132)// 4. o It - E-02 a ,i. iLn /--7re � 7 Q/33 ), cC' , (`. ? sir, .Znilfie , (it 57 es' - b'3 S90015 NOT I C E Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and the Weld County Zoning Ordinance, a public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Centennial tenter, 915 10th Street, First Floor, Greeley, Colorado, at the time specified. All persons in any manner interested in the following proposed -Change of Zone are requested to attend and may be heard. -Should the applicant or any interested party desire the presence of a court reporter to make a record of the proceedings, in addition to the taped -record which will be kept during the hearing, the Clerk to the Board's Office can be contacted for a list of certified court reporters in the area. If a court reporter is obtained, the Clerk to the Board's Office shall be advised in writing of such action at least five days prior to the hearing. The cost of engaging a court reporter shall be borne by the requesting party. BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so certified by the Weld County Planning Commission may be examined 1n the office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, located in the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado. APPLICANT DOCKET NO. 88-77 Grant Brothers/Fifthcoff Company 515 Kimbark Street Longmont, Colorado 80501 DATE: January 4, 1989 TIME: 10:00 A.M. -REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) and C-3 (Commercial) to Planned Unit Development (C-3, C-4, I-1, R-3, and R-5) uses as listed in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the open-cut mining of sand and gravel LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the Ni of Section 11 , Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th B.M. , Weld County, Colorado _LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 24; east of and adjacent to the East I-25 Frontage Road BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD TY: Mary Reiff, Leputy DATED: November 21, 1988 PUBLISHED: November 30, 1988, in the Platteville Herald 890015 Ex.. .t-. ± -Af f;,davit of Pub[ication STATE OF COLORADO . County of Weld ss. I A.Winkler Riesel of said County of Weld being duly sworn,say that I am publisher of Platteville Herald that, the same is a weekly newspaper of general circulation was • lea printed printed and published in the town of ` Platteville VZemke • tkr._, in said county and state that the notice of advertisement. of which y,� the annexed is a true copy has been published In said weekly s t are SOa'M Br lT lON: South of and edia- Mold Road-244 newspaper for ' • ' lend meant county f! lbEaet lI- its— , consecutive weeks: o, Wad County Conlon- 21 Fr�Se Road _ .Mal Center, 915 10th Street, PIM OF COUNTY COMMIS- that the notice was published in the regular and entire issue of every Floor, area , Colorado. a(the BOARD number of said newspaper during the period and time of publication time specified.Al pares TO env STONERS of said notice and in the newspaper proper and not in a supplement metier Intervened in l)(9 follow- COUNTY, COLORADO' thereof:that the first publication of said notice was contained in the ing Propoead Change of Zone an BY: MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN reque issue of said newspaper beating the date of hoard.ted to intend end may be COUNTY CLERK 1-'"� Q_, Should the applicant or any AND. RECORDER �1,44...Nu- ID A.D..19 er and the last publics ti on Interested party desire 1M prmr- AND CLERIC TO THE BOARD thereof.in the issue of said newspaper.tearing date, ence of a amt reporter to make• Reiff, M record el the proceedings, in ad- BY:Rey Fury -Alien to the taped record.which the day of MN be kept during the hearing, DATED: Nnwxlber It, 19911 c___-)A 6" " Cc the Clerk b BM c-----)Alp.....).4-....-J-6-",-)� 19 0 9 that the said � a be n lg e` # nun mina la OBB ma Mt Olmalor la N a court emir Y Se Platteville Herald Ole*b 111e fie co adviad ha Mat gg i1F `. has been published continuously and uninterruptedly during the don at beol'Bee on, lfr period of at least fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first hearing. The deal 0 • issue thereof containing said notice or advertisement above referred court reporter shall by to: and that said newspaper was at the time of each of the der requsning party. publications of said notice duly qualified for that purpose within the BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps ao cortiflod by meaning of an act entitled. "An Act Concerning Legal Notices. Weld County Planning Commie- Advertisements and Publications and the Fees of Printers and sbn may be examined in Nte of. Publishers thereof, and to Repeal all Acts and Parts of Acts in flee of 0n Clerk to the Board of -Conflict with the Provisions of this Act"approved April 71 921 - County Commbeioners, located all amendm to thereof. ended y a b the Weld County Centennial linter, 915 10th Street, Third eppmyfb /�� a 19.1 Floor, Gurley, Colorado. Yl. DOCKET NO. MI-T7 Publisher APPLICANT Subscribed d worn to before me this'- day of Grant Stothers/Fifthooff Corneae), a 1 A.D 19bl 515 Khnba o Street Longmont, Colorado 9e01 DATE: January 4, 191$ TIME: 1000 A.M. Notary Public REQUEST: Change of Zone l'-::::ti L ,-ICA from A (Agricultural) and C-s (Commercial) to Planed Unit 0 v i5 Din Pi' A.M. Development (C4. C4. 1.1, R41, and R-5) ores as listed in the ' ' '?TM'f!.CO Nl)P%?7 Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the open-an mining of sand and gravel LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pan of the N 1/2 of Section 11,Townehlp My commission expires June 1992 2 North, Range a West of the 0th Mt Wad Cat y,cos My Commission expires June 30, 1992 • 890015 f c5C AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICA JON 1 D"r ` -� te. « a a , »._ -State of Colorado County-of Boulder I, Dean G. Lehman ,do NOTICE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colo- solemnly swear that the LONGMONT DAILY TIMES CALL is a rado and the Weld County Zoning Ordinance,a public hearing will be held Igthe Chambers of the daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part, and published in Board of Codmy Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 the City of Longmont, County of Boulder, State of Colorado, and 10th Street,First Floor,Greeley,Colorado,at the time swilled.All persons in any manner Inter- which has general circulation therein and in parts ofBoulder and ested in the following proposed Change of Zone are requested to attend and may be heard. Weld Counties; that said newspaper has been continuously and Should Meapplicant or any Interested party de- -sire the presence of a court reporter to make a uninterruptedly published for a period of more than six months record of the proceedings,In addition to the taped record which will be kept during the hearing,the next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice of Clerk to the Board's Office can be contacted fora list of certified court reporters In the area. If a advertisement, that said newspaper has been admitted to the court reporter is obtained, the Clerk to the Board's Office shall be advised in writing-of such United States mails as second-class matter under the provisions action at least five days prior to the hearing.The cost of engaging a court reporter shall be borne of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that by the requesting party.. BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for certified by the Weld County Planning Commis- sion may be examined in the office of the Clerk to publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning the Wald County Cen Board of tennial Cente r,located c 15 theO in in -of the laws of the State of Colorado; that a copy of each number of Street Third Floor,Greeley,Colorado. APPLICANT said newspaper, in which said notice of advertisement was DOCKET NO.88-77 Grant Brotnera FtffhcoH Company -published, was transmitted by mail or carrier to each of the say Kimbark Street Longmont,Colorado 80501 subscribers of said newspaper, according to the accustomed DATE:January 4,1989 TIME: 10:00 A.M. -mode of business in this office. REQUEST: Change of Zone from A (Agricultu- ral) and C-I (Commercial) to Planned Unit Development (C-2, C- isted in That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published the Weld Cou R-5)Zoning Ordinances as andand the open-cut mining of sand and gravel in the regular and entire edition of said daily newspaper once; LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the NW of Section 11, and that one publication of said notice was in the issue of said TownWest sofp h the 6th P.M., Weld December 18 1988 County,fanColorado newspaper datedLOCATION: Coun- ty Road 24; adjacent a It of ands Weld ace t to the East I-25 Frontage Road BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY,COLORADO BY: MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE.BOARD BY: Mary Reiff,Deputy rv, J� DATED: November 1Ti /V✓ � r�r-.,,_ old.Dec In the Daily Timed Call, Longmont, -Colo.Dec.18,1988 _General Manager Subscribed and sworn to before me this 18th _lay of December� ,19 88 ( e V 1 i-m S, \-\O Kvr •r mnr<IJ Notary Public iz ,,µLi FEE$ 29.00 47ti r MY coMMItis,bot EXPIRES APk 5.•v92 3 ME' O. 5)TERRY ST ,....sl-OHAMONT, fAl(JINUO 130601 Q et- 890015 " NOV_3 01988 , tirimmacoLo, TRAFFIC _IMPACT -ANALYSIS THE CROSSROADS AT DEL CAMINO Prepared for: grant Brothers, Inc. P.O. Box 948 Longmont, Colorado 80501 Prepared by: Felsburg Holt it Ullevig 5299 DTC Boulevard, Suite 400 Englewood, Colorado -80111 (303) 721-1440 October, 1988 THU Reference No. 88-086 x ,Pty k� 39031S TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 A. Existing Road Network 4 B. -Existing Traffic Conditions 5 C. Surrounding Land Uses 5 III. FUTURE TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS 5 A. Development Assumptions 6 B. Site Trip Generation 6 C. Assumed Roadway Systems 9 D. Trip Distribution 9 E. Traffic Assignments and Volumes 11 IV. TRAFFIC IMPACTS 16 A. Phase I (Year 1993) 16 B. Phase II (Year 2010) 16 V. RECOMMENDATIONS 19 A. Roadway/Intersection Improvements 19 B. Phasing 21 890015 LIST OF FIGURES Page 1. Vicinity Map 2 2. Site -Plan 3 3. Trip Distribution 10 4. Phase I (1993) Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 12 5. Phase II (2010) Site -Generated Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 13 6. Phase 7 (1993) Total Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 14 7. Phase II (2010) Total Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes 13 8 . Phase I (1993) Intersection Geometrics and Level of Service 17 9. (Phase II (2010) Intersection Geometrics and Level of Service 18 LIST OF TABLES 1. Phase I Trip Generation Summary 7 2 . Phase II Trip -Generation Summary 8 890015 I. INTRODUCTION Grant Brothers is proposing to develop the Crossroads at Del Camino, a planned unit development located immediately south of Colorado Road 119 -between I-2b and County :toad No. 11 in Weld County (Figure 2) . This 297 acre parcel of land is split by the major drainageway of Godding Hollow Ditch. The proposed site would allow for the development of commer- cial, business park, single family and modular tome uses. As shown in Figure 2 , the commercial and business park develop- ments woul-d be located in the northwest portion of the pro- posed site, west of Godding Hollow Ditch. The residential portion of the development would be located on the remaining parcels of land adjacent to County No. Al east of Godding Hollow Ditch. The purpose of this study is to address the traffic impacts of the proposed Crossroads at Del Camino development. The focus of review is roadway cross-section requirements, 'geometric improvements at key intersections in the area and at access points, and traffic control measures at these points. 1 890315 FELSBURG H 01 T & U L1 E V I GI v cc �.4•.Tirry c cu r 'Lake J I MEAD •/" f e: nR 4 ..� c I J c I Z 'co" N We Rd. w I 1SH -66 '• ~ McIntosh:�.f`'....>:• .J Lake-r.4 '::::::.o.:.::.:.:; :.'.:•.. I ' �''... .... . ...:•:. :::2:5::;.. i .Z.;C a lk I n s > .:::.�: .::..:: :...�>: ..::.. :. 3 a. Lake f; Q I i:i: i;ti:t' I SH 119 '.) SITE CR 24 N } r. Z� 1 AIz O V O n 2cc W o i N m O 1J > Panama jI ' FIRESTONE -o Res. #1 0 I Mineral Rd. �'t.) - 52 FREDERI9lC I µ ../? ?k DACONO eeJ , ( J c.,\' J\d% Jasper Rd. 1..J w -- `9% CR8 c V ERIE o cej r .F cr Figure 1 Z\ Vicinity Map A North 890015 Lla� N r I RI 1;;>;::.;::;:::;:;>:::<:!::,::::»>::< ,!s::;r:>':;;;::>: r::':'::`r:r:'>s:r � ':':''sir:::;:_ itbe 175 7.1 •••:.:::::::...'?.::...::::.::: : : : .: : : :: ::: ::.:: :... ::.:: ..:: :. • :::. ': I I ( --- ---- \ -ti.se l'....:...:::::1:::•:::::::: ::...... ..7:::::::..•::::::4';:y....s..... ..:::::::::::::•':-..: vl O �''' - cv CC ooy db�• \r ..k. � O! \\1/4. _..t i i m a m t N U L N pa acei� // : '0 r E 1 O 2 m U CDc N2 1 CO / pa aBeluolj s co _ n µa _ 9Z-I r NSW J J J j' KNJ 'h {L S 0 s 890015 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Existing Road Network The major existing streets in the vicinity of the development include both state highways and county roads and are as fol- lows: o I-25 Freeway o I-25 Frontage Road o State -Highway 119 (SH 119) o County Road 24 (CR 24) o County Road 11 (CR 11) 1-25 is a north-south freeway providing for regional, as well as local, travel. It is a four-lane facility with a diamond interchange with the cross street of State Hi-ghway 119 (8H 719) . Immediately east of the I-25 freeway is a continuous frontage road through the study area. This frontage road is a two-lane road with STOP sign control existing on the frontage road at SH 119. The spacing between the frontage road and the inter- change ramps is presently only about 100 feet. SH 119 is an east/west highway leading from I-25 vest to Longmont. Just west of I-25 it is a four-lane highway with a 76-foot median, but it narrows to a two-lane _roadway within the interchange. Presently STOP sign control exists on the I-25 ramps as they intersect with SH 119 . However , construction to install traffic signals at these existing ramp termini intersections is currently in progress. CR 24 is a paved east/west roadway extending from SH 119 to the east to US 85 . It has one 12-foot travel lane in -each direction in the vicinity of the site. CR 11 is a two-lane gravel road connecting CR 24 to CR 22 south of the site. CR 11 tees into CR 24 from the south with STOP sign control existing on CR 11. 4 8900-15 B. Existing Traffic Conditions Current daily traffic volumes on SH 119/CR 24 range from approximately -4,1)00 vehicles per slay (vpd) -between the front- age road and the east ramp termini of the s-25/SH 119 inter- change to 2 , 00D vph on the -east side of the frontage road. Based on this information, the general travel pattern in the area is oriented - west of the proposed development. C. Surrounding Land Uses The sits is proposed to be built on an undeveloped parcel of land primarily utilized for agricultural uses. The proposed sits is split by Gadding Hollow Ditch and an existing flood plain. Presently the site is surrounded by undeveloped agri— cultural parcels of land. West of I-25, the parcels adjacent to SH 119 are commercial and retail developments which pri— marily serve regional traffic. 5 830015 III. FUTURE TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS A. Development Assumptions The proposed development would allow for medium density resi- dential , a -nodular -home park, commercial and business park uses. -A floor -area ratio (FAR) of _0.25:1 was assumed for the commercial parcels and an FAR of 0 .21:1 was applied to the business park portion ofthe development. With these assumptions, the development could include as much as 1, 188 , 00D square feet of commercial and business park development. The following breakdown of land uses was uti- lized in this analysis: Medium Density -Residential - 2-48 DIJ's Modular Home park - -600 DU's Commercial — 440,D00 Square Feet Business Park - 748,00D Square Feet The above development quantities represent full buildout of the project. Site 'generated traffic volumes were estimated for two development -horizons. The Phase I (year 1993) land use was assumed to be comprised of medium density residential, modular home park and commercial uses. With -Phase II (year 2010) , the entire development including the business park site was assumed to be in place. B. Site Trip eneration To estimate the traffic generatedby the proposed development, standard trip -generation equations compiled by the Institute of Transportation -Engineers in their report entitled -'rip Generation, fourth Edition were utilized. These equations were applied to the appropriate land uses to determine daily, AM and TM peak hour traffic volumes expected to be generated by the site. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the results of this analysis for Phase a and Phase II development horizons, re- spectively. As shown in Table 1, the site would generate approximately 22 , 550 trips per day -with 780 and 1, 985 trips occurring during the AM and PM peak hour periods -with Phase I development. At full buildout (Phase II) , the project would generate 31,310 trips per day with 1, 925 and 2 , 945 of these trips occurring during the AM and PM peak hours, as shown in Table 2 . No adjustments were made to account for internal site traffic or passerby trips; thus, the analyses represent a worst case scenario. 6 890015 $4 = o • "' 00 CO I W x b 0 o in O O W 01 O H O N N 0 a1-1 H xD 00 _O1 H H M 0 04 a o O O O 4 N r O 01 M M ..-1•i . O E N H IN N N • W W O D M N 0 D d 0) N O .,..1 d Cl) C M 0 0 .r1 1 b H q $4 o >1 a 43 W •r1 y N C O 0 H E -0-.+ i W .ro 0) 0 O of -H A) H H 01 b •ri•r1 b 4.1 Hw a - E O H . $20015 I!1 o I!1 O 0 ger-P en W N N O 7 x0 It P. O 0 O 0 0 N N N N Z K aH04-1 Z00 O °� H N HI n ro N O O O NO 9 N a NO W 0\ M 0 M H e-1 O O O 9 O 'h N CO 01 CO 10 H r/ MWNMM O E H N CO H CO H N N W W 0 it CO O O 9 41 d' 9 O O 10 N 0 O 9 Aeq O N O [0 rl V N VI d' r N 0 O eel 14 0 a O c, O a 4 a +4 I u mH ro E Zit 0 HW a H W OV x e -1 to NH v m 14 0 w 00 O t H N G H H0 V •-4•.I ''7 E •ri fO V0 V Itl 7p IC 00 0 0 0 EN I-7 £ LZ £ 0 T•+ 590015 C. Assumed Roadway Systems Phase I (1993) As documented in the North Front Range Corridor Study prepared by the Colorado Department of Highways in 1986 , the inter- change of SH 119/I-25 was recommended to be reconstructed between 19-S1 and 1995 . The reconstruction would include relocating the east frontage road farther to the east at SH 119, moving the east ramp terminal farther east to accommo- date a 550-foot spacing between ramp terminals, and providing a five-lane section under I-25 with new P-25 bridges. These recommended improvements identified by the -North Front Range Corridor Study mere assumed to be in place by Phase _I, while all other roadways were assume-d to remain under existing conditions for this time period. Phase 1I (2010) Including the previously mentioned Phase I roadway and inter- change realignments and reconstruction, the following roadway improvements were assumed to be in place by the Phase II horizon. o Widening of I-25 to six lanes as documented in the North Front Range _Corridor Study. o Widen CR 24 to four-lanes from -SH 11-9 to US 85. o Paving all gravel roads within the vicinity of the site. D. Trip Distribution Phase I (1'99O) Trip distribution assumptions were derived utilizing the relationship of the site to other developments and projected interacting cities and towns. It is projected that since I-Z5 serves both regional and local traffic within the area the majority of traffic would enter and exit the site utilizing this facility. Another large portion of site traffic is expected to interact significantly with Longmont located west of the proposed development. Since the majority of land located east of the site is primarily agricultural only, a small trip percentage was assigned to the east of the site. Figure 3 illustrates the Phase I trip distribution assump- tions. 9 590015 ate CI 1 0 CD eft. � I L. i a..• h P. Q be. 0 0 N v m N � L N • 6. CC 0 m m m p� m T co N as d CO ale c X N co ? X CO p T ••••I N N 'pd o6e uoij aR co N co bQ o EN M� T n x 0 a N o a — ae '- su CO -Co KKI J e J J M v W o J 0 LL = -o 89C;015 Phase II (2010) With the roadway improvements discussed and the increased development of land east of the proposed site, trip distribu- tion percentages were reallocated to account for the redistri- bution of site trips. As in Phase I, the majority of site generated trips would still be oriented towards I-25 and Longmont with an increase in site trips accessing the site from the east. Figure 3 illustrates the redistribution of site trip percentages. E. Traffic Assignments and Volumes Site Generated Traffic Volumes Utilizing the trip generation estimates and the distribution assumptions identified previously for Phase I and Phase II development horizons, projected vehicle trips were assigned to the street system. Figures 4 and 5 depict the AM and PM peak hour assignments of the development for Phase I and Phase II, respectively. Background Traffic Volumes Background traffic volumes (traffic on the roadways not at- tributed to the site) were derived by interpolating/extrapo- latin-g between 1-986 and 2007 design hour volumes for the SH 119/1-25 interchange supplied -by the Colorado Department of Highways. These volumes were adjusted to reflect AM and PM peak -hour background traffic volumes for both Phase I and Phase II. Total Traffic The site generated -traffic volumes were added to the back- ground traffic volumes to produce total traffic volume projec- tions. Figures -6 and 7 illustrate the AM and PM total traffic volumes for phase I and Phase II, respectively. 11 890015 v y 1 d O L E ;,-cLOT/ct r59I/0ZZ _0E1/SIII ESL/011 ...0Z/0E tL r SCl/OZ `s's ` s/s r sic �-s/s Of 1 r-sursc— swoc— 1 now,— of sl— -i — oyn 59/01--1 —1r /0I� $6/SSTr01/SE� en N. 0 n o o h 0 i� m�co 1 We 1 W i ` N 1 CC WI N \ La m + U 3 0 K. o u no 1 0 7 M 1 c 0 12) I'^..� 599/S9 O - i t r vs a 00 OZ/S 13 LOT/0 o91/ate �r - O os/as b o r 1 L r sol/01 10 t . 11/4. tai ro -o CO o .In ` I Z in co ea r Lot/s 0.0° m b1 C7 $ Irr o_O Vet 5 o M „ 1O4e 1.4�� -•,..-0= a in _ c- .1' in r Q L02/S y °`I` v 2 —.mou/s in j 1 L rS19/501 ../f '0 X ( X ST/5_.4 r o c rr �r r m X of/s 'InI- rrD` rD/o m x of/s1 0C� r a1 X o m D J 0 0 c 0 L n C L OL/5 5� ^`r ')1\00 i.. ry`r 0q \/yQT9 4r zoo- n °ice, of n n '^n to I55 s Pn m� r Q/r v� a „ rt r.„-7,,- 0 o J + frzjrot �ti \+D �, rir�l Sr / Lin Lol/S } 101 4,,,„„, yn r L --oZ/01 r-OZ/S 0E/o1 J o.! 'PH£6eluoJJ ei OZ/5-c00 St/Se' 55 re-I W 0 CO cv in in V O tl. 0ZZ/06 0 M m CC tJ W W o - m `- N I- W I i` J J a J V W O J C IL S 8S 015 LO CO 1 m mot SSi/09Z +-091/OZZ _00/091 OZ/09 ' z `� —ss110 rs/s `S/c rs/s rs/s u. D $ .-osz/so1� —i r — S°s>iot'y It/oc— t/o9— s9/ot—} \ J �s6/se-r —I 1`0 row/117.i �I I' 0-0 N N O \\` HN V O on O --� O NYC lainL Sti/OZ ' m m 1 L r S99/O9 -64. / V -a r\e CC i v o« O _} n N N ID �s/s E //,�Y, a N o ►069/06 Q S/0 PI V 10 o in - sz/0E J 1 r m ti o �cL/cl 001/s9i+ -w 'R 'Pal Aha d en 0 1 L r os/os ss/oz� C O15 O 1r =o y n LSE/5 ,y1,S � 1 o •s‘.....'"\I a (0 ti Ore 5 O0 me c--co r L S4/Oi V4.1 X r,Sl/s y -� J f L r Std/ozl rNr c c y c. C x oSlots '11 I0 o6�ot1` -...34.1A J X VS—, -N� Se---O,,, in o ni m 4 in N r 2 0 fO m LOSSen Gr O 9 a T S15 1 .,, 1 r 301155 ...1 s%10 I 65 l r o n a al J` Od, Ny /b ji `oazi0tr s\\ /\\oo N n o "r'? o" Ls/s J L L of/oz i°�`� —I'— —o9/oz ST/01 OE/otJ st/o9, 'py e8eluoJJ OE/09.. -OZ/S.- cZ-1 Nm-c en_ae, 0 Ln 'I- 1 CC 0 en o W — Q1 Co 3 w V h w = K< C J J J to V0 w O J LL t = z 890015 N o ct/oZ r07/oS i 0 0 091/07Z VII t � -09T/0SZ t—vs 1—s/s ro1/s ` vs 0 Ir scuo9-- -1 r- ofz/st-.- _l r0dh/s§� 09/0Z- r r o7/oi-1 N m \—i NNss/sE i Ili se/sE—t ( �L N b ehn ,pN -o Cl aN -O.. mN O 0 A Ca 1 v: 1 v. iln Z'il nn N o I(10 Ks! -11 S_) 2 , prim o ew E _ N co N▪ o sES/0E1 so -, —I L r s/5 V a 0 0 in OZ/S '^� Lotio 0OZ/S9T� � - 1 cot/01 OS/0Z'1 cD I- Ss f o 1� I InC N Y 1 N Cr) el LOT/s pp a CA yiti 1 0`= \'‘p1p 5 W in.. \� Vs, o - - s CC .Ni-9 N- ' YI �N�It,.tn Lsum y y SZ/SZ �� X _pt._ rS99/07T -//�\ N X -02/01, 11 r 56 oo \ \ r O1 OE/0Z+ n-mei T/OOt1/ re, O J X a . 5Z/5T, .rN ° N n 0 at 0 0 0 el.4 r va eaa. N L0Z/S $ e o�y "\ •51`pp o` 25115°-..'5. G3 ra, eon, oo �� 015 \e \ri Ln I viv °c rrr 0 in oc SOE/SE gip °' m o� J 1-ois/071 \\ /J•/ �\ o ^11 / p) r S- 07 • Lys "} }` Lot/s o„ 1, ..2‘ J L —se/oc se/s9 m 0 ti ` of/o1 J o/oi 'pH e6eluoJj t°n S9/0t•• 01/x7+ S2-I 0 0 W 0 0o 0 0• en N syr t i- sor s,1 1 r 0 co a I a-. �o O W — c as Oa I CO r w CO _ J J J ~ Ki L-11J—I D J Q LL t = S 89C01.5 N y N N imp E cm eis N --.-091/NZ -tS9,/SZZ 011/05, ....09/01 O) t L. r 59T/OSZ f—s/S r vs `-0vs r vso r r$6Z/001'" 1 r 09Z/56 + , s9r o9,oh-.— nn 09/07 oN e/ol--� �N c6/Sf—+ �r $6/SE--z, r G\ n.Nt Ov1 �O on seem ^ in o co in o il LS9/OZ ao Ai CO ».. ro[9/o9 10 o\ Inc om CV �� J1 =n las los 0 o 01/01 J v, 01/01—r y o b s Ls/ m ID CO 1 /75::, E d } r e, Lo/s o a. .. 09S/S-91 > J I.. rs/o ^ in U ern CO SZ/OE_J 1 r w ..- 2'a t_sun 09I/OZZ+ �n` ` O nm ° $ L_ x59/05 SS/OZ� a o r } r- 7 Incn o O I # CO N. �N Y q co 2• LsE/s g; d CM 1 ._ o,, rr ‘•••• t‘ C N orl3 d y� ;C CD as a co --q o„� Lss/oz hotia r, gii -09/SE ^.`1-0 X .L ...W...r.. r 091/Sir s// i 1DX a oz SE/S6' I r 0SI/y;�/ ~r�n� p1 X s:/aZ� r Ncr.o v ea 0Loss 'or r ...\\ A\Ar 00 1 _rte _ �`.� ISIS „-.o r 9�I0165� �+ri^� .............,''...r1 Sri �1 .'.o c+ Oa'J o>f'r O n.N, o r J 1 K- -lt \ sls r` LoI/oz o /'� o n 'L5t10�h. JJr +S9t/ST 1 +oit/Soi "= 0E/ocJ sI/o9J 'pB IeBeiuoi4 +'4 $6/OZi+ 98/59+ a o 9?-1 -.'a -Oo I t- cri ssZ/ S7 S5`06¢ [o + N 2 }(0 Co' r� W — O) o in CO > CO _ w J CO E v J J J Q U- = O 890015 IV. TRAFFIC IMPACTS A. -Phase I (Year 1993) Using traffic volumes presented in figure -6 and the intersec- tion geometrics assumed to -be in place by 1993 , critical lane analyses of intersections in the vicinity of the site were made to determine levels of service. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative index hased on quantitative analysis that indicates the quality of intersection operation. The inter- sections were analyzed under AM and PM peak hour conditions (worksheets are included in the Appendix) . The following intersections were analysed as signalized inter- sections: o SH 119/d-25 -West Ramps o SH 119/1-25 East Ramps o CR 24/Frontage Road The level of service at these intersections was determined using the planning methodology of critical lane technique documented in the 1985 Hiahwav Capacity Manual. As shown on Figure 8 , the results -of these analyses indicate that these intersections would operate satisfactorily with the assumed roadway geometries. All other intersections on CR 24 and the frontage road were analyzed as nnsignalized intersections. The unsignalized intersection methodology also documented in the 1985 :Hiahwav Capacity Manual was used to analyze these intersections . In this type of analysis, levels of service are identified for specific critical movements. From the analyses, all unsignal- ized intersections are projected to operate well with STOP sign control. B. Phase II (Year 2010) In order to determine the impacts of long term future traffic operations on the roadway network, AM and BM peak hour turning movements were analyzed for the year -201-0 at the critical intersections to determine signalized and unsignalized level of service operation at these locations. All unsignalized intersections analyzed in Phase I were also analyzed as STOP sign control intersections in Phase II . If these intersec- tions failed under these conditions, they were reassessed as signalized intersections. The results of the detailed inter- section level of service analysis for Phase II and assumed intersection geometries for AM and PM peak hours are illus- trated in figure -9. 16 890315 ° CO w 1 I \ r 3/9 "-_./v r_./e y-•/* r-*/* Z i V �( —�hr -T )( ��r .... . CD U. co . . - . . • • a� v. • • ,± E o • a N m */*. < I o c _� _ 2 o o h. d a>to > J N I- a) V U U J CD U 13 N C C c C .O O 6. - CO o i 0 U U) O N 0 y_ _ C C CD ID •� N O1 C To as is ei a) _1 CO m t • C 9 J I ‘A �v/a O1E k v/v J 000 N m0 ro N 0 t O) b a N C C D En O It_ us../* a a a < < 0 IrA'0 I. p • M ° x X 11)G \ -009 ` 1/41_ __. */*J(° X COO )t ( O) */.J (% ' c • a --r- •• \\... v O) v i Ws r./sib s�° 0 V aid 4 m al - !0 \� `� a Il J l! -� -�-* -A p o 11t )r 'e) k\ J ` .•� */s---, s/v—/'P8 e0eluol_a 4Z-I a 0 Il �' fIr 2 co co _ la _ ..- .- on > VJ H W I J -a J KC wO 1L = = 830015 O) 0 d 0 t il i \ / "./. I'-./. —r/. /—+/a CD ffe � I)( — -I)( � )r� —t1r 'Ii Cr a) ' p • + + r i r +. E CD CO P/4 —{ 1 I I t O o o ally A m d ® Nff( a o C O m Ct C —m !i — -0 I; u5 y �a/s O N m V It re tom t O N C > C) • - m J � E C O J ii \ raja a) L OOO Trt d 0 C = CD-fir C 2t 0 M M fl -q/¢ 0- a V M M d II( Q Q `.o ict +a s x x is II AI t l 1 /9� ° _ COO "1 a )iir ��_..... .�s,� •/_ r ��am \`\*g . 4 V /` II _ s ifs *I'S' Ca fa a ; CO a 03 O +)I Ira I 1 -03 03 O � 1 i i sib)/_ is l l.—f C. .�— I6 O ./ar ./•J•PEI aBelLLoij 9Z-I IL. �--" f f( O is _ 0)ti• H w I L J J J eny w O J a O w S = 7. 890 015 V. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings of these technical analyses , recommendations for required roadway improvements can be identified. These recommendations account for not only devel- opment of this property but also traffic growth attributable to other development in the area. Consistent with the assump- tions previously stated in this report, these recommendations reflect two discretetime periods within which specific devel— opment was assumed to occur. Because, in reality, the devel— opment of the property will be driven by market demands, flexibility in the construction of these improvements is critical. Thus, a methodology for addressing the phasing of the improvements is also presented. A. Roadway/Intersection Improvements The following is a brief -description of the recommended im- provements for the critical elements of the roadway network in the vicinity of this site. These improvements can also be identified by the lane configurations and traffic control devices identified on Figures 8 and 9. County Road 24 With the assumptions of Phase S development, it would be appropriate to construct CR 24 to a three lane cross-section from the interchange area to a point east of the relocated frontage road. This cross-section would allow for one through lane in each direction and -a center lane for left turn use at intersections and access points. In addition, an outside right turn deceleration lane should be added at access points as those accesses are constructed. With the Exception of the CR 11 intersection (which will be discussed later) , a standard two lane section on CR 24 would still be acceptable east of the _relocated frontage road. With the assumptions in the 'growth of background traffic as well as full buildout of this project by the year 2010, CR 24 would need to be expanded to include two through lanes in each direction. In addition, a left turn lane in the middle of the roadway and right turn deceleration lanes at accesses identi- fied in Figure 9 would be necessary. 19 890015 I-25 Frontage Road As part of the interchange improvement program, the frontage road should be rerouted through the property to a relocated intersection with CR 24 at a point coinciding with that previ- ously approved with the land use plan on the north side of CR 24. Even with full buildout of the project, it is antici- pated that one through lane in each direction on the frontage road would be sufficient. However, in order to safely provide for left turn movements into the accesses proposed on the frontage road to this development, it is recommended that a center left turn lane be constructed on this relocated stretch of frontage road. Furthermore, if the projected number of right turn movements from the frontage road into the various planning parcels meets the threshold established by the Colo- rado Department of Highways, right turn deceleration lanes should also be constructed at those intersections/accesses. County Road 11 With full buildout of the project it is anticipated that a standard two lane paved road would be sufficient to serve the projected travel demands on this roadway. This roadway should be constructed from CR 24 to whichever access is being used to serve the first development in this area. Turn lanes would be constructed where justified. County Road 24/Frontage Road Intersection In addition to requiring signalization when warranted, the results of the Phase I analysis suggest that a double left turn lane should be constructed on the -northbound approach of the frontage road to this intersection and that a right turn lane for the eastbound to southbound movement should also be constructed. When ultimate buildout is achieved, two addi— tional through lanes on CR 24 would need to be carried through the intersection. No other change in required turning lanes would be experienced. County Road 24/County Road 11 Intersection Although it was noted earlier that this section of CR 24 could remain as a two lane roadway with Phase _I construction, the intersection with CR 11 would need to be improved as soon as any development along CR 11 were to occur. As illustrated in Figure -8, a northbound left turn lane, an eastbound right turn lane, and a westbound left turn lane should be incorporated into the intersection design. _As with the rest of CR 24 , additional through lanes would be constructed through this intersection to satisfy traffic growth in the area in the long 2-0 890015 range future. Signalization is anticipated to be warranted at this intersection. B. Phasing As noted earlier, the actual type of development and construc- tion schedule of any property of this size could vary signifi- cantly over the years. Thus, while the recommendations noted above provide a general guideline for the improvements which will ultimately be required, necessary timing of these im- provements cannot be definitively addressed through this type of analysis at the time of PUD approval. For example, if the first development occurs immediately adjacent to the interchange, the only improvements necessary on CR 24 may be focused in that area. However, if the first development were to occur one-half mile to the east, the improvements on CR 24 may need to be much more extensive. Similarly, just as traffic signals cannot be implemented until they are warranted, acceleration/deceleration lanes are mot always needed until a certain volume of turning traffic is reached. Another example of phasing improvements could involve accesses. For example, while the analysis indicates that the first access on CR 24 should ultimately be limited to right- in/right-out movements, it could operate as a full movement, unsignalized access for a number of years. When volumes reach the level at which left turns would experience long delays at this access, it could be restricted to right turns only. Therefore, we would recommend that such flexibility be allowed by placing a note on the PUD that indicates that each plat submittal will include a traffic analysis addendum (probably in the form of a brief letter report) addressing the impacts of the specific parcel configuration and the specific user represented by the plat. This addendum would identify the details of additional roadway requirements including addition- al lanes, their lengths, their taper lengths, etc. This process would assure that the recommended roadway improvements are directly related to development activity and, therefore, can be more effectively funded. At the same time, this con- tinuous process assures the County the ability to control these improvements through control of the development approv- als. 21 890015 APPENDIX - INTERSECTION CAPACITY WORKSHEETS 890015 • DEFINITION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE Signalized Intersections The indicator used to determine level of service at signal- ized intersections is called the load factor . It is a mea- sure of the proportion of signal cycles that are loaded, and has values ranging from zero to one, or 0% to 100% . A loaded cycle is one that has a car ready to cross the intersection in all lanes, at all times during the green phase. Empirical studies have shown a correlation between intersection volume and load factor, and it is therefore necessary to determine only the volumes to find the level of service. The defini- tions are based on load factors, however. Definitions of level of service are as follows: Level of Service A - There are no loaded cycles ( i .e. , the load factor is 0 . 0) and few are even close to loaded. No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. Level of Service B - Represents stable operation, with a load factor of not over 0 . 1 ; an occasional approach phase is fully utilized and a substantial number are approaching full use. Level of Service C - Stable operation continues. Loading is still intermittent, but more frequent with the load factor ranging from 0 .1 to 0. 3 . Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red signal indication. Level of Service D - Emcompasses a zone of increasing re- striction approaching instability in the limit when the load factor reaches 0.7 . Delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak period, but enough cycles- with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive back-ups. Level of Service E - Capacity occurs . It represents the most vehicles that any particular intersection approach can accom- modate. Although theoretically a load factor of 1 . 0 would represent capacity, in practice full utilization of every cycle is seldom attained, no matter how great the demand, unless the street is highly friction-free. A load factor range of 0.7 to 1 .0 is more realistic. At capacity there may be long queues of vehicles waiting up-stream of the intersec- tion and delays may be great (up to several signal cycles) . • 890015 Level of Service F - Represents jammed conditions . Back-ups from locations down-stream or on the cross street may re- strict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the approach under consideration ; hence, volumes carried are not predict- able . No load factor can be established, because full utili- zation of the approach is prevented by outside conditions . Unsignalized Intersections Unsignalized intersections base the level of service on the amount of delay experienced by vehicles turning out of or into the minor, stop sign-controlled street. There are no agreed upon quantitative measure of levels of service for unsignalized intersections, but some brief qualitative mea- sures are given below: Level of Service A - Little or no delay to vehicles . A very high level of service usually found only in rural areas or during off-peak hours. Level of Service B - Short delays to vehicles . Still a very good level of service. Level of Service C - Average delays to vehicles . Waiting time becomes noticeable . Freedom to enter major street traf- fic is slightly restricted. Level of Service D - Long delays to vehicles. Due to heavy volumes on major street, vehicles on minor street are re- stricted in their ability to enter traffic stream. Level of Service E - Very long delays to vehicles . tolerable for short periods of time. If the level of service present for long period, queue buildup on minor street becomes noticeable. Level of Service F - Represents jammed conditions . Back-ups from locations down-stream or on the cross street may re- strict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the approach under consideration; hence, volumes carried are not predict- able. 890:315 `MPAX 2 . 22 Traffic Analysis on Microcomputers Program Licensed To: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig . CROSSROADS AT DEL CAMINO PHASE I TOTAL TRAFFIC 10/11/88 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Intersection : 2 WEST RAMPS & SH 119 Late Configuration and Turn Volumes i i I I II i I I II I i / \ T 456 \ i j _- T 296 I / i R 430 iR 50 L 121 j v L 141 i I I f i i Appr Lane !No of Per LaneiCritical l Maximum Total Critical 'volumes Group I Lanes Volume I Volume % Level of Two ( Three I Four I I I { Service j Phase I Phase j Phase I I I j I f I i I j i i I r I A I 900 655 I 625 SS EXL I 1 I 121 121 I 8 I 1050 i 1000 j 965 r I EXR j 1 i 50 j C j 1200 1140 j 1100 i I D i 1350 i 1275 1225 i I I I E I 1500 j 1425 i 1375 ES I T 2 i 228 I 228 I F i NA i NA. NA I EXR I I 430 j i I I WS I EXL ( 1 j 141 I 141 I I 2 I 149 1 { i Critical Volume - 490 I I I I I No of Critical Phases = 3 Level of Service = A Total Critical Volume I 490 I I Volume/Capacity = 0 . 34 N/S Signal Phasing E/W Signal Phasing i i i i i I i I I / I\ j f I I <-- I <-- I < v > I i i j I v I - v I i I j I t i I j I I I i j v I i � I I i i I I ' I i 3 Phase Signal I I I 890015 IMPAX 2 . 22 Traffic Analysis on Microcomputers Program Licensed To: Felsburg Holt & Ulievic . CROSSROADS AT DEL CAMINO PHASE I TOTAL TRAFFIC 10/11/88 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Intersection : 7 EAST RAMPS & SH 119 Lane Configuration and Turn Volumes i I I I l I L 280 / IL 140 R 135 R 113 I \ i I T 297 --- I --- T 299 I --- --- > < I \\ / <---- I I i I ifi I I ! i ill I i Appr• I Lane I Nu of I Per Lane i Cr i tical J Maximum Total Critical Volumes I I Group I Lanes I Volume I Volume i---- i i Level of Two Three j Four NB EXL I 2 70 I 70 Service Phase Phase f Phase EXR I 1 J 135 I I I I I i i I i I I A 900 255 I 825 I i i 8 1050 i 1000 f 965 1200 I 1140 I 1100 I D 1350 j 1275 j 1225 I E I 1500 I 1425 I 1375 I ES I EXL I 1 1 280 j 280 { F I NA I NA J NA T 2 1 149 I , i I I I } W6 I T j 2 { 150 i 150 I I I I { EXR J 1 j 113 j I j Critical Volume = 500 i I I I 1 I No of Critical Phases = 3 Level of Service - A } Total Critical Volume j 500 i I Volume/Capacity = 0. 35 i I I I i N/S Signal Phasing E/W Signal Phasing f i I i I I I <-- I I < > I \J / I I i i --> I --> ± i j i F I j i j i I I I r { < i i I I i I i 3 Phase Signal j I j I r 83015 IMRAX 2 . 22 Traffic Analysis on Microcomputers Progr''ar„ Licensed To: Felsbirg Holt & Ui ieviu . CROSSROADS AT DEL CAMINO PHASE I TOTAL TRAFFIC 10/13/88 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Intersection: 12 FRONTAGE & CR 24 .-ane Configuration and Turn Volumes I i j I I i l II I T 25 I \ j i I L 20 / j / I > IL 140 R 10j \ R 15 -- I < v i ; <---- j T 205 ----. I I -- > ! i 265 \ i << 1/ ; / R 1 0 0 v IR 15 L 10 ! \\ I j v L 15 i 1 I ill T 20 I III I I I I i Appr Lane 1 No of i Per Lane E Critical j I Maximum Total Critical Volumes Group ' Lanes i Volume Volume i I ! I I jLevel of j Two I Three I Four I N8 j EXL I 2 ! 70 70 jService I Phase I Phase I Phase I I TR I 1 I 35 i I I I 1 i i I I I i I I I A I 1300 j 855 825 38 j EXL j 1 j 10 j 8 ! 1050 j 1000 965 TR I 1 I 35 I 35 I I C j 1200 i 1140 1100 D I 1350 I 1275 1225 j E j 1500 j 1425 1375 EB ; EXL I 1 j 20 i I I F I NA i NA NA -TR i 1 i 305 I 305 WB I EXL j 1 15 ! 15 I TR ! 1 1 280 j ! j Critical Volume - 425 I I I I i I I No of Critical Phases = 4 I I i i I I i Level of Service - A Total Critical Volume I 425 j Volur;ie/Capacity = 0 . 31 I I i I j N/S Signal Phasing E/;4 Signal Phasing I I ! i I r t' , I I , I 1 I - j i i I \ I j /i I / i - I \ > < v j v I / I < . -- - > I i "' --> I --> \ i \ I/ I ! / I / \ I I i e i - i v ! v / I \ •:, v > i ,--F Phase Signal i / j ! i V 590015 IMP AX 2 . 22 Traffic -Analysts on Microcomputers Program Licensed To: Fel-sburg Holt & Ullevig . CROSSROADS AT DEL CAMINO PH-ASE I TOTAL TRAFFIC 10/11/8"O PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Intersection : 2 WEST RAMPS & SH 119 Lane Configuration and Turn Volumes i II II I --- / \ I --- < > <---- -- T 461 \ 1 I -- T 980 v i ; / R 1 1 0 I R 205 L 216 I I v L 299 i i I I I I i I I i ' f I iAppr Lane INo of IPer Lane{Critical i Maximum Total Critical Volumes Group Lanes 1 Volume i Volume ; I I I Level of Two Three I Four I j Service i -Phase Phase I Phase I I i i i ! I I I f ( I A i 900 055 j 815 5B EXL 1 -2-46 j 246 6 j 1050 1000 I 965 EXR I 1 j 205 C i 1200 I 1140 j 1100 i 1 D 1350 1275 j 1225 E j 1500 j 1425 j 1375 EB I T 2 j 241 241 I F j NA j NA I NA j EXR I 1 110 � + I WS i EXL 1 299 j 299 I • I T i 2 490 j 1 ! Critical Volume 7-86 i I I j I j No of Critical Phases = 3 !--`-I i I i I i Level oT Service — A 1 1 Total Critical Volume i 786 I i Volume/Capacity = 0 . 55 I I I I ! I N/S Signal Phasing E/W Signal Phasing I-- I I I I i / I \ I I i ! <-- I <-- ! I ! < v > i i I I / I / 1 i 1 i I I ; v ! --> v I I I I 1 i I \ I i . i I 1 I i- 1 II• I • i 1 1 9 I 1 I 3 Phase Signal i I 1 I I i I I 690015 • IMPAX 2 . 22 Traffic Analysis on Microcomputers Progrsrrrr Licensed To: Ee]sburg Holt & Ul leviu . CROSSROADS AT aEL CAMINO -PHASE I TOTAL TRAFFIC 10/11/88 PM PfAI4 HOUR VOLUMES Intersection : "7 EAST RAMPS & SH 119 Lane Configuration and Turn Volumes I - i I L 7D / L 570 R 303j R 250 \ T 157 ----> -- T 709 ----> << > I <---- \\ / # `---- I III I i III I i l---- I i { I I ; !Appr• I Lane INo of Per LaneiCrit-ical I ! Maximum Total Critical Volumes j I Group I Lanes i Volume I Volume i— i I i Level of Two # Three Four NE I EXL I 2 # 285 285 # Service Phase I -Phase Phase EXR 1 1 303 I I I I I A 900 855 825 i i f I 8 1050 I 1000 955 C 1200 j 1140 1100 i I { D 1350 # 1275 1225 I I I i j E 1500 I 1425 I 1375 E8 , EXL 1 i 70 70 F NA I NA i NA I I T 2 # 329 I I I I ! I i WE i T 2 ! 355 355 - ! j I EXR 1 i 250 Critical Volume - 7 1 0 No of Critical Phases = 3 j ---- I I i i I Level of Service = A Total Critical Volume I 710 I Voluriie/Capacity = 0 . 50 I i i I N/S Signal Phasing E/W Signal Phasing I i I I i #— I I # I I - I i I j I \ I I i I I - <-- I I < ^ > / i / I \ I/ I I I ! --> I --> I I I I I I i I I s ! ' I 3 Phase Signal I I I I t I I i X390015 IMPAX 2 . 22 Traffic Analysis on M'icr•ocom uters Program Licensed To: Felsburg Holt & U ilevig . CROSSROADS AT DEL CAMINO PHASE II TOTAL TRAFFIC 10/13/88 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Intersection : 12 FRONTAGE & CR 24 Lane Configuration and Turn Volumes I i I ! I 1 I I I 1 _ I I ' ! T 35 I / i i \ i L 25 -- I / I > L 175 R 20 \ R 20 I --- I < v <--_ I T 795 --_-. I > __-". T 355 -- I « I / -- R 200 \ I R 20 L 25 \\ I / L 55 I v I III v ; I T 35 I jj1 I IAppr• 1 Lane INo of Per Lane lCritical I Maximum Total Critical Volumes j I j Group I Lanes j Volume j Volume 1 j j j I I j I I I Level of j Two I Three 1 Four I NB I EXL I 2 1 88 88 I j Service I Phase I Phase I Phase I I TR I 1 I 55 I i I i I II i I I I A I 900 855 I 825 1 $6 j EXL I 1 1 25 I I I B I 1050 1 1000 I 965 I ; TR I 1 1 55 I 55 I I C I 1200 I 1140 I 1100 I I I I I I I D 1 1350 1 1275 I 1225 I I I I j 1 I i E I 1500 1 1425 I 1375 E8 I EXL I 1 25 1 I I F I NA i NA I NA ; j T I 2 1 398 j 398 I I I I I I ! EXR I 1 ; 200 j i j I ! I. I I I I ! I WS I EXL I 1 55 I 55 I I i TR I 2 j 188 I 1 Critical Volume - 596 ! i I I i • I No of Critical Phases = 4 I i j i ! I I Level of Service - A 1 Total Critical Volume j 596 I I Volume/Capacity = 0 . 43 I ! I N/S Signal Phasing E/4ti Signal Phasing I I I i ! I i II I I I I I I i \ I i / I I / I - I \ 1 1 I < v i v I / --> i \ i ; I/ / \ \ + \ ' � I I v j v V: I - I / 1\ i \ < v > --; 8 Phase Signal i l v 890015 e L,u (.1 Holt & Ui I IdV'1 10-10-1988 4 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 24/ACCESS TIME PERIOD: PHASE I AM PK HR JOE: 86-086 1 V V i I 0 i I ! I I I i 1 / I \ i I V V v I 0 ---/ \___ 0 325 ---> <--- 420 110 ___ 0 V V I .. \ / ! I i I r I V 5 0 I 1 ! I I MAJOR ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY I I I ( 55 MPH I ( 1-WAY STOP) I I II APPROACH j ES I W6 I NB I SB I I i i I I 'MOVEMENT I I I R I I I i I I ! CONTROL I I STOP ` • ' VOLUME (VPH) I 5 ' VOLUME (PCPH) i I I 6 i ' CONFLICTING FLOW I 325 'CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I I I 6 . 5 I I ( POTENTIAL CAPACITY I I I 620 I I ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY I I I 1 1 I IIMPEDENCE FACTOR ! I I 0 . 99 i I ! ACTUAL CAPACITY I I I 62C 1 I I I 1 I I 'SHARED LANES I I I I I I ! SHARED LANE CAPACITY i I f ! I ' RESERVE CAPACITY I I I 615 I . ! LEVEL OF SERVICE i ! I A I i I . ( AVERAGE QUEUE I I • ' AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) I ! i ' 890015 Felsbui'g Hit & U1 lev rid 10-10-1986 .UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 24/ACCESS 1 TIME PERIOD: PHASE I PM PK HR JOB: 88-086 i 0 0 I i 0 I I I I I / I \ I I V V V 0 __-/ \___ C 705 ---- <--- 960 255 D --_ \ / V V i I I 1 ! I i i i i 0 2C 0 i I I I I I MAJOR ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY I i I (55 MPH) I ( 1 -WAY STOP) I I I I !APPROACH I ES I W6 I NB I S8 I I I I I i I ' MOVEMENT i I I R I I I I I I I 'CONTROL i I I STOP I jVOLUME (VPH) . i I I 20 ! ! ' VOLUME (PCPH) I I I 22 I ' CONFLICTING FLOW I i I 705 I I ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I I I 6 . 5 I I ! POTENTIAL CAPACITY I I I 362 I I ! PERCENT OF CAPACITY I I I 6 1 I • IIMPEDENCE FACTOR I I I • 0 . 96 I j ' ACTUAL CAPACITY i I I 362 I I I I i i ! SHARED LANES I I I I 1 ! I I i • I ! SHARED LANE CAPACITY I i ! RESERVE CAPACITY 1 3400 ! LEVEL OF SERVICE t I B 'AVERAGE QUEUE I i ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) t I 890015 Feleuuri Holt & Uileviu 10-09-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 24/ACCESS 2 TIME PERIOD: PHASE I AM PK HR JOB : 88-08G I 0 0 I I 10 I I I I I I I I / I \ I i v V V I D ---/ \___ 0 150 ---> <---- 245 i5 - O _ V V I ! i \ I / I I I I I I I i I I I 0 5 I 0 I I I MAJOR ROADWAY i MINOR ROADWAY I ( 55 MPH) j ( 1 -WAY STOP) ! APPROACH i IS j NB i NB SB I I i !MOVEMENT i -R ! ( CONTROL I I STOP ! VOLUME (VPH) ! I 5 'VOLUME (PCPH) I I -6 ( CONFLICTING FLOW ' I I 168 'CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I I I 6 . 5 ' POTENTIAL -CAPACITY { I I 733 ! PERCENT OF CAPACITY I i ! 1 j I ' IMPEDENCE FACTOR ' ' i 1 . 00 I i !ACTUAL CAPACITY i I I 733 I i ! i ! !SHARED LANES• ! I ! ,l SHARED LANE CAPACITY I I ! ! ; RESERVE CAPACITY ! i 727 ! I I LEVEL OF SERVICE i A i ; AVERAGE QUEUE I ! ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) ' ! I ! I 890015 Felsburu Holt & U i levic 10-09-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 24/ACCESS 2 TIME PERIOD: PHASE I PM PK HR JOB: 88-085 i 0 0 I Jo I f I I I I I / I \ 1 I V V V I 0 ___/ \--_ 355 ---> <--- 125 175 0 \ V V I I / ! I I I I I i I I 1 ! 1D j 0 i I } MAJOR ROADWAY ! MINOR ROADWAY (55 MPH) ( 1-WAY STOP) i i i I IAPPROACH j E6 I WB NB ' SB ! I I f I ' ' MOVEMENT ; CONTROL j I l STOP ! VOLUME (VPH) j i 10 I j ; VOLUME (PCPH) j ' j 11 ; CONFLICTING -FLOW I I I 443 !CRITICAL GAP (SEC) j I I 5 - 5 (POTENTIAL CAPACITY ' j { 530 } PERCENT OF CAPACITY I j j 2 IMPEDENCE FACTOR j i I 0 . 99 I I !ACTUAL CAPACITY I I I 530 I I I i I I I !SHARED LANES i I f i ! SHARED LANE CAPACITY ! RESERVE CAPACITY s ! I 519 ILLVEL OF SERVICE I I I A ! AVERAGE QUEUE ; AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) I I I I 890015 =elsburg Holt & Ullev-ig 10-09-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 24/ACCESS 3 TIME PERIOD: PHASE I PM PK HR JOB : 888-086 0 0 lei I I I I I / I \ I I 'v V V I 0 35 ---> <--- 220 10 15 V V i - I 1 \ / I I I I I I ! I I 105 10 I 0 MAJOR ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY ! I (55 MPH) ! ( 1-WAY STOP) ! APPROACH j E6 1 W8 i N8 I B ' MOVEMENT I L I R ! j j I i f I ! CONTROL ; I UNC j STOP STOP j I VOLUME (VPH) I j 15 j 105 10 ' VOLUME (PCPH) j j 17 j 116 11 ' CONFLICTING FLOW I 365 j 5975 360 ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) i 5 . 5 j 8 . 0 6. 5 ( POTENTIAL CAPACITY { 733 ' 303 592 ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY j 7 ' 2 1MPEDENCE FACTOR j 0 . 99 I 0.99 I I ACTUAL CAPACITY j 733 ' 299 592 j I !SHARED LANES I I I i• !SHARED LANE CAPACITY I I I I 1 RESERVE CAPACITY ! 717 I 183 581 j 1 ' LEVEL OF SERVICE j A I D A 1' AVERAGE QUEUE ' AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) 890015 Felsbur t Holt & U i leviy 10-09-198-8 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION iAP-ACFTY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 24/ACCESS 3 TIME PERIOD : -PHASE I AM PK - jOE : 86-0883 1 0 0 I I 1 0 1 1 I I I I 1 I / j \ I V V V I 150 ---> <--- 285 5 --- _ 15 \ /- V ti, 1 \ I / 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 10 0 j 0 MAJOR ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY I (55 MPH) j ( 1-WAY STOP) I 1 APPROACH EB I WE NB 1 SB !MOVEMENT I I L I I ! CONTROL I ' UNC I STOP STOP ! VOLUME (VPH) ! I 15 j 10 0 I 4 )VOLUME (PCPH) I j 17 I 11 0 1 I !CONFLICTING FLOW j j 155 I 453 153 ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I I 5 . 8 . 0 6 . 5 I I ! POTENTIAL CAPACITY ' 937 381 768 I I j-PERCENT OF CAPACITY 1 2 0 1 I IIMPEDENCE FACTOR I 0 . 99 1 .00 I I 'ACTUAL CA-PACITY j 937 3'77 768 ' 1 • I I SHARD LANES I 1 I ` ! SHARED LANE CAPACITY I j I � ! RESERVE CAPACITY i I 921 I 366 768 I i ! LEVEL OF SERVICE i A I B A I ! ! ! AVERAGE QUEUE ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) I i 1 890015 Fe15Lug -Ho1L & U1 ievig 10-0D-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 2-4/CR 11 TIME -PERIOD : PHASE I AM K HR JOE : 88-086 1 0 0 ! 1 j 0 i i 1 1 j i 1 1 / 1 \ 1 1 V V V 1 0 / \ 0 65 ---> <--- 50 85 10 V V \ 1 I } j 1 j 1 1 1 I 250 20 1 0 } j MAJOR ROADWAY MINOR ROADWAY j i (55 MPH ) ( 1 -WAY STOP) i ' APPROACH j ES ; W6 NE SB 1 ' MOVEMENT i I _L E L R 1 i- ' CONTROL 1 UNC j STOP STOP ' VOLUME 'VPH ) 1 j 11 250 20 j 1 ; VOLUME (PCPH ) j ; 11 1 275 5 22 ;-CONFLICTING FLOW j } 155 I 168 65 ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) 1 I 5 .6 1 8 . 0 _6 . 5 POTENTIAL CAPACITY ; ; 943 j 598 855 ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY ; i 1 i 3 ' IMPEDENCE FACTOR } } D .59 i 0 . 96 ' ACTUAL CAPACITY } I 943 j 593 95 1 ' SHARED LANES I ! SHARED LANE CAPACITY ; RESERVE CAPACITY I i 932 i 318 -633 I i ' LEVEL OF SERVICE } } A I B -A I 1 1 I- ; AVERAGE QUEUE ; AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) } I j ; I I 890015 Felsbui' u i-1oit & Ui1evig 10-06-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : c-R 24/CR 11 TIME -PERIDD : PHASE I PM -PK HR JOB: 88-086 I 0 0 I I j 0 I I j I j i I I / f \ I I V V V I 0 ___/ \-__ 0 95 ---> <--- 75 2"70 20 V V ! I \ i / I I I ! I I I I I I ' 160 15 I 0 I I- I- ' MAJOR ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY I 1 (55 MPH) ! ( 1 -WAY STOP) I ' APPROACH ES I W8 1 N8 1 S8 I I- { I ! f IMOVEMENT j j I I L R i ( CONTROL I J UNC I STOP STOP ; VOLUME (VPH ) j j 20 160 15 ' VOLUME ( PCPH) I I 22 I 176 17 ' CONFLICTING FLOW j 365 I 325 95 ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) ' 5 .15 I 8 . 0 6 . 5 ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY ( 733 I 470 826 IPERCENT OF CAPACITY I 3 i 2 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR ' 0 . 98 I 0 . 99 jACTUAL CAPACITY I 733 j 462 825 I ' SHARED LANES 1 1 ! E ! ! SHARED LANE CAPACITY I I f ( RESERVE CAPACITY II I 711 j 286 809 I j 1 L E VE L OF SERVICE I I A j c A 1 — I AVERAGE QUEUE ; AVERAGE DELAY (SEC ) E i i 890015 Felsbuiu Hu1t & Uileviy 10-08-1986 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 24/CR 9 TIME PERIOD : PHASE I AM PK KR J08 : 188-086 { 5 5 ! I D l I I I / I \ I I v v v I 5 ---� \--- 5 150 ---> <--- 300 0 0 V i \ I / I I I I I I I I I I 0 0 I 0 I I I MAJOR ROADWAY i MINOR ROADWAY ( 55 MPH ) ( 1 -WAY STOP) I i ' APPROACH EB I WB I NB ' SB I I I I I ! MOVEMENT I i i H ' CONTROL UNC ! I ; STOP STOP ! VOLUME (VPH) 5 5 5 ' VOLUME (PCPH) 6 f j 6 6 ! CONFLICTING FLOW E 3115 f 456 303 !CRITICAL OAP (SEC) j 5 . 5 { I 8 . 0 6 .-5 IPOTENTIAL CAPACITY I 790 ' ' 378 63E 'PERCENT OF CAPACITY ' 1 I 1 I IMPEDENCE FACTOR { 1 . 00 ' I 0 . 9E ! ACTUAL CAPACITY ' 790 I I -377 630 I I I I 'SHARED LANES j I LR { 1 I I ! SHARED LANE CAPACITY I I I I 474 ; RESERVE CAPACITY 785 i 463 ' LEVEL DF SERVICE I A ' j { �• ' AVERAGE -QUEUE AVERAGE DELAY (SFC) I I I I i ------- i E I 690015 Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 10-06-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 24/CR 9 TIME PERIOD: PHASE I PM K HR JOB : M8-080 5 5 I I 0 I I i I i \ I V V V I 5 __-/ \___ 5 365 ---> <--- 235 0 0 V V I - I \ I / f I ( I I I I I 0 0 I i MAJOR ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY ' I C55 MPH ) I ( 1-WAY STOP) f I I f IAPPROACH I ES I WB j NB SS ; MOVEMENT ' CONTROL I UNC I ; STOP STOP ' VOLUME (VPH) j 5 j I 5 5 ' VOLUME ( PGPH ) I 6 I i 6 6 ; CONFLICTING FLOW ' 240 j 608 236 I ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) ' 5 . 5 i 8 . 0 ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY ' 852 ( 297 690 ! PERCENT OF CAPACITY j 1 i 1 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR I 1 . 00 i 1 . 00 ; ACTUAL CAPACITY j 852 I ' 295 690 i i I i I 1 ( SHARED _LANES I ! ' I LR i I j I i i ' SHARED LANE CA-PACITY Y I ' I 414 ( RESERVE CAPACITY I 847 I I 403 I ILEVEL OF SERVICE j A I I I A i I I I I ! AVERAGE QUEUE j AVERAGE DELAY ( SEC) I I I i I I I 330915 • Fei burg Holt & Ui1ev-io 10-10- 1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 1 TIME PERIOD: PHASE I AM PK HR JDB: 88--086 1 20 5 i j I 165 I I . I I I i I I / i \ I I V V V I 10 / \--_ 25 --- 0 ---> `___ 0 0 0 V V i \ ! / 1 I I I I j I I I I i 1 5 0 I 130 I ' 1 I MAJOR ROADWAY { MINOR ROADWAY I II (55 MPH) (2—WAY STOP) I IAPPROACH I NB I SB I EB { W6 I I I I i I I IMOVEMENT j L j L I L R L R I I I I I CDNTROL i UNC I UNC 1 STOP STOP o STOP STOP I ( VOLUME (VPH) j 5 I 5 I 10 0 I 0 25 I 'VOLUME (PCPH) [ 6 I 6 I 11 0 j 0 28 ( CONFLICTING FLOW i 185 j 130 I 340 165 I 325 130 I ( CRITICAL GAP (SEC) j 5 . 5 I 5. 5 i 8 . 0 6 . 5 I 8 . 0 0 . 5 I ; POTENTIAL CAPACrTY I 906 I 964 I 456 755 I 470 790 I ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY I 1 I 1 I 0 I 3 I IIMPEDENCE FACTOR j 1 . 00 I 1 . 00 I 1 . 00 ! 0 . 98 I IACTUAL CAPACITY I 906 I 964 I 445 755 I 467 790 I i I- I (SHARED LANES I I I i . I ( SHARED LANs CAPACITY I 1 I ' RESERVE CAPACITY 900 I 958 ! 434 755 437 763 I ' LEVEL OF SERVICE ; A i A ; A A A i ;- ; I r r •'[Nl3 C.G E QUEUE I j AV CI ; AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) 1 ! ' 6901)1,5 Felsbur; Holt & U1 iev ig 10-10-1988 UNS1GNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY AN-ALYSIS INTERSECTION: FRONTAGE/ACCESS i TIME PERIOD : PHASE I PM PK HR JOB : 83-080 ! 50 20 I I I 200 I j f I j ! I I / I \ I I V V V I 60 ___/ \___ 120 0 ---> <--- 0 5 0 / V V 1 , i / 1 f i I i ! f I ! j J 0 j :7J:J i i i i MAJOR -ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY I I (55 MPH ) I ( 2-WAY STOP) i i I I I ;APPROACH NB I SB ! ES I W6 I I I I I ;MOVEMENT j L I L j L P L R I I I I ` (CONTROL UNC I UNC I STOP STOP j STOP STOP I I VOLUME (VPH) j 5 I 20 j 60 • 5 j 0 12L I ! VOLUME (PCPH) ; 6 j 22 j 66 0 l 0 132 ( CONFLICTING FLOW ; 250 I 535 j' 905 210 i 819 535 I ICRITICAL GAP (SEC) j 5 .5 I 5 . 5 8 . 0 6 . 5 I 3 . 0 6 . 5 ! ! POTENTIAL CAPACITY j 843 I 599 173 720 j 205 466 I ( PERCENT OF CAPACITY j 1 j 4 1 I 28 I IIMPEDENCE FACTOR j 1 . 00 j 0 . 98 1 . 00 ; 0 . 80 I ! ACTUAL _CAPACITY j 843 I 599 136 720 j 19-G 466 I !SH-ABED LANES I I f I j i j � � ; SHARED LANE CAPACITY I ! IRESERVE CAPACITY 837 j 577 ! 70 715 't 199 334 ! ' LEVEL OF SERVICE I A • A I E A j D B • : !AVERAGE QUEUE I ; • !AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) l 1 4 ! 7J©ii5 FelsLur'y Holt & Ui leviq 10-10-198S UNSIGNALIZED ZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS TIME PERIOD : PHASE I AM Pr's HR JOB: 88-086 I 0 5 I I I 100 I ! I I I ! / I \ i I V V V I / 0 ---> <--- 0 0 0 V V I r I \ I / I I ! i I I I I 1 � I I I 0 0 I 130 ! i I I I MAJOR ROADWAY MINOR ROADWAY I I ! (a5 MPH) ( 1-WAY STOP) I f ' APPROACH ! NB I SB ES I WS I ! ! I i ! MOVEMENT j I L I L P ! 1 I ' I i i ! CONTROL I ! UNC STOP STOP ; IVOLUME (VPH) I ! 5 I C 5 ! !VOLUME (PCPH) i I 6 I 0 6 ! CONFLICTING FLOW I I 130 ' I 235 130 ICRITICAL GAP (SEC) I I 5 . 5 I 8 .0 6 . 5 I ( POTENTIAL CAPACITY I I 964 I 542 790 I ! PERCENT OF CAPACITY I I 1 ! 1 1 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR I I 1 . 00 I 1 . 00 I TACTUAL CAPACITY i I 964 I 1 540 790 I I I I I ! SHARED LANES I I ! I I I i f ISHARED LANE CAPACITY ! I ! ! 1 S CAPACITY T\ 1 958 1 I 540 785 1 REak72'vE uAPA�.,I � r I ! ! LEVEL OF SERVICE ! A A A !AVERAGE QUEUE i I i ' AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) i j I • 030015 Fe1sbuoc; Holt & U i ev-iy 10-10-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS • INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 2 TIME -PERIOD: PHASE. I PM -PK HR JOB: 88-O8Ti 0 10 j I I 19$ I I ' I I i I / i \ i V V V \__ 5 0 ---> <--- 0 0 5 V V i I \ / I i I I i i I I 0 5 I 535 I MAJOR ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY I I (55 MPH) j ( 1-WAY STOP) i j I I jAPPROAOH j NB I SB I EB I WB ' MOVEMENT j I . L I I L R ' CONTROL I UNC i I SHOP STOP .' VOLUME (VPH) i 10 I I 0 5 IVOLUME (PCPH) j I 11 I j ° 6 ' CONFLICTING FLOW ' j 540 j ! 743 538 'CRITICAL GAJP (SEC) 1 j 5 . 5 I j 3 . 0 6 .5 ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY i ! 595 I ! 230 464 IPERCENT OF CAPACITY j j 2 j j • 1 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR I j 0 . 99 I i 0 . 99 'ACTUAL CAPACITY I I 595 I I 233 4-64 ;SHARED LANES 'SHARED LANE CAPACITY 't RESERVE CAP--ACI-TY i i 584 j 228 458 • ' LEVEL OF SERVICE ! A A I- ! AVERAGE QUEUE • ' AVER-AGE DELAY (SEC) j j • '30115 Feisbur-'y Holt & U i lev-iy 10-10-1988 INTERSECTION ER/. ♦O . .CITY I . UNSIGNALIZED Itd CRo V I �VN CAPACITY� 1 ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 3 TIME PERIOD : PHASE I AM PK HR JO8: 88-085 0 40 I i I 60 I I I I I I I 1 / 1 \ ' V V V i 0 ---/ \--- 15 O ---> -- 0 0 0_ _ V V 1 I ` / I I I i I I I I I I 0 5 i. 115 I I I MAJOR ROADWAY MINOR ROADWAY 1 I (55 MPH) ( 1-WAY STOP) I I I ' APPROACH NB I S8 EB 1 WS I i I 1 I ' MOVEMENT I I L ' j L R I i I I ; CONTROL I I UNC ' ! STOP STOP ! VOLUME (VPH) I I 40 ' 0 15 ; ! VOLUME (PCPH) I I 44 I 0 17 'CONFLICTING FLOW j I 120 i' j 218 118 I 'CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I I 5 . 5 ' ; 3 . 0 6 . 5 IPOTENTIAL CAPACITY ' I 974 I I 550 803 I ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY I I 5 f ' 2 I IIMPEDENCE FACTOR I I 0 . 97 ' ' 0 . 99 I ' ACTUAL CAPACITY ; I 974 I I 541 803 I i i I i 1 I ' SHARED LANES ! I I I I I I ! SHARED LANE CAPACITY ' I i . i ! RESERVE CAPACITY i ' 930 j ; 541 786 i LEVEL OF S-ERV ICE I A i A A 1 . ! AVERAGE QUEUE j I I ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) . I I I 1,- . F 15bur` Holt & Ui ievir 10-10-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 3 TIME PERIOD: PHASE I PM PK HR JOE: 88-086 j 0 90 I I 110 j I I I ! / I \ j V V V j o ___/ \--- 100 0 ---> <--- 0 0 0 V V 0^ j \ / i I I i I i i i i i I 5 j 440 I i I i MAJOR ROADWAY j MINOR ROADWAY I j (55 MPH) ( 1-WAY STOP) { I I I APPR-OA-CH ; NB j SE EB j WE f i j i i ' MOVEMENT i i I I j ;CONTROL UNC j I STOP STOP ' VOLUME (V-PH) I ' 90 ; j 0 100 !VOLUME (PCPH) ' ' 99 % I C 110 ; CONFLICTING FLOW j ' 445 j 1 643 443 ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) ' ! 5 . 5 ' I 8 . 0 6 . 5 ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY j F 666 ' I 281 530 ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY ' I 15 ' j 21 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR ' j 0 . 91 j j 0 . 86 ' ACTUAL CAPACITY ' I 666 j j 254 530 ' SHARED LANES I I I f I i i j !SHARED LANE CAPACITY ! RESERVE CAPACITY ! 567 ' ' 254 420 ! LEVEL OF SERVICE ' A • C A I i ' ! AVERAGE QUEUE ! .AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) I j 890015 Felsburq Holt & Ulleviu 10-10-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 4 TIME PERIOD: PHASE I AM PK HR JOB: 88-086 6 0 I I I 60 I 1 I I I I i I / I \ 1 I V %Y V 25 ___/ \--- 0 0 ---> <--- 0 10 __ -_ 0 \ / V V e \ I i 1 1 1 1 i I I 1 1 1 I 10 0 i 95 1 I MAJOR ROADWAY ; MINOR ROADWAY 1 (55 MPH ) I ( I-WAY STOP) ' APPROACH NB I 36 I EE I WB I i i ! MOVEMENT L 1 ; L R i (CONTROL I UNC 1 I STOP STOP !VOLUME (VPH) 10 I ; 25 10 !VOLUME (PCPH) I 11 I 28 11 i I ; CONFLICTING FLOW ; 60 1 165 00 I I 'CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I 5 . 5 I 8 . 0 0 . 5 1 ! ; POTENTIAL CAPACITY ; 1037 I 600 800 1 ! ( PERCENT OF CAPACITY I 1 ; 1 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR ; 0 . 99 ; 0 . 99 (ACTUAL CAPACITY I 1037 ; 596 8800 1 I I I I ISHARED LANES 1 I I I r I ! ;SHARED LANE CAPACITY I I I I ! RESERVE CAPACITY 1026 i I 568 849 ! LEVEL OF SERVICE j A A. A ! AVERAGE QUEUE I I ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) ; ! I ! 890015 Feisuut,u Holt & U i iev-iL 10-10-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 4 TIME PERIOD: PHASE 1 PM PK HR JOE: 888-086 i 0 0 I I I 115 I 1 I I I I 1 I / I \ 1 I V V V I 150 / \___ 0 0 ---> <--- 0 JrJ _- 0 V / ,\ I I I I I I I I I I I 60 0 I 295 I MAJOR ROADWAY } MINOR ROADWAY I j (55 MPH) 1 ( 1 -WAY STOP) IAPPROACH I NB j SB I EB WS I IMOVEMENT I L 1 j L R 1CONTROL UNC j I STOP STOP ; VOLUME (VPH) ? 60 I j 1 5 U 55 ;VOLUME (PCPH) j 66 j j 155 61 ! I ICONFLICTING FLOW i 115 i j 470 115 E I [CRITICAL GAP (SEC) 1 5 . 5 j j 8 . 0 6 . 5 [ POTENTIAL CAPACITY j 979 1 j 372 805 I I IPERCENT OF CAPACITY j 7 j l 8 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR ? 0 . 96 I j 0 . 95 I j ! ACTUAL CAPACITY j 979 j j 356 805 I I i ! SHARED LANES ! SHARED LANE CAPACITY ; RESERVE CAPACITY 913 j I 191 745 L:.VE: OF SERVICE 1 A D A ! AVERAGE QUEUE i I ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) j 1 I j 89G015 Felsbur'y Hot & U i 1-vig 10-1G-1986 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 5 TIME PERIOD: PHASE I AM PK -HR JOB _ 88-025 I 0 30 I I 40 I I I I I I I / 1 \ I I V V V 1 0 / \___ 15 0 ---> <--- 0 0 _ 0 V V I I \ 1 / I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 0 5 I 90 I I I I MAJOR ROADWAY MINOR ROADWAY I ( 55 MPH) ( 1 -WAY STOP) I ' !' APPROACH I NB I SB EB I WB I ' MOVEMENT j i L ' L R I ' CONTROL I UNC ' ; STOP STOP '+ ' VOLUME (VPH) 1 30 i ! u 15 ' ' VOLUME (PCPH) ' I 33 I I 0 17 ' CONFLICTING FLOW I ' 95 I 163 93 ICRITI-CAL GAP (SEC) I ' 5 . 5 I 8 . 0 6 . 5 ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY 1 I 1000 I 602 828 ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY I I 3 I 2 FIMPEDENCE FACTOR ' j 0 . 98 I 0 . 99 FACTUAL CAPACITY I I 1000 ' 590 828 ' ' SHARED LANES F I I ! ' SHARED LANE CAPACITY I i ! RESERVE CAPACITY ' 957 590 811 , • I ' LEVEL CF SERVICE A � A A I 7 i ' AVERAGE QUEUE I F AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) i I F 590015 Felsburg HOLY & Uiieviu 10-10-1988 UNSISNALiZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 5 TIME PERIOD: PHASE I PM PK HR JOB: 88-086 i 0 80 I I i go I I I I I I T / I \ I V V V I 0 / \_-- 1 0 0 0 ---> <--- 0 0 _ 5 V V / I / I I I I { , I I 0 5 I 255 I j I T I I MAJOR ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY { I T (55 MPH) I ( 1-WAY STOP) I T APPROACH I NB I E6 j ED I WS j i I I I I TMOVEMENT j L I j L R { I I I (CONTROL : I UNC T I STOP STOP 5 j VOLUME (VPH) j CO I I 100 ( VOLUME (PCPH) T 88 T 1 6 110 ' CONFLICTING FLOW I 260 ( I 428 258 r ^a . 0 6 . 5 ICRITICAL GAP (SEC) s 5 .'a j 1 ( POTENTIAL CAPACITY j 833 I I 395 674 ( PERCENT OF CAPACITY I I 11 I I 16 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR I 1 0 . 94 j I 0 . 90 I TACTUAL CAPACITY I j 833 I T 370 674 I I I ' � • ESHARED LANES 1 i I TSHARED LANE CAPACITY RESERVE CAPACITY 745 I 364 564 j ( LEVEL OF SERVICE I i A B A AVERAGE QUEUE I ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) i I 891115 F6lsburu Holt & Ullevig O-10-1986 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 6 TIME PERIOD: PHASE I AM PK HR JO6: 88-086 O 0 i 1 40 I ! i I I I I / I \ I I V V V I 20 __-/ \___ 0 0 ---> <--- 0 10 ___ 0 \ / V V I I \ I / I I I I I I ; 1 t 1 5 0 { 75 I I I MINOR ROAD4AY I MAJOR ROADWAY ; I ! (55 MPH) ! ( i -1'vA'i STOP) ' I ! APPROACH j N8 I SS I ES I 46 i I I I I ! MOVEMENT I L I 1 L R ; I I ! i i ! CONTROL I UNC STOP STOP { VOLUME (VPH) 5 I 20 10! VOLUME (PCPH) 1 6 I 22 11 ! CONFLICTING FLOW I 40 ! 120 40 ! f !CRITICAL GAP (SEC) ! 5 . 5 6 . 0 6 . 5 I I ! POTENTIAL CAPACITY I 1058 I 636 880 ! PERCENT OF CAPACITY I 1 1 ! ! IIMPEDENCE FACTOR I 1 . 00 0 . 99 ! ACTUAL CAPACITY 1 10558 ! 636 880 I I ' I t ! SHARED LANES ! t I ! SHARED LANE CAPACITY ! RESERVE CAPACITY i 1053 I 1 614 869 { i ! LEVEL OF SERVICE I A I I A A f f ! ! AVERAGE QUEUE i ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) I i g3O_)15 Felsbur g Holt & U11ev1g 10-10-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS • INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 6 TIME PERIOD: PHASE 1 PM PK HR JOE : 88-086 5 0 I ! 90 I I I I I I i I / I \\ I V V V i 150 _--/ \\--` 0 0 ---> <--- 0 5 _ 0 V V F : \ / I i 1 I I I I 1 I 5 0 I 110 I MAJOR ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY (55 MPH) I ( 1-WAY STOP) I 1 j I ( APPROACH j NB I SB I EE j WS I ; ( MOVEMENT j L j 1 L R 1 4 1 I i ( CONTROL i uNc I I STOP STOP VOLUME (VPH) I 5 I 1 150 J VOLUME (PCPH) i 6 f I 165 6 I i ( CONFLICTING FLOW j 95 I i 208 93 I ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I 5 . 5 I j 8 .0 6 . 5 I i POTENTIAL CAPACITY j 1000 I I 564 628 j I IPERCEraT OF CAPACITY j 1 1 I 1 1 , iIMPEDENCE FACTOR j 1 . 00 I I 1 . 00 I I ( ACTUAL CAPACITY j 100 I I 562 828 i i I 1 SHARED LANES 1 I I • . I t ' I ( SHARED LANE CAPACITY ( RESERVE CAPACITY j 995 I 397 822 OF SERVEi 6 A i LEVEL SERVICE i A , ( AVERAGE QUEUE AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) I `I I I I 890015 • -Felsburg Holt & Ulleviy 10-06-1968 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 7 TIME PERIOD: PHASE I AM PK HR JOB: 88-086 1 0 10 1 1 1 40 I I I 1 I I I 1 / 1 \ 1 1 V V V I 0 ___/ \ .__ 10 0 ---> <--- 0 0 _ 0 V V 1 - - - i 1 \ i / 1 I 1 I I 1 III 1 I 1 0 5 I 70 I MAJOR ROADWAY MINOR ROADWAY I I (55 MPH) ( 1 -WAY STOP) (' APPROACH ' NB SG EB ( WE ''MOVEMENT II L f L R I ' CONTROL j UNC I STOP STOP ' VOLUME (VPH) 10 0 10 'VOLUME (PCPH) 11 0 11 ' CONFLICTING FLOW 75 123 73 ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) 6 . 0 8 . 5 6 . 5 i ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY 925 596 848 ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY 1 1 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR 0 . 99 0 . 99 ' ACTUAL CAPACITY 925 592 848 1 +, i ' SHARED LANES I 1 j ' SHARED LANE CAPACITY f I I I I ; RESERVE CAPACITY 1 I 914 I I 592 837 ' LEVEL OF SERVICE I ' A I I A A 1 I I I f ' AVERAGE QUEUE I I I ' AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) I SO0' 15 Felsbur Holt & U11evT 10-08-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 7 TIME PERIOD: PHASE I PM PK HR JOB: 88-086 I 0 30 I 1 I 65 I I I I I I I I / I \ I I V V V i 0 / \___ 30 0 ---> <--- 0 0 _ 5 \ / V V i - - i i \ I / I I I I I I I ! i ! I I 0 5 1 85 I I MAJOR ROADWAY MINOR ROADWAY I (55 MPH) ( 1-WAY STOP) I IAPPROACH NB I SB ES I WB ;'MOVEMENT I L I L R I i 1 ; CONTROL UNC I STOP STOP ; VOLUME (VPH) 30 1 5 30 ;VOLUME (PCPH) 33 ; 6 3$ ' CONFLICTING FLOW 90 I 183 88 ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) 6 . 0 I 8 .5 0 . 5 ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY 910 { 545 833 ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY 4 1 4 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR 0 . 98 I 0 . 98 ' ACTUAL CAPACITY 910 I 533 833 I ' SHARED LANES i ! I I I ! ' SHARED LANE CAPACITY I I I ' RESERVE CAPACITY I 877 I I 528 800 ' LEVEL OF SERVICE i A I I A A I II ;' AVERAGE QUEUE I I ! AVERAGE DELAY (S-EC) I I I I I I I I 890015 Fei burg Holt & U1levlg 10-08-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 6 TIME PERIOD: PHASE I AM PK HR JO6: 88-086 I 0 0 1 I I 40 1 I I I I I I I / I \ I I V V V I 0 _--/ \___ 10 0 ---> <--- 0 0 _ 0 V V I ^ - i 1 \ I / 1 I 3 I 1 III I I o 5 I 65 II MAJOR ROADWAY MINOR ROADWAY I ' (55 MPH) ( 1-WAY STOP) I { (( APPROACH i NB S8 ES { WS I I I ( MOVEMENT I L { L R I I E !CONTROL I UNC I STOP STOP IVOLUME (VPH) I 0 I 0 10 ! VOLUME (PCPH) 1 ' 0 1 0 11 ' CONFLICTING FLOW I 70 108 68 (CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I 6 . 0 I 8 . 5 6 . 5 ( POTENTIAL CAPACITY I 930 1 609 853 { PERCENT OF CAPACITY I 0 I 1 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR ' 1 . 00 I 0 . 99 IACTUAL CAPACITY 930 I 609 853 I ! SHARED LANES I E I ' SHARED LANE CAPACITY ( RESERVE CAPACITY I i 930 I I 609 842 ( LEVEL OF SERVICE { I A I I A A I ' AVERAGE QUEUE ' AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) I { I I I e9Go15 • Felsbuny Holt & Ullevig 10-08-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS S TIME PERIOD: PHASE I PM PK HR JOB: 88-086 I 0 0 I I I 70 I I I I I I I I / I \ f I V V V I 0 / \___ 5 D ---> <--- 0 0 _ 0 V V I \ I / I I I I I i ! If f 0 10 I 85 I I I I MAJOR ROADWAY MINOR ROADWAY I (55 MPH) ( 1 -WAY STOP) i 'APPROACH NB ' SB EB WB !' MOVEMENT ! L L R I ' CONTROL I UNC I STOP STOP ' VOLUME (VPH) ! 0 { 0 5 'VOLUME ( PCPH) ! 0 ' 0 6 ! CONFLICTING FLOW ' 95 j 160 90 ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I 6 . 0 ' 8 . 5 6 . 5 ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY I 905 ! 564 830 ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY I 0 ! 1 ' IMPEDENCE FACTOR j 1 . 00 I 1 . 00 ' ACTUAL CAPACITY 1 905 I 564 830 I I I 'SHARED LANES I I I ' I 'SHARED LANE CAPACITY I I I ' RESERVE CAPACITY ! ' 905 I I 564 825 ! LEVEL OF SERVICE ' I A j ! A A i I I I ! ' AVERAGE QUEUE ! I I ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) ! i I !• I 83®1.5 Felsbuq Holt & U 11ev'ic 10-09-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 11 /ACCESS 1 TIME PERIOD: PHASE I AM PK HR JOB: 88-086 1 10 0 j I I 80 I I I I i I I I / I \ I I V v v I 40 ___/ \___ 0 0 ---> <--- 0 5 _ 0 V V I " f / I i I i i I i I 5 0 I 240 IMAJOR ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY i I (25 MPH) I ( 1 -WAY STOP) NB SB EB I ' APPROACH � �"`' ' • ! MOVEMENT I L L R I ' CONTROL I UNC STOP STOP ' VOLUME (VPH) I 5 1 40 5 ! 'VOLUME (PCPH) } B ! j 44 6 ! CONFLICTING FLOW I 90 I I 330 85 i I 'CRITICAL GAP (SEC) i 5 .0 I 1 6 . 5 r • 5 I I ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY I 1101 I I 610 1011 I I Ip1=RCENT OF CAPACITY ! 0 I I 1 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR I 1 .00 I I 1 . 00 I } FACTUAL CAPACITY 1 1101 I I 614 1011 I ' I 1 I I I I � • IaHARED LANES I I I i I ! SHARED LANE CAPACITY ! RESERVE CAPACITY I 1096 I 570 1005 ! LEVEL OF SERVICE ! A I I A A I i I 'AVERAGE QUEUE I I ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) I , 893'111.5 F&1sburg Holt & U 11ev'iy 10-09-1988 UNJIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 11/ACCESS 1 TIME PERIOD: PHASE I PM PK HR JOB : 88-0886 I 40 -0 I I 275 I I I I I • I / I \ I V V V i 20 _--/ \___ 0 0 ---> <--- 0 5 _ 0 / V V I - i I \ / I I I I I I I I I I I 1 5 0 I 160 I I MAJOR ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY I ( 25 MPH) ( 1-WAY STOP) I ' APPROACH N8 SB ' EB ' WB I I I 1 I I ' MOVEMENT L I I L R I I I ' CONTROL I UNC I j STOP STOP I ' VOLUME (VPH) I 5 I I 20 5 k I (VOLUME (PCPH) ' 6 i 1 22 6 I j ' CONFLICTING FLOW I 315 I j 460 295 I I 'CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I 5 . 0 1 I 6 . 5 5 . 5 I i ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY 877 i j 518 800 ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY I 1 j j 1 ' I ' IMPEDENCE FACTOR j 1 . 00 j ' 1 . 00 I I 'ACTUAL CAPACITY ' 877 I 510 300 I I I ISHARED LANES I I ' i I 'SHARED LANE CAPACITY I I I I ! RESERVE CAPACITY 871 I 494 794 j I 1 !' LEVEL OF SERVICE A I A A I ( AVERAGE QUEUE i AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) ' I 890A5 Felsbur'y Holt & Lillev-iy 10-09- 1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 11;ACCES3 TIME PERIOD: PHASE I AM PK HR JOB: 88-080 10 0 I j 75 I f i i i i . Y' V V i 40 / ,\--- 0 0 ---> <--- 0 5 0 V V f i i I I f i i i I 5 0 f 205 i 1 1 I ' MAJOR ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY ( 25 MPH) I ( 1-WAY STOP) i I i i ' APPROACH j NB 33 I EE W8 f i I i ' MOVEMENT I L j ' L R i I f I f i ' CONTROL j UNC I i STOP STOP 'VOLUME (VPH) j 5 I I 40 5 'VOLUME (PCPH) I 6 I I 44 6 i f ' CONFLICTING FLOW I 85 ' ' 290 80 ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) i 5 . 0 i i 6 . 5 5 . 5 i f ! POTENTIAL CAPACITY 1107 I ' 048 1016 I j ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY 0 I ' 1 1 I ' IMPEDENCE FACTOR 1 . 00 j ' 1 . 00 _ 'ACTUAL CAPACITY 1107 I I 646 1016 ' SHARED LANES i I I i ' SHARED LANE CAPACITY ' RESERVE CAPACITY 1101 ' I r 002 1011 ( LEVEL OF SERVICE r A l A A 'AVERAGE QUEUE I i 'AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) 830015 Feisburg Holt & U i iev"ii 10-05-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 11/ACCESS 2 TIME PERIOD: PHASE I PM PK HR JOB: 88-080 40 0 j 240 I I I I I i \ I { V V V ! 20 ---/ \___ 0 0 ---> <--- 0 5 0 V V I \ I /I , i i I I I I 5 0 1 145 • I I MAJOR ROADWAY MINOR ROADWAY (25 MPH) ( 1-WAY STOP) 1 i !APPROACH j NB ! SB EE ! WE ` f i !MOVEMENT f i ' I CON T ROL i UNC j i STOP STOP ! r ! VOLUME (VPH) I 5 j ! 20 5 VOLUME (PCPH) j o f 22 6 1 I CONFLICTING FLOW I 280 j 410 260 CRITICAL GAP (SEC) j 5 . 0 j 6 . 5 5 . 5 POTENTIAL CAPACITY j 908 j 553 833 I j PERCENT OF CAPACITY ! 1 j 1 ! i IIMPEDENCE FACTOR 1 . 00 I I 1 . 00 I i ! ACTUAL CAPACITY I 908 j j 551 833 I I f { I ! SHARED LANES ! SHARED LANE CAPACITY ! RESERVE CAPACITY ! 903 I i 529 628 ! LEVEL OF SERVICE A j I A A 1 • i I ; ! AVERAGE QUEUE ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) i i I 89015 Feisbur'g Holt & Uilev-ig 10-09-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS c INTERSECTION : CR 11/ACCESS 3 TIME PERIOD : PHASE I AM Pig HR JOB: 88-086 35 0 I / 45 1 i I f r I \ I V V V I 80 ---/ \--- 0 C -- <--- C 10 C V V i I j i 1 I j i 5 C I 130 { I I I { j MAJOR ROADWAY ! MINOR ROADWAY { I ( 25 MPH) j ( 1-WAY STOP) I I i I { APPROACH I NB ! SB I EE WE i i i j I ' MOVEMENT I I I I j ; CONTROL j UNC } I STOP STOP ! VOLUME (VPH) 80 10 ! VOLUME (PCPH) { 6 j J 88 11 I ! ! CONFLICTING FLOW I 80 I 198 63 I ! ! CRITICAL GAP (SEC) j 5 . 0 6 . 5 5 .5 ! POTENTIAL CAPACITY j 1112 ! 723 1034 I ! ! PERCENT OF CAPACITY I 0 I 1 ! { lIMPEDENCE FACTOR j 1 . 00 ! 0 . 99 I FACTUAL CAPACITY I 1112 i 720 1034 I I i i i i ! SHARED LANES I F { i i ! SHARED LANE CAPACITY ! RESERVE CAPACITY 1107 I 632 1023 1 i REVEL OF SERVICE i A I ! A A !AVERAGE QUEUE ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) • 1 F t 880015 Felsuur'o Holt & U1leviy 10-09-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 11/ACCESS TIME PERIOD: PHASE I PM PK HR JOB: 88-086 j 95 0 j I 150 j I i I j i I I ! i \ I I V V V 1 60 ___/ \--- 0 o ---> :--- 0 5 0 V V i \ i / I � f 10 0 I 90 i I i i 1 MAJOR ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY I I (25 MPH) I ( 1-WAY STOP) I I I (APPROACH ' NB I SB I EB I WB i i i i I (MOVEMENT I L I I L R ' CONTROL ' UNC i STOP STOP i r ' VOLUME (VPH) ' 10 I I 6O 5 j 1 ' VOLUME (PCPH) j 11 j 66 6 ( CONFLICTING FLOW I 245 I 298 198 I I ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) 5 . 0 I 6 . 5 5 . 5 I } ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY I 940 j 642 893 I i ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY I 1 ! 1 jIMPEDENCE FACTOR i 0 . 99 ' 1 . 00 I I 'ACTUAL CAPACITY I 940 i I G37 893 i { 'SHARED LANES I I I I i i ' SHARED LANE CAPACITY j ! ' RESERVE CAPACITY 929 I 571 887 ' LEVEL OF SERVICE i A i I A A ' AVERAGE. QUEUE ' AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) j • I i I I 890015 F€15Lsu:''q Holt & U i isvig 10-09-1968 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 11/ACCESS 4 TIME PERIOD: PHASE I AM PK HR JOB: 8808G 35 0 I I 20 I I / I \ I V V V I • _60 _/ 0 0 ---> <--- 0 5 --- 0 V V I8 \ / I I 1 i F i I I F S O I 50 I I MAJOR ROADWAY j MINOR ROADWAY f P (25 MPH) F ( 1-WAY STOP) IAPPROACH j N8 I S8 i EB j W8 i i I i I I ' MOVEMENT f f i ! CONTROL F UNC j J STOP STOP ! VOLUME (VPH) , 5 i I 85 5 I F 'VOLUME (PCPH) j 6 j j 94 6 F I 'CONFLICTING FLOW I 55 I I 93 38 I i ( CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I 5 . 0 I j 6 . 5 5 . 5 I I ; POTENTIAL CAPACITY I 1140 j 1 826 1001 I I ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY IIMPEDENCE FACTOR } 1 . 00 j I 1 . 00 i I FACTUAL CAPACITY P 1140 j I 8825 1001 F I F I i ! SHARED LANES F F I !SHARED LANE CAPACITY PRESERVE CAPACITY ! 1134 ! 732 1055 ( LEVEL OF SERVICE .4 ! A A ;AVERAGE QUEUE !AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) i 830)15 Felsburg Holt & U11evic 10-09-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS _INTERSECTION : CR 11/ACCESS 4 TIME PERIOD: PHASE I PM PK HR JOE: 88-086 95 0 I I I 60 I i I I I I / I \ j V V V I 60 ___/ \--- 0 0 -- <--- 0 5 --- _ 0 %- V V I / 1 I ! I I I 1 5 0 40 . I I MAJOR ROADLvAY 1 MINOR ROADWAY i # (25 MPH ) ! ( 1-WAY STOP) )APPROACH 1 NB j SB j EB I WB I (MOVEMENT I L I I L R I ) CONTROL UNC ! I STOP STOP k I ! VOLUME (VPH) 5 I 1 60 5 { 'VOLUME (PCPH) j 6 I j 66 6 1 I ! CONFLICTING FLOW ! 155 j j 153 108 j ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I 5 . 0 j I 6 . 5 5 . 5 I I ) POTENTIAL CAPACITY j 1030 I I 7633 987 f I ! PERCENT OF CAPACITY I 1 I 1 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR ! 1 . 00 j I 1 . 00 j I ! ACTUAL CAPACITY j 1030 j ! 765 987 I • • I I !SHARED LANES I j I j • I i !SHARED LANE CAPACITY I I I ! ! RESERVE CAPACITY 1024 ! j 699 982 ! LEVEL OF SERVICE ; A I I A A • ! AVERAGE QUEUE ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) I 830315 IMPAX 2 . 22 Traffic Analysis on Microcomputers Program Licensed Tu : Felsburg Hole & Ulleviu . CROSSROADS AT DEL CAMINO PHASE II TOTAL TRAFFIC 10/11/88 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Intersection : 2 WEST RAMPS & SH 119 Lane Configuration and Turn Volumes I I i If ! I Ii --- / \ I I 1 -J I -- T 1 :---- I 938 \ 1 -- T 412 v / R 635 R 90 L 2971 v L 139 I I � i I I i ---- i IAppr Lane 1No or Per Lane Critical I Maximum Total Critical Volumes Group I Lanes I Volume Volume Level of Two Three Four I I Service Phase Phase Phase I i i I I A 900 855 825 SB EXL 1 297 297 { 8 1 1050 1000 965 EXR I 1 90 I I C I 1200 I 1140 1100 i D j 1350 I 1275 1225 i i I 1 i E 1500 1 1425 1375 FB I T I 2 i 469 I 469 I I f NA j NA NA -EXR I 1 I 535 i I I i i I i r j { W8 EXL j 1 j 189 I 189 I i I i T I 2 1 206 j I Critical Volume - 955 I I 1 i f 1 No of Critical Phases = 3 I I ---- I I l I Level of Service - -8 { Total Critical Volume I 955 I Volume/Capacity = 0 . 67 i I i N/S Signal Picas inch E/W Signal Phasing I I I I / I \ i i i <-- I <-- I < v % i i i i / 1 / 1 i v i - v I I ! I I I 1 \ 1 1 i i i i i i i I 1 1 i i i I i i i 3 Phase Signal I I ! i 890015 IMRAX 2 . 22 Traffic Analysis on Microcomputers Program Licensed To: Felsburg Holt & Ulievig . CROSSROADS AT DEL CAMINO PHASE II TOTAL TRAFFIC 10/11/83 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Intersection : 7 EAST RAMPS & SH 119 Lane Configuration and Turn Volumes i I I I i i i i I i L 415 / ( IL 190 R 352 ( R 145 T 810 ---_% j ( I -- T 411 I i I i j \\ i i I iii i i ( i i ili I i t I i i i I I i { Apps' Lane I No of Per Lane Critical I ( Maximum Total Critical Volumes ( Group Lanes Volume Volume I ---- j Level of Two j Three I Four N8 EXL 2 95 95 Service j Phase I Phase I Phase EXR 1 352 i I I A j 900 i 855 I 825 j 8 I 1050 i 1000 I 965 I I I C j 1200 1140 j 1100 i I I D I 1350 i 1275 I 1225 1000 i 1425 ( 1375 E8 ( EXL 1 I 415 I 415 F I NA j NA I NA i ( 7 2 j 405 I i I r ' i i i I i i I W8 ( T j 2 i 206 i 206 EXR j 1 ( 145 i I I Critical Volume - 715 i I I i i j No of Critical Phases == 3 1 1 I I i i I Level of Service — A ( Total Critical Volume i 716 I ( Volurime/Capacity = 0 . 50 1 I I I N/S Signal Phasing E/W Signal Phasing I i I I I i I I I i I I i I < > 1 \ I / I i i ( - I - - I I I i I j j j 1 i i I I I j I I t 3 Phase Signal I i I i 893015 IMPAX 2.22 Traffic Analysis on Microcomputers Program Licensed To: =w isuurq Ho.HolL EA U i Ievig . CROSSROADS AT DEL CAMINO PHASE I TOTAL TRAFFIC • 0/: 3/88 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES . Intersection : 2 FRONTAGE & CR 24 Lane Configuration and Turn Volumes - 1 I Ii I ! H I T 2 5 I I �. \\ n I I I L G5 / I / I > L 6^05 R 25 I \ R 15 ! I --- < v I I ---- I I T 485 ----> I I - > ! -- T 270 E \ I I « I/ i / I R 215 v IR 25 L 201 \\ I ! v L 40 j ! • II l i j l 30 ' II I • j ' I 1 i ! I jAppr Lane No of Per LanelCr•itical I I Maximum Total Critical Volumes ! Group Lanes I Volume j Voluble I I I I I I I ---- I I i ! Level of Two I Three I Four I NB EXL 2 I 333 j 333 j jService I Phase I Phase I Phase I TR 1 j 50 I I i I E I i ! I I l E i I i I I I I i A I 900 j 855 j 825 I $6 j EXL ! 1 20 I I I 8 I 1050 j 1000 I 985 I I T,4 I 1 55 I 55 I I C i 1230 I 1140 i 1100 i I I I I I D 1 1350 I 1275 j 1225 I I I I E I E I 1500 i 1425 I 1375 En EXL ! 1 25 I I F I NA I NA ! NA s TR j 1 I 730 700 i ! I I I i I ! I I i I I WB I EXL I 1 j 40 i 40 i TR I 1 1 285 I I I Critical Volume = 1128 I I I I I j No of Critical Phases = 4 1 ! I I i I I Level of Service - 0 j I Total Critical Volume I 1128 I I Volur!ie/Capacity = 0 . 82 i 1 1 I 1 I N/S Signal Phasing E/W Signal Phasing ! I I I 1 ! I I , I -� Fi ( i I \ I 1 / : 1 1 /1 I i \ I > I I < v I j v I / j < ! I < I < - > i - > j I ^ i--> I --> ' \ I \\ i / I / / \ I \ 1 v I v ! I I II i i I I - ! I Or I I-- Or' - - I I 1 ! ! / 1\ I \ I < v > I I --I I 8 P'r:a5e Signal / i I v i IMPAX 2 . 22 Traffic Analysis on MicrocompuLer s Program Licensed To: =el bur'g Holt & U l l ev i g . CROSSROADS AT DEL CAMINC PHASE II TOTAL TRAFFIC 10/11/88 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Intersection: 19 BUS ACCESS & OR 24 . Lane Configuration and Turn Volumes I I { I I i I ' I i I .,_ j T 380 I « > j / I R 295 i \\ / I v L 115 i I III I I I I I III i I i I { i I l I {Appr { Lane I No of j Per Lane Critical ] i Maximum Total Critical Volumes I I Group jLanes i Volume Volume I i I I j ] Level of Two i Three I Four I NB j EXL I 2 I 40 40 ( Service Phase I Phase I Phase I I EXR j 1 j 20 I I I I I I I A 900 I 355 I 825 I I i B 1050 I 1000 ; 955 I 1 C 1200 I 1140 ; 1100 I D 1350 J 1275 j 1225 I I I I I I I E I 1 500 j 1425 j 1 375 i ES I I i 2 98 ! 98 i F ; NA ; NA I NA i I EXR I 1 295 1 ! I— j 1 w8 I EXL j 1 j 115 j 115 I T 1 2 I 190 I I I Critical Volume - 253 I i I { I I I No of Critical Phases = 3 I ____ j j i I I i Level of Service = A I Total Critical Volu;+ie I 253 j I Volume/Capacity _ 0 . 18 I N/S Signal Phasing E/W Signal Phasing I I i I I I I I ! I I I I I I i { I I •- j <-- j I i i I j / / I > { I I I v 1 --> v i I I 1 r j \ I/ 1 I f r \ I I i i I I v i I ! I I i I I { I I I I ; I I 1 Phase Signal { I ' 89G' 15 IMPAX 2 . 22 Traffic Analysis on Microcomputers Program Licensed To : Felsburg Holt & Ul lev ig . CROSSROADS AT DEL CAMINO ?HA3E II TOTAL TRAFFIC 10/10/88 AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Intersection : 22 CR 11 & CR 24 _ ' Lane Configuration and Turn Volumes i 1 i i IL 253 R 49 ! <---- T 126 \ j 1 j -- T 244 { v < > I / R 87 j ! \ / { v L 24 II I i 1 i II i i i I { Apps Lane No of Per Lane Critical I Maximum Total Critical Volumes Group Lanes Volume 4 Volume i ---- j Level of ! Two j Three I Four j N8 EXL 1 253 253 Service I Phase j Phase I Phase EXR 1 49 I I I i i A i 9OO { 855 I 825 8 { 1050 j 1000 I 965 C I 1200 i 1140 i 1100 D { 1350 1275 1225 E 1500 I 1425 I 1375 EB I T 2 63 F I NA I NA j NA j { EXR 1 87 i I I i I WB I EXL 1 I 24 I T 2 I 122 122 1 Critical Volume = 375 i I I I I No of Critical Phases _ 3 i ---- I I I Level of Service = A Total Critical Volume I 375 I Volurre/Capacity = 0 . 26 i j I N/3 Siynal Phasing E/H Signal Phasing I I I I i i 1 I <-- <-- I I I i I / / 1 j < - > I I I v --> v \ I / I I { \ I I i i s v 1 I i I I I I 3 Phase Signal i I 83,3015 I i I j I IMPAX 2 . 22 Traffic Analysis on Microcomputers Program Licensed To: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig . CROSSROADS AT DEL CAMINO PHASE II TOTAL TRAFFIC 10/11/88 -PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES intersection : 2 WEST RAMPS & SH 119 , - - Lane Configuration and Turn Volumes j j I ! I E i II i I / \ i I I ----> < > -- <---- j T 574 \ I j I -- T 1445 v I I I / R 160 IR 345 L 2541 I v L 441 i I I I I I I I I ---- ! I I-Apprl Lane INo of Per Lane Critical Maximum Total Critical Volumes I I Group ILanes Volume Volume I I i i I j Level of Two I Three I Four j I Service Phase j Phase I Phase I 1 I I 1 I i I I I I I I A 900 i 255 j 825 38 I EXL I 1 I 254 I 254 j B 1050 I 1000 I 965 EXR j 1 I 345 I 1 C 1200 I 1140 I 1100 { { I I I I I D 1350 1275 I 1225 i I I I I I E 1500 1 1425 I 1375 E6 T I 2 j 287 j 287 j F i NA NA I NA I { EXR i 1 j 150 j I i I I I I I I i I I i i I WB I EXL I 1 1 441 I 441 I I T 2 I 723 I j I Critical Volume = 1982 I I i I i i I No of Critic-al Phases - 3 I --- i I I { Level of Service = 13 I Total Critical Voluiiie I 982 I I Volume/Capacity = 0 . 69 I I i N/S Signal Pleasing E/W Signal Phasing I ! 1 I I I I I I I I I / I \ i i 1 1 <-- I < I j - v > I i I i / i / I i i I I v l --> v I ' I I- I I I I i 1 I 3 Phase Signal { I 89001 IMPAX 2 .22 Traffic Analysis on Microcomputers Program L iAansed To: Felsi>urg Holt & Ullevig . CROSSROADS AT DEL CAMINO PHASE II TOTAL TRAFFIC 10/11/88 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Intersection: 7 EAST RAMPS & SH 119 Lane Configuration and Turn Volumes I . I i I i L 105 / IL 775 R 332 R 306 II 7 C J --_ -_ T 1 111 I i Ili I j ill I i i I i i I i Appr I Lane I No of Per Lane Critical I I Maximum Total Critical Volumes I I Group ( Lanes Volume Volume Level of Two I Three j Four N j EXL ! 2 388 388 IService I phase I Phase I Those l j EXR ! 1 332 I I I I A ! 900 J 855 l 825 ! i I 1050 ; 1000 j 965 1200 i 1140 ! 1100 I l I I D ! 1350 I 1275 I 1225 i i I I j E i 1500 1425 I 1375 EB I EXL j 1 105 105 I j F I NA I NA NA j T I 2 362 1 ! I I W8 I T I 2 1 556 i 556 I i I I EXR I i I 366 j I ! Critical Volume = 1049 ! I I I I Ns; of Critical Phases = 3 Level of Service C ; Total Critical Volume 1049 I I Volume/Capacity = 0 . 74 I I ! ! ! N/S Signal Phasing li/W Signal Phasing I ! I ! I I ! I I I i I I I < > I \ I / ! I I I--> 1• > I I I i i I i I I ' I 3 Phase Signal i i I i I ! S90015 IMPAX 2 . 22 Traffic Analysis on Microcomputers r'o rafii Licensed To: Fel`.r''bUr g Holt & U i i ev'i . CROSSROADS AT DEL CAMINO PHASE II TOTAL TRA—F IC 1-0/13/88 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Intersection : : 2 FRONTAGE & CR 24 Lane Configuration and Turn Volumes i l II i jl i T 40 I / I l \ i I L 35 -- i / j > L 760 R 55l \ R 25 I ____, I < v T 670 I -- I i << I / i -- I R 160 \ 1 R 25 L 20 \\ I I / L 90 I v I Hi i v I I7 35 ; III I I . 1 I I 1 I I I Appr i Lane ' No of l Per LanelCriticall Cri tical l I Maximum Total Critical Volumes I I Group j Lanes i Volume I Volume j I I I I ---- I I i I I ! Level of Two I Three I Four I NB I EXL I 2 1 380 I 3-80 I I Service Phase I phase I Phase I I I TR i 1 1 95 I i I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I A 900 I 855 I 825 j S8 I EXL i 1 i 20 I i I B 1050 I 1000 I 965 i I TR I 1 I 60 I 60 I i C 1200 I 1140 I 1100 I 0 1350 I 1275 I 1225 I I I I I I I E 1500 I 1-425 I 1375 I ES i EXL I 1 i 35 I i F i NA I NA I NA I I 2 I 338 338 j I EXR j 1 j 160 I I I I WS I `EXL I 1 I 90 I 90 j I I I TR I 2 I 348 I I I Critical Volume = 868 I I I I I I I No of Critical Phases = 4 I i I I i I I Level of service = S I Total Critical Volume l 368 I I Volume/Capacity = 0 . 63 I I I l N/S Signal PHas ing E/W Signal Phasing I I-- I I I I II i I \ I / I I I / 1 ^ I \ I - i I < v I I v I / I <-- i I < I < „ > I - > I I --> 1 --> i I \ I \ I/ I I/ I I / I \ I \ i H I I I i I - I v i v I I or - I i I-- or i i .. i I / I \ I \ I i < .v > r <-- !• Phase S iurra i I / I ,r� c I I y ' 33091.5 i IMPAX 2 . 22 Traffic Analysis on Microcomputers Program Licensed To: Feisburg Holt & Uilev-ig . CROSS-ROADS AT DEL CAMINO PHASE II TOTAL TRAFFIC 10/11/88 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Intersection: 1-9 BUS ACCESS & CR 24 Lane Configuration and Turn Volumes I I j I i I I i f i ! I I IL 470 R 85-- T 515 \ { I { -- T 330 I v j I << ( / R GO I I \\ / I v L 40 I I Ili I I i iii i i I i i i I j i i i I I ApprI Lane Mo of Per Laneltr"iticai I Maximum Total Critic-al Volumes { Group Lanes Volume I Volume ---- I I— I Level of i Two I Three Four N8 j EXL 2 l 235 j 235 Service I Phase I Phase Phase I { I EXR 1 1 335 i i I i I i I I A I 900 } 355 825 I { I I 8 I 1050 I 1000 j 965 I I I I i 12100 I 1140 j 11100 i I I i I D I 1350 I 1275 I 1225 15100 1 142_5 I 1375 E$ ! 7 258 j 258 j I F NA j NA j NA I j EXR 1 ! 50 W8 ; EXL j j 40 I 40 I j I i T I 2 I 165 j I I Critical Volume = 533 No of Critical Phases = 3 Level of Service - A Total Critical Volurii-e I 533 j I Voluriie/Gap.city = 0 . 37 i i I i I N/S Signal Phasing E/W Signal Phasing I I I I I I I I I <-- i --I I < % I i v --> v I Ii i \I / I I I 1 ! I I I I 1 ! i 3 Phase Signal j r 890015 IMPAX 2 . 22 Traffic Analysis on Microcomputers Program: Licensed To: Felsbur•g Holt & Ulleviy . CROSSROADS AT DEL CAMINO PHASE II TOTAL TRAFFIC 10/10/86 PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Intersection : 22 CR 11 & CR 2E Lane Configuration and Turn Volumes 1 I i i i I I I i 1 I L 163 R 3i 1 :---- -- T 330 \ I I -- T 202 v I I < > i / R 279 I \ / i v L 53 i I H I i I i ii ApprI Lane INo of Per Lane ; CritL all Maximum Total Critical Volumes Group I Lanes Volume I Volume I I— I I Level of I Two ; Three Four, N8 I EXL I 1 163 I 163 1 Service I Phase I Phase Phase I I ( EXR I 1 36 1 I I I I i I I I I I I I I A I 9_00 I 855 825 I I I B ; 10150 I 100-0 965 I I i c j 12100 1 1140 1 100 i i I D I 1350 I 1275 1225 I E ( 1500 I 1425 1375 ES I T 1 2 165 i 165 F 1 NA ; NANA I EXR 1 279 I I WS 1 EXL 1 1 1 513 53 I I I T 1 2 101 { I Critical Volume - 381 i 1 I I I I No of Critical Phases 3 I I I I I I Level of Service A Total Critical Volume 381 i I Volume/Capacity -- 0 . 27 ! k I I N/S Signal Phasing E/W Signal Phasing I I I I I I I I r i I i <-- i <-- i I i I i / I / I I < - % i i v i --% v I I \ i / i f 1 I \ I I i I I I v — I I I i I i I i i I I 3 Phase Signal I I # i i 890315 I i I I r ( i 1 • Holt,F & 10-10-1933 1 >4Jl!f''to U1, ie�/i Cf UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 1 TIME PERIOD: PHASE 11 AM PK -HR JOB: "0'3-086 I 20 30 I i 220 ' I ! I ! I I I I / i \ I V V V j 10 ___/ -_/ \___ ___ 35 0 ---> <--- 0 0 0 \ / V V • j I \ I / I . I I I I I I I I I i 5 I 185 i I j I MAJOR ROADWAY j MINOR ROADWAY I (55 MPH) I (2-WAY STOP) I i ! APPROACH ' NB I S8 I EB I W8 ! i ! . ! MOVEMENT ' L ' L I L R i L R • I I i' CONTROL 1 UNC UNC STOP STOP O? I STOP STOP ' VOLUME (VPH) 0 ' 30 ' 1b 0 ! 0 35 j ' VOLUME (PCPH) 0 j 33 j 11 0 j 0 ' CONFLICTING FLOW 240 190 I 48≥ 220 I 458 138 ' CRITICAL GAP (EEC) 3 . 5 ! 5 .5 ! 8 . 0 0 . 5 I 8 . 0 0 •-5 ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY 352 i 901 I 363 704 j 378 73-3 ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY i 0 4 ' 0 I 5 IIMPEDENDE FACTOR I 1 . 00 j 00.98 j 1 . 00 ! 0 . 97 ' ACTUAL CAPACITY ' 852 I 901 j 344 704 i 370 733 I ! SHARED LANES ' I I I i IT I ;SHARED LANE CAPACITY j I ' RESERVE CAPACITY j 832 j "006 j 333 704 j 370 694 ! LEVEL DF SERVICE j A i A j B A I 8 A 'AVERAGE QUEUE ' I i 'AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) I I I I 830015 Felsbui'u Holt & Ullevig 10-10-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 1 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II PM PK HR JOB: 88-086 55 25 ' I I 160 i i I I I I I / I \ i I V V V 65 / \___ 210 0 ---> <--- 0 5 _ 5 V V I \ j / I j i i i i I I i I I i 5 0 I 580 i Ij MAJOR ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY I I i (55 MPH ) I (2-HAY STOP) I I 1 I ` !APPROACH i NB j as I EB j N6 i `, .� !MOVEMENT L j i j j ! ! CONTROL j UNC ! UNC 't STOP •�CP STOP STOP : VOLUME (VPH) j 5 I 25 j 65 5 1 5 210 I 'VOLUME (PLPH) 6 1 28 I 72 6 i 6 231 j ' CONFLICTING FLOW 215 ! 580 I 1008 160 j 830 580 ! ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) 5 . 5 j 5 . 5 8 . 0 6 . 5 I 8 . 0 6 . 5 I ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY 876 j 565 138 760 j 200 434 I ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY 1 5 1 1 53 I IIMPEUENCE FACTOR I 1 . 00 j 0 .97 1 . 00 j 0 . 56 I ! ACTUAL CAPACITY I T76 ! 555 75 760 192 µ34 I I iy j �' I ' SHARED LANES ! I i i I I j I ' ! SHARED LANE CAPACITY ! ' RESERVE 'CAPACITY ! 870 I 538 I 3 755 187 203 I I LEVEL OF SERVICE ! A I A j D `' i ' AVERAGE QUEUE j j i ! ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) j ! i I I I ' 890")1.5 Felsbur g Holt & U l av'i 910-10-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTIOON . FRONTAGE/ACCESS 2 TIME PERIOD : PHASE II AM PK HR J08: 83-O86 I 0 55 I I I 165 j I I I I I I / i \ I I v V V I 0 ---/ \--- 15 ---> <--- 0 0 ___ 10 / V V I - - I \ i i I I I I I i I I I I j 0 5 J 175 I i I j MAJOR ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY i I (55 MPH ) I ( 1 -WAY STOP) i I I (APPROACH j N6 38 I EB I WE ! MOVEMENT L I L ! CONTROL i I I ulvc STOP STOP ! VOLUME (VPH) j 55 ► 1D 15 ' VOLUME (PCPH) 61 11 17 (CONFLICTING FLOW j 180 398 178 !CRITICAL GAP (SEC) j 5 .3 8 . 0 6 . 5 ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY j 111 i 412 743 1 ( PERCENT OF CAPACITY j 7 i 2 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR 0 . 90 j 0 . 99 ' ACTUAL CAPACITY 911 j 396 743 I !SHARED LANES 1 I I I ; I I (SHARED LANE CAPACITY ! RESERVE CAPACITY ( I ^051 I I 385 726 ! LEVEL OF SERVICE 1 j A j I 6 A ( AVERAGE QUEUE I I I ; AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) f j i B3OO15 • t -sbur'y He it & U1 iev'ici 0-10-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CA-PACITY -ANALYSIZ INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS TIME -PERIOD: PHASE II PM P- HR JOB: 66-086 G 20 ; I 150 f i I I I f i I \ I V V V 0 ---/ \___ 50 0 ---> <--- D 0 15 V 'v r i I \ � I V 20 I 535 f { MAJOR -ROADWAY j MINOR ROADWAY I I ( 55 MPH) I ( 1-WAY STOP) i - I ! APPROACH I N8 I SB NE ! MOVEMENT I CONTROL ! UNC ; I STOP STOP i ! VOLUME (VPH) j 20 I j 15 50 ! VOLUME (PCPH) j -22 j j 17 55 I CONFLICTING FLOW j 555 j 1 715 545 ! CRITICAL GAP (SEC) j 5 . 5 ! j 88 . 0 5 . 5 ! POTENTIAL CAPACITY j 584 j j 248 4_59 I PERCENT DE CAPACITY I 4 I 12 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR i 0 . 98 ! I 0 . 93 ! ACTUAL CAPACITY j 5B4 ! 243 459 I f i ! SHARED LANES 1 p I j I I !SHARED LANE CAPACITY I I I f I RESERVE CAP-ADTTY I j 552 ! 226 404 ( LEVEL OF SERVICE I I A I A ! AVERAGE QUEUE !AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) I 830)15 Feisi;7urg Holt & Ui ievig 10-10-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: FRONTAGE/ACCESS 3 TIME PERIOD.: PHASE II AM PK HR JOB: 88-0-G • 0 43 ( I 130 I i I V V V 0 ---/ \_ 15 0 ---> <--- 0 0 0 i J V { j ! I 0 0 1 165 ( ( MAJDR ROADWAY i MINOR ROADWAY I ' (55 MPH ) { ( 1-WAY STOP) ` I ' APPROACH ' NB ' SB j EB W6 ( MOVEMENT 1R ' CONTROL f I UNC I STOP STOP ( VOLUME (VPH) j I 45 ( f 0 15 ( VOLUME (PCPH) I I 50 j { 0 17 ( CONFLICTING FLOW ' i 165 { 340 165 ( CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I ( 5. 5 I ( 8 .0 6 . 5 ( POTENTIAL CAPACITY ( j 927 i I 458 755 ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY I I 5 I 2 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR I I 0 . 97 f 0 . 99 ' ACTUAL CAPACITY I j 927 ( 443 755 j i I i I ' SHARED LANES I f I f i I ' SHARED LANE CAPACITY ( RESERVE CAPACITY i I 877 I i 443 739 ( LEVEL OF SERVICE j I A I ' A A ( AVERAGE QUEUE ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) ( f ! I I 890015 Felsbut'y Holt & Uilev1< 10-10-1968 UNSIGNALLZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 3 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II PM PK HR JOB: 8"a-08-6 0 55 ' I 110 I i ! i I / i i V V V ! 0 ___/ \___ 75 0 ---> <--- 0 0 0 V V j \ i / I i i i I I ! 0 5 I 480 ' ! MAJOR ROADWAY MINOR ROADWAY I I (55 MPH ) ( 1 -WAY STOP) i I � ' APPROACH I NB i $6 ; EE I NB i I i ! MOVEMENT I-CONTROL I ' UNC i STOP STOP ' VOLUME (VPH) ! ' 55 I ' 0 75 'VOLUME (PCPH) i j 61 I I 0 83 'CONFLICTING FLOW ' ' 485 I ' 648 483 ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I ' 5 . 5 I I 8. 0 6 .5 ! POTENTIAL CAPACITY ' { 636 j ' 279 502 ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY ' ! 10 ' ! 16 lIM1PEDENCE FACTOR j j 0 . 94 j I 0 . 90 ! ACTUAL CAPACITY ' j 635 ' ' 203 502 (SHARED LANES I i I I I i !SHARED LANE CAPACITY ' RESERVE CAPACITY ! ! 576 I I 263 420 ' LEVEL OF SERVICE i ! A I i C A I i ' AVERAGE QUEUE 1f,Jc•• rRAGE DELAY (SEC) I— 89 )15 Fal$burg Holt & U' lev-iy ; 0-10- 1938 UNSICNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 4 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II AM PK HR JOB: 88-086 0 0 j ! j 130 I I I I I I / I \ I j V V V 30 ___/ \___ O 0 ---> <--- 0 70 0 I \ i i i i i I 20 0 I iJ:7 .r I ! I I i MAJOR ROADWAY j MINOR ROADWAY I I ( 55 MPH) I ( 1-NAY STOP) I I I I !APPROACH j Ns I SB I ES I 46 !MOVEMENT I I j R I i ! CONTROL I UNC I I STOP STOP I j ! VOLUME (VPH) j 20 I j 30 70 !VOLUME (PCPH) j 22 ! j 33 77 ! ! CONFLICTING FLOW j 130 I I 285 130 !CRITICAL GAP (SEC) j 5 . 5 I 8 . 0 6 . 5 ! POTENTIAL CAPACITY ( 964 I I 502 790 ! PERCENT OF CAPACITY I 2 1 1 10 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR ! 0 . 99 ' 0 . 94 ' ACTUAL CAPACITY j 964 ! j 495 790 I I I I I ' SHARED LANES I I I I I ' SHARED LANE CAPACITY ! RESERVE CAPACITY ! 942 I ' 462 713 ! i ! LEVEL OF SERVICE I A I A A - !AVERAGE QUEUE I I ! ! ! ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) S30 A.5 Fe1sburu Holt & Ui 1ev iu 10-10--1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 4 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II PM PK HR JOB: 88-086 I 0 0 ! ! I 1i0 I I III I / I \ i I V V V 155 ---/ \--- 0 0 ---> 65 0 V V \\ I ! i I I 95 0 325 i 1 i 1 I ; MAJOR ROADWAY j MINOR ROADWAY (55 MPH) i ( 1-WAY STOP) ' APPROACH ' NB ' SB ; EB ; W8 ! MOVEMENT CONTROL j UNC j ; STOP STOP ; VOLUME (VPH) j 95 ; j 155 65 I I ' VOLUME (PCPH) ' 105 j 171 72 j I ! CONFLICTING FLOW I 110 [ 530 110 (CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I 5 . 5 ; 3 . 0 6 . 5 ' } ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY j 985 j 339 610 ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY I 11 ; 9 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR ' 0 . 94 i 0 . 95 ;ACTUAL CAPACITY [ 985 I I 317 810 !SHARED LANES } j I ' SHARED LANE CAPACITY [ RESERVE CAPACITY [ 880 j 146 739 I ' [ LEVEL OF SERVICE i A i I 1D A [ 1 i ; AVERAGE QUEUE 'AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) 890g1-5 • Fc,-si5Lurq Holt & Uileviq 10-10-1988 JNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 5 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II AM PK HR JOB: 88-086 • 0 50 ! I 150 i I \ I V V V ' 0 ___/ \___ 15 0 ---> <--- 0 0 5 V .y i I ! / • I 0 5 140 i i i I MAJOR ROADWAY ' MINOR ROADWAY I I (55 MPH ) I ( 1 -WAY STOP) ' APPROACH ' NB 38 ; ES WE I I i ' MOVEMENT ! CONTROL j UNC ; ' STOP STOP ' VOLUME (VPH) 5 15 ' VOLUME (PCPH) ' j 55 ' E 6 17 ' CONFLICTING FLOW ' ' 145 j ! 343 143 ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) ! j 5 . 5 ' j 8 . 0 6 . 5 ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY ' j 948 ' j 456 778 ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY j I 6 I I 2 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR ' ' 0. 97 ' ' 0 . 99 ' ACTUAL CAPACITY ' j 948 ! ' µ40 778 'SHARED LANES I I I I ! ' SHARED LANE CAPACITY ! RESERVE CAPACITY I j 893 j ' 435 761 ' LEVEL OF SERVICE I j A j A • A ' AVERAGE QUEUE ' AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) 83015 F.* i5Uu: g Hoyt & Uiiev"ig 10-10-1968 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 5 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II PM PK HR JOB: 688-086 0 55 ! 120 I i i f i V V V 0 ___/ 80 0 ---> <--- 0 0 :] V V I i i I I i 1 0 5 1 340 i I i i MAJOR ROADWAY ! MINOR ROADWAY I I (55 MPH) I ( 1 -WAY STOP) ! APPROACH I NB ! S8 I EB j WE ( MOVEMENT I I L ! L !CONTROL I UNC I i STOP STOP ! VOLUME (VPH) 55 `r 5 80 ! VOLUME (PCPH) ! 61 I 6 88 ! CONFLICTING FLOW j 345 w 518 343 !CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I 5 . 5 j 8 .0 6 . 5 ! POTENTIAL CAPACITY I 752 j 345 606 ! PERCENT OF CAPACITY I 8 I 15 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR I 0 . 95 0 . 91 ! ACTUAL CAPACITY j I 752 j 329 606 !SHARED LANES i i i i i ! SHARED LANE CAPACITY ! RESERVE CAPACITY I ! 692 I • 323 518 ! LEVEL OF SERVICE j j A j 8 A ! AVERAGE QUEUE I I I ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) 890 315 Fil5Uury Holt & Ui evig 0-10-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 8 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II AM PK HR JOB: 88-086 5 0 I I 150 I I % I \ ' V V V 2 5 ___/ \--- 0 0 ---> <--- 0 0 0 V V I I j i i I j I I 0 120 I i j I I 1 MAJOR ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY I • I (55 MPH) I ( I-WAY STOP) I i � 'APPROACH I N6 38 j E6 I 46 !MOVEMENT j 1 j I iCONTROL I UNC STOP STOP ( VOLUME (VPH) 1 5 25 0 I i ' VOLUME (PCPH) 1 6 28 0I I ! CONFLICTING FLOW I 155 I 278 153 j I !CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I 5 . 5 1 8 . 0 6 . 5 1 I ! POTENTIAL CAPACITY I 937 1 508 768 ! PERCENT OF CAPACITY 1 1 1 0 j I fIMPEDENCE FACTOR 1 1 . 00 1 . 00 j 1 (ACTUAL CAPACITY I 937 j 500 768 1 i i I I I I ' SHARED LANES ! I I I I 1 I I I ! SHARED LANE CAPACITY IRE3ERVE CAPACITY I 932 ! j 4-79 768 I ( LEVEL OF SERVICE I A I i H A I 1 !AVERAGE QUEUE ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) 890015 =elsburg Holt & Ullev1g 10-10-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 6 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II PM PK HR JOB: 88-086 I 5 0 I T 120 I f I / I \ I I V V V I 150 ---/ \___ 0 0 ---> <--- 0 5 0 V V I \ ! / I I i I i 1 1 0 I 195 I I I I i ( MAJOR ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY ( (55 MPH) T ( 1 -WAY STOP) i I ( ! APPROACH I N8 j S8 I EB 1 W8 i i j I 1 ! MOVEMENT j L j I L R !CONTROL z UNC I STOP STOP (VOLUME (V PH) I 5 I 150 5 f 1 (VOLUME (PCPH) I 6 ! 165 6 ! ! CONFLICTING FLOW I 125 j 323 123 ;CRITICAL GAP (SEC) ! ;. 5 j 8 .0 6 . 5 ! I ( POTENTIAL CAPACITY j 969 1 472 798 ! ! ! PERCENT OF CAPACITY I .IMPEDENCE FACTOR ! 1 . 00 j 1 .00 TACTUAL CAPACITY 969 1 470 798 ! ! ! SHARED LANES I 1 l ( !SHARED LANE CAPACITY ! RESERVE CAPACITY i 963 ! I 305 792 i I ! LEVEL OF SERVICE I A I ! a A e i i 1 ! AVERAGE QUEUE ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) 530015 Felsbur a Holt & U1 1ev iy 10-08-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 7 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II AM PK HR JOB: 88-086 I 0 30 I I I 120 I I I / I \ I I V V V i __-/ \_-- 10 0 ---> <--- 0 -0 5 V V I \ f / f ' 0 5 ' 115 MAJOR ROADWAY MINOR ROADWAY (55 MPH) ( 1-WAY STOP) !APPROACH N8 i SB ES I W8 ' MOVEMENT I I L i 1 L R ' CONTROL I I UNC i STOP STOP ' VOLUME (VPH) 30 5 10 ' VOLUME (PCPH) 33 8 11 ' CONFLICTING FLOW 120 268 60 ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) 5 . 5 8. 0 6 . 5 ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY 974 516 860 IPERCENT OF CAPACITY 3 1 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR 0 . 98 0 . 99 ' ACTUAL CAPACITY 974 506 860 'SHARED LANES ! I I ' SHARED LANE CAPACITY I I I ' RESERVE CAPACITY , ' 941 I I 500 849 ' LEVEL OF SERVICE i ( A I A A I I I I f IAVERAGE QUEUE ( AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) I I f I 89Ct45 Fe1sbu+'g HolL & U11ev-ig 10-088-19888 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: FRONTAGE/ACCESS 7 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II PM PK HR JOB: 888-0886 I 0 30 I I 95 I I / i \ ' V V V I 0 __-/ \___ 45 D ---> <--- 0 0 _ 5 V V I - f I \ i i I I III I I III I 0 5 f 155 f I MAJOR ROADWAY ' MINOR ROADWAY I (55 MPH) I ( 1-WAY STOP) I ' APPROACH I N8 38 I E8 I WS I I I ! I I 'MOVEMENT I � i 'CONTROL j UNC STOP STOP I ' VOLUME (VPH) i 30 5 45 'VOLUME (PCPH) I 33 6 50 I ' CONFLICTING FLOW j 160 283 80 I ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) 5 .5 8 . 0 6 . 5 I ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY 932 504 840 ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY 4 6 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR 0 . 98 j 0 . 96 ' ACTUAL CAPACITY 932 I 493 840 I I i I f ' SHARED LANES i I I 'SHARED LANE CAPACITY ' RESERVE CAPACITY i 899 I I 488 791 I ' LEVEL OF SERVICE I A I i A A I ' AVERAGE QUEUE I I I ' AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) i i I i I I 890015 Frlsvur•g Holt & UlievI' 10-08-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : FRONTAGE/ACCESS 8 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II AM PAC HR JOB: 88-086 ' 0 60 ! I 65 I I I I / I \ V V V I 0 ___/ \___ 15 O ---> <--- 0 0 10 V 'v I - I \ I I I I i I i I I I I D 20 1 105 I i MAJOR ROADWAY MINOR ROADWAY (55 MPH) ( 1--WAY STOP) I I ' APPROACH NB I S8 EB WS I 1 f I ! MOVEMENT I I i I ! CONTROL ! UNC j STOP STOP ! VOLUME (VPH) ! 60 10 15 ! VOLUME (PCPH) j 66 11 17 ! ! CONFLICTING FLOW I 125 2-40 63 ICRITICAL GAP (SEC) 1 5 . 5 8 . 0 6 . 5 ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY I 969 538 858 ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY I 7 2 1IMPEDENCE FACTOR I 0 . 96 i 0 . 99 TACTUAL CAPACITY ' 969 516 858 ! SHARED LANES I I ' SHARED LANE CAPACITY i ( RESERVE CAPACITY ! 903 505 841 ( LEVEL OF SERVICE j A A A ' AVERAGE QUEUE ' AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) I ! ! I i I I 89CD15 F 1 bury Holt & Ulicvfy 10-08-1968 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION FRONTAGE/ACCESS 8 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II PM PK HR JOB: 88-085 I D 15 ' 1 I 85 I I I I I I I I / 1 \ i i V V V I 0 ___/ \-__ 50 0 ---> <--- 0 0 15 V V I \ f i I 1I I i I I I I 0 10 110 I I ( MAJOR ROADWAY MINOR ROADWAY (55 MPH) ( 1 -WAY STOP) I f ' APPROACH NB 38 E8 ' W8 1 i I ' MOVEMENT 1 1 1 I ' CONTROL UNC 1 j STOP STOP ' VOLUME (VPH) 15 I 15 50 'VOLUME (PCPH) 17 ' 17 -55 ' CONFLICTING FLOW i 120 ' 215 60 ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) 5 . 5 8.0 6 . 5 ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY 974 558 860 ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY 2 6 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR 0 . 99 0 . 96 ' ACTUAL CAPACITY 974 552 860 I i I ' SHARED LANES I i 1 1 ' SHARED LANE CAPACITY I f I I ' RESERVE CAPACITY ( 958 I 536 805 ' LEVEL OF SERVICE ' A I A A 1 ' AVERAGE QUEUE I I I ' AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) ' I 53001.5 ._i bury Holt 8( U 1 i v i g 10-1 ;)-1988 UNSIGNALIZED IN : mrcazCTICN CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 24/ACCESS 1 TIME PERIOD: PHASE : I AM PK HR JOS: 88--086 Le, I i I I / I \ I I V V V , O / \___ 0 --- 1015 ---> <--- 550 145 ___ 0 ` / V V I \ I ' ' I I i i / i I i i I 0 5 I r V I I MAJOR ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY ' I i (55 MPH) I ( 1-WAY STOP) i I i i ! APPROACH I ES W8 i N8 I SB I I i i I ; I MOVEMENT I R ! CONTROL I i ' STOP ! VOLUME (VPH) I I I j I ' VOLUME (PCPH) I I I 6 I i ! CONFLICTING FLOW I I I 508 I 'CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I i I 6 . 5 I I ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY I I I 485 I i ! PERCENT OF CAPACITY I I I 1 ' i IIMPEOENCE FACTOR I I 0 . 99 I IACTUAL CAPACITY I I I 485 I i I I I I i ; SHARED LANES I I I I i I ! I i !SHARED LANE CAPACITY I i i I i RESERVE CAPACITY I i I 479 I : LEVEL OF SERVICE A I I i i 1 i ;AVERAGE QUEUE I i i : • AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) I j i • 830015 We1Gburq Hc1t & Ui 1eV'IQ 0-i -1 .788 JNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 24/ACCESS 1 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II PM PK HR J08: 83-085 0 C I 0 1 I i I ! j i / ; \ ! I 'v V V I D ---/ \--- 0 820 ---> <--- 1455 24D 0 V V I ' I \\ / I I I I j I I I I I I I 0 50 j 0 I ? I I I I MAJOR ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY I I I (55 MPH) I ( 1 - AY STOP) I I f f I jAPPROACH I ES I W8 I N8 I 58 I I I ! I I I ' MOVEMENT I R I I CONTROL i j j STOP I ' ' VOLUME (VPH) j i I 50 j I ' VOLUME (PCPH) I I I 55 I I ' CONFLICTING FLOW I I I 410 I I !CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I I I 5 .E I I !POTENTIAL CAPACITY I I I 553 I I ( PERCENT OF CAPACITY I I I 10 I I IIMPEDENCE FACTOR I I I 0 . 94 I I ' ACTUAL CAPACITY I I I 553 I I I I I I I I [SHARED LANES ' I I I I I ' SHARED LANE CAPACITY I I j I I ' RESERVE CAPACITY i I I 498 ' LEVEL OF SERVICE • I A I I • AVERAGE CUEUE I I I I DELAY \ (SEC) E C\ I I 1 AVERAGE ELAY (SEC ) i i I 890J15 • • • J-V9- I9GC Fe1sbury Hui: & Ullev1y UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 24/ACCESS 2 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II AM PK HR JO3 338-086 0 0 I I I G I i III ' . I / I \ I I V V V i 0 / \--- 0 775 ---> <--- 430 65 -- 0 V V I - - ! I \ I / I I I ! I I I I I I ' 0 5 0 I I I MAJOR ROADWAY MINOR ROADWAY i I (55 MPH) I ( 1-WAY STOP) I ' SB ' APPROACH I EB W8 I N8 I I I I I ( MOVEMENT I R ' CONTROL I STOP ' VOLUME (VPH) i I 5 k f ' VOLUME (PCPH) I 6 388 II j ' CONFLICTING FLOW I ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) j 6 .5 ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY 570 I ! ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY 1 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR ' 0 . 99 ' I ; ACTUAL CAPACITY I I 570 I I I I 1 ! SHARED LANES I ! I I I { I ' SHARED LANE CAPACITY { RESERVE CAPACITY I i I 565 A { LEVEL OF SERVICE I i I ' . ; AVERAGE QUEUE I j ! • IAVERAGE DELAY (SEC) i I I 1 330')15 10-09-1288F'elsbury Holt & U11evi+t UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 24/ACCESS 2 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II PM PK HR JOB: 33-086 I u 0 I I f i I I I I 1 \ I I V V V 0 -__/ \--- ° 590 ---> <--- 785 150 0 --- V V / I \ f / I I I i I i I I I I I I° 35 0 ! I MINOR ROADWAY ( MAJOR ROADWAY I I (0 5 MPH ) I ( 1-WAY STOP) I I( i 1 Ng SB ' APPROACH EB ! !AB , I i � ! MOVEMENT I R • f STOP ! CONTROL ; i ! 'VOLUME (VPH) I I I 35 I IVOLUME ( PCPH) j I 39 I ( CONFLICTING FLOW ; I I 295 I i ; CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I i 6 . 5 1 ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY I 1 I 644 ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY I I I 6 I IIMPEDENCE FACTOR i I I 0 . 96 ! ACTUAL CAPACITY i 644 ' f I I I I ! SHARED LANES 1 i I I i I ( SHARED LANE CAPACITY I I I ! RESERVE CAPACITY I I I 606 I ! LEVEL OF SERVICE I I I A i i i ( AVERAGE CUEUE ! ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) i i i I i 83G-)15 F t-'fsbuPg Holt: & U I Ieviu 10-09-1 .258 r UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 24/ACCESS 3 PHASE :OB: 38^'086 TIME PERIOD: II AM PK HR ; I 0 0 I 0 I I I I I I I / I \ i i v V V i 0 __-/ \_-_ 505 ---> -- 330 275 __- 80 \ V V I \ i %^ 1 I 1 I I I I I I 50 15 I 0 I I E MINOR ROADWAY I 1 MAJOR ROADWAY I i (55 MPH) i (1-WAY STOP) I i I I ! [ APPROACH I ES W$ N8 SB i ! MOVEMENT I ! L R I i ; CONTROL i I UNC STOP STOP VOLUME (VPH ) 1 30 I 50 15 I I ' VOLUME (PCPH) 1 ; 38 ; 55 17 ; CONFLICTING FLOW ; I 730 1 1103 253 I ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC ) I I & - 0 8 . 5 6 . 5 ( POTENTIAL CAPACITY ; j 381 I 100 678 I ! PERCENT OF CAPACITY i 23 I 2 I; I IIMPEDENCE FACTOR I I 0 . 83 j 0.99 ! ACTUAL CAPACITY I I 381 i 34 07 I I I I I I I i I ; SHARED LANES I j I ; SHARED LANE CAPACITY I I I 662 i ; RESERVE CAPACITY 1 1 293 ! 29 ; LEVEL OF SERVICE I C I E A I l ? ! AVERAGE QUEUE ! i i 1 ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) I I I ,- • 893315 10-09-1988 Fe1burg Hobs & U11evig UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 24/ACCESS 3 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II PM PK HR OB: 83-085 0 V ! n I 0 I I j j I I j / 1 \ i j V V V j 0 / \___ 0 503 ---% <--- 735 120 ___ 60 \ / V V I " - I \ j / I I } I I I I I 1 1 45 75 j 0 ! } MAJOR ROADWAY MINOR ROADWAY 1 } (55 MPH) j ( 1-WAY STOP) } I SE ! APPROACH } ES i WB i N8 ' I i I i I L R ! MOVEMENT ! ? L. i ; CONTROL ! j UNC STOP STOP ! VOLUME (VPH) ! q 50 ! 45 75 I i ! VOLUME (PCPH) I j 66 i 50 83 253 ! '• ' CONFLICTING FLOW j I 525 j 1350 6.55 j ! ! CRITICAL GAP (SEC) j j 5 . 0 I 8 . 5 'POTENTIAL CAPACITY j } 466 j 56 PERCENT OF CAPACITY j j 14 ! 12 j 0 . 91 1 0 . 92 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR I � "078 ' ACTUAL CAPACITY j I 466 j 51 I I j ' SHARED LANES j I I ' SHARED LANE CAPACITY ' RESERVE CAPACITY j I 400 j 2 596 ' LEVEL OF SERVICE I j A E A I j j j ! AVERAGE QUEUE ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) j i i 890015 • .0-cs- . 2aa Feisbur'y Holt & Ul ievic UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 24/ACCESS ,l TIME PERIOD: PHASE II AM PK HR JOB: 88-085 . I 0 0 ! I I 0 i i • ' 1 ' 1 / 1 \ V V V 0 / \--- 0 485 ---> <--- 460 35 ---, /--- 0 f V i 1 \ I / I 1 1 I I I I 1 j I 1 0 5 I 0 1 I 1 - j MAJOR ROADWAY ' MINOR ROADWAY I (55 MPH) j ( 1-WAY STOP) I I NB ; ; APPROACH i Fg I WB ; �B I I I 1 MOVEMENT 1 ' CONTROL i I i STOP I 'VOLUME (VPH) i I I 5 1 1 ( VOLUME (PCPH) I 1 j 6 24 ' I 'CONFLICTING FLOW 1 3 'CRITICAL GAP (SEC) i 6 .686 5 1 I ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY 1 1 1 ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY 1 I 1 . 00 1 ! 1 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR I ' ACTUAL CAPACITY I 686 { , 'SHARED LANES I j i I ' SHARED LANE CAPACITY 'RESERVE CAPACITY I I ' 681 I I ' LEVEL OF SERVICE ' I A I ( AVERAGE QUEUE ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) I I 1 i I i I i • : 0-G9- . 838 Fe15bur'y HQi L & Ui 1 evil UNSIGNALIZED INTcrcack. IION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 24/ACCESS 4 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II PM PK HR JOB: 88-085 I 0 0 1 ! i U i 1 1 i i I i i I \ I I V V V I 0 / \--- D ___ 570 -__> <--- 800 10 0 -- V V i \ I / I { I I I 1 I I i I 1 i 0 5 I 0 I I 1 i MAJOR ROADWAY ' MINOR ROADWAY j (55 MPH) I ( 1-WAY STOP) { I i 'APPROACH I EB WB NB I SB E ' MOVEMENT I I I R ' CONTROL ' 1 1 STOP 'VOLUME (VPH) j j j 5 l I ' VOLUME (PCPH) i 1 I G ' CONFLICTING FLOW { f 1 285 ! I ; CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I I I 0 . 5 r ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY I I { 652 ! PERCENT OF CAPACITY ' I I 1 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR I 1 I 0 -_99 ! ACTUAL CAPACITY 1 I 352 { f I i I ' SHARED LANES ' SHARED LANE CAPACITY I I 1 IR-ESERVE CAPACITY I I I 647 LEVEL OF SERVICE I A I i f ' AVERAGE QUEUE 1 I I ' AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) I { i F-e burq Holt & U11ev'ig 10-08-188 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 24/CR 9 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II AM PK HR JOB: 88-086 I 10 10 i I I I I i I i j i I / i \ I I V V V i I 10 / \___ 10 205 ---- <--- 485 0 _ _ _ 0 V V I \ I / I I I I I I I I { 0 0 i 0 I I I i I MAJOR ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY I 1 (55 MPH) j ( 1-WAY STOP) ! APPROACH Ij ES I W8 I NB I Z8 I I I n ! MOVEMENT i L I I L ► I i ! CONTROL i UN-C I j STOP STOP !VOLUME (VPH) ! 10 { I I 10 10 i ! VOLUME (PCPH ) 1 11 I I I 11 11 { CONFLICTING FLOW i 495 I I 705 248 ! CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I _6 . 0 I I 8 . 5 6 . 5 ! POTENTIAL CAPACITY ! 554 j 1 1 223 662 IPERCENT OF CAPACITY 2 1 I 1 2 ! IMPEDENCE FACTOR j 0 . 99 I { 0 . 99 ! ACTUAL CAPACITY I 554 I ! 220 682 I { I I I ; SHARED LANES I 1 I I _R I I I ! SHARED LANE CAPACITY I j 333 ; RESERVE CAPACITY j 543 i ! I 311 ! LEVEL OF SERVICE j A I I I 8 I IAVERAGE QUEUE I IAVERAGE DELAY (SEC) I 'I - I I 59 '` 15 Feisuurg H.°1 & Ullevig 10-03-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 24/CR 0 TIME PERIOD : PHASE II PM PK HR JOB: 30-036 i 10 10 1 1 1 0 1 I 1 1 1 1 ! 1 / 1 \ 1 1 V V V I 10 / \___ 10 600 -_-> <--- 360 0 _ 0 --- \ V V \ 1 / I 1 ! 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 I MAJOR ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY 1 1 (55 MPH) 1 ( 1-WAY STOP) ! APPROACH ; ES WS 1 NB I $6 1 j R ! MOVEMENT L I - ! CONTROL II UNC I I STOP STOP 1 ! VOLUME (VPH) 10 j ! 1 1O 10 ! VOLUME (PCPH ) 11 I I f 11 11 ! CONFLICTING FLOW 370 ! ! j 975 185 ! CRITICAL GAP (SEC) I 6 . 0 I j 1 8 . 5 6 . 5 I ! POTENTIAL CAPACITY 1 047 j I I 128 735 I ! PERCENT OF CAPACITY 2 I 1 I 1 IIMPEDENCE F-ACTOR 0 . 99 I I 0 . 99 ! ACTUAL CAPACITY 1 647 1 I 1 126 735 I 1 1 I ! !SHARED LANES I I 1 I LR I E, ! 215 !SHARED LANE CAPACITY I ! RESERVE CAPACITY I 636 j I j 1-93 I � ! LEVEL OF SERVICE 1 A I D I I H ! I ! AVERAGE QUEUE ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) ! I ! ! w 5 • Felsbui'u Ho i L & U s levig 10-09-1988 UNSI3NA'LIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 11/ACCESS i TIME PERIOC : PHASE II AM PK HR JOB: 8-8-086 i 10 0 ` I I 100 I i I I I ' ( I I I \ i 1 V V V I -40 / \�__ 0 0 ---> -- 0 5 __ ___ 0 \ / �V V / . I I I I I I I I 5 0 I 260 . MAJOR ROADWAY j MINOR ROADWAY I i (25 MPH) I ( 1 —w;AY STOP) II APPROACH { NB I 3B ! EE i lti8 ; MOVEMENT L L R ! CONTROL j UNC j j STOP STOP 5 j VOLUME (VPH)) 5 I ! 40 `' ' s ! VOLUME (PCPH) 6 I j 44 6 ; CONFLICTING FLOW 110 I j 37—G 105 { I ! CRITICAL GAP (SEC) 5 . 0 j j 6 . 5 5 . 5 ; POTENTIAL CAPACITY 1079 I j 584 99D IP-RCENT OF CAPACITY 1 ; j 1 ! IMPEDENCE FACTOR 1 . 00 i ! 1 . 00 ! ACTUAL CAPACITY I 1079 I ; 582 990 f ! I ! 1 ;SHARED LANES I I I I ( ! f ! SHARED LANE CAPACITY I I ! RESERVE CAPACITY { 1074 i ; 538 984 ; LEVEL OF SERVICE ; A I A A I ; AVERAGE QUEUE ; AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) • I f ' { 330)15 Fe isburg Hu1 t & U11e3v iy 10-09-19688 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 1 1/ACCESS 1 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II PM PK HR JOB: 88-086 i 40 0 j 1 295 I i i I 1 I I / I \ j V V V I 20 ___/ \___ 0 0 ---> <--- 0 5 _ 0 V v 1 I / I I I I 1 i I I I 5 0 180 jMAJOR ROADWAY I MIN0-R ROADWAY TOP)(25 MPH) ' ( 1 -WAY S .• 1 I ' APPROACH j NB j 3B j ES 4•J8 I - I I R [•4OVEh1E1vT I L i I L . ' CONTROL j UNC I j STOP STOP ' VOLUME (VPH) j 5 I 20 5 ' VOLUME (PCPH) ' 6 1 22 6 ' CONFLICTING FLOW I 335 1 500 315 ' I ' CRITICAL GAP (-SEC) ' 5 . 0 1 6 . 5 5 .5 ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY I 859 ± 490 721 1 ' ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY j 1 1 1 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR ! 1 . 00 1 . 00 'ACTUAL CAPACITY I 859 j 488 781 ! ' SHARED LANES I I I . I 'SHARED LANE CAPACITY RESERVE CAPACITY 1 853 ! 466 775 ! LEVEL OF SERVICE I A j j A A 'AVERAGE QUEUE ! AVE;RAGE DELAY (SEC) I i . 890015 F&1burq Holt & U i i eV19 10-09-1988 UNSiGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 11/ACCESS 2 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II AM -iC -HR ,:0S: 88-086 I 10 0 i i 95 I I ! III • 1 / i \ ; V V v i 40 / \___ 0 0 ---> <--- 0 5 _ 0 V V I 1 \ I / I I I 1 i 1 1 I 1 1 5 0 I 225 1 I- I- 1 I MAJOR ROADWAY j MINOR ROADWAY I I ( 25 MPH) I ( 1 -WAY STOP) I I- IAPPRQACH ' NB j 38 j `8 { WE i ( MOVEMENT j L. I i L R ? i ; CONTROL I UNC j ! STOP STOP ( VOLUME (V-PH) I5 40 5 I i ;VOLUME (PCPH) I T j 44 6 I i ( CONFLICTING FLOW I 105 I 330 100 ( I 'CRITICAL GAP (SEC) ; 5 . 0 1 8 .5 5 . 5 1 i ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY I 1085 1 616 995 ; PERCENT OF CAPACITY i 1 1 IIMPEDENC- FACTOR 1 . 00 j 1 . 00 1 ! (ACTUAL CAPACITY j 1085 ; I 614 995 1 ; SHARED LANES I 1 I ! SHARED LANE CAPACITY I I 1 I I ! RESERVE CAPACITY I 1079 { { 570 9-90 I I ! LEVEL OF SERVICE I A A A i I `AVERAGE QUEUE I I 1 I 1 ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) ! I I i • I 899®15 Felsbur9 Holt & U11dv"i9 10-09-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 11/ACCESS 2 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II PM Pn HR JOB: 888-086 ' 40 0 ; 1 260 I 1 j I 1 r i \ I ! v •r v 1 20 ___/ \___ 0 0 ---> <--- o 5 _ o v v I \ j % j I I 1 1 i I I 5 0 I 165 II MAJOR ROADWAY MINOR ROADWAY I (25 MPH) ( 1-WAY STOP) ! APPROACH I NB 1 3E ES ! 46 R I— I i I T�OVEMENT i L 1 i ! CONTROL j UNC 1 j STOP STOP ! VOLUME (VPH) ; 0 i ! 2C 5 I ! ! VOLUME (PCPH) ! 5 j i 22 6 1 ' ICONPLICTIN.G FLOW 1 300 j j 450 290 I I ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) ' 5 . 0 k 1 6 . 5 5 . 5 I I ! POTENTIAL CAPACITY I 890 j j 525 814 'PERCENT OF CAPACITY I 1 I I 1 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR I 1 . 00 j I 1 . 00 ! ACTUAL CAPACITY ' 090 I ' 523 814 ' ! t i ! i- ;SHARED LANES I ' SHARED LANE CAPACITY ! RESERVE CAPACITY 1 885 i 501 309 ! ; ; LEVEL OF SERVICE I A I I A A ! j ; AVERAGE QUEUE ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) I I 890015 • Felsbu:'y Holt & U i1-v-ig 10-09-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR 11/ACCESS 3 TIME PERIOD : PHASE II AM PK 1'rR •JOB: 68-086 0 ' i I 65 i 1 I ! i i i I / I \ i i V V V I 80 ___/ \.,, 0 0 ---> <--- 0 10 --_\ /___ 0 V V I - - - j I \ I / I I I I I I I I I I I I 5 0 I 150 { I MINOR ROADWAY 1 MAJOR ROADWAY I (25 MPH) ( 1 -.JAY STOP) I [ APPROACH NB f SB E-B `fig MOVEMENT I L L R i ! I !CONTROL ! UNC I I STOP STOP '. [ VOLUME (VPH) j 5 I I 80 10 1 i !VOLUME (PCPH) I 6 I I 88 11 j I !CONFLICTING FLDW I 100 ! I 238 83 i I !CRITICAL GAP (SEC) 1 5 . 0 1 I 6 .5 5 . 5 I ! ! POTENTIAL CAPACITY I 1090 I I 690 1013 ! PERCENT DF CAPACITY i 1 I I 1 IIMPEDENCE FACTOR 1 . 00 I 1 0 . 99 ! ACTUAL CAPACITY I 1090 I I 688 1013 i • I I I i ' ! SHARED LANES I f 1 I I !SHARED LANE CAPACITY ! RESERVE CA-PACITY ; 1085 i 1 300 1002 [ LEVEL OF SERVICE ! A I ! -A A !AVERAGE QUEUE I I ! AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) I I i 890015 Ft3 sbut'y Hu1 t: & U1 1.eviq 10-09- 1088 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CC-R 11/ACCESS 3 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II PM PK HR JOB: 88-086 i 95 0 I I I 170 } I ! I I / I \ 1 I V V V 1 60 ___/ \___ 0 0 ---> <--- 0 5 0 --- ,\ �-- V V I I \ I / I I I I I I I I I I I 1D 0 i10 I I } MINOR ROADWoAY I MAJOR ROADWAY j 1 I (25 MPH ) } ( 1 —WAY —STOP) ' APPROACH } NB j SB } E8 I ''48 + E i MOVEMENT I L I — R ,j CONTROL j UNC I i STOP STOP ' I ' VOLUME (VPH) j 10 I 1 60 5 'VOLUME (PCPH) 1 11 I 65 6 ' CONFLICTING FLOW } 205 i 336 218 }CRITICAL GAP (EEC) j 5 . 0 I 6 .5 5 . 5 ! POTENTIAL CAPACITY j 922 ! 610 873 ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY 1 j 1 ! IMPEDENCE FACTOR } 0 . 99 I i 1 . 00 'ACTUAL CAPACITY } 922 j j 606 873 } } ! I I I ( SHARED LANES }SHARED LANE CAPACITY ' RESERVE CAPACITY 1 911 j 1 540 868 i = ' LEVEL OF SERVICE I A I I A A I + I f I !AVERAGE QUEUE I I I ? AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) 590015 Feisbury Ho i L a U1 iev iy 10-09-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS • INTERSECTION : CR 11 /ACCESS 4 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II AM PK HR JOB: 83-086 I 35 0 I I 140 I I i I I I / I \ j I V V V I 85 ___/ \--- 0 0 ---; <--- 0 5 0 V V - i \ ; / I I I I I I I 5 0 ' 70 1 it I T { MAJOR ROADWAY j MINOR ROADWAY (25 MPH) ' ( 1-WAY STOP) I t i t 'APPROACH j N8 i SE j ES ' NS ' MOVEMENT ICONTROL I UNC STOP STOP j I ' VOLUME (VPH) j 5 I o5 S t I 'VOLUME (PCPH) j o j 94 ! CONFLICTING FLOW I 75 I 133 58 ' CRITICAL GAP (SEC) ' 5 .0 j 6 . 5 5 . 5 { POTENTIAL CAPACITY I 1118 I ! 788 1040 ' PERCENT OF CAPACITY i 0 j I 1 I Ii'H—PEDENCE FACTOR ' 1 . 00 s j 1 . 00 TACTUAL CAPACITY } 1118 I I 785 1040 ' SHARED LANES ; SHARED LANE CAPACITY ! RESERVE CAPACITY i 1112 I j 692 1034 i I ;.LEVEL OF SERVICE T A ' AVERAGE QUEUE I I I I I ; AVERAGE DELAY (SEC) I 590015 Felybur'g Holt & U11eviy 10-09-1988 UNSIGNALIZED INTcrcacL.. l IJN CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION : CR i1/'ACCESS 4 TIME PERIOD: PHASE II PM PK HR JOB: 88-086 95 0 I ! 80 I fill 1 / 1 \ I V V V 60 -__/ \--- 0 0 ---> <--- 0 5 0 V V - 1 I \ j / I 1 j f I I I I I ! 1 6 0 I 60 I I I I I I MAJOR ROADWAY I MINOR ROADWAY 1 I ( 25 MPH ) I ( 1-WAY STOP) !APPROACH j NB j 3B j EB j NB ' MOVEMENT L I I L R ! CONTROL UNC STOP STOP !VOLUME (VPH) I 5 60 5 I I ( VOLUME (PCPH) i 6 66 6 I ! CONFLICTING FLOW j 175 1a3 128 I I ! CRITICAL GAP (SEC) j 5 .0 6 . 5 5 . 5 ' POTENTIAL CAPACITY ' 1008 728 -96G IPERCENT OF CAPACITY I 1 1 I iM-PED.ENCE FACTOR j 1 . 00 j 1 . 00 ' ACTUAL CAPACITY ' 1008 i I 725 966 1 I I I I ' SHARED LANES ! SHARED LANE CAPACITY I I I 1 I !RESERVE CAPACITY I 1002 I 1 659 961 1 ! ' LEVEL OF SERVICE 1 A I I A A I ! AVERAGE QUEUE I I I 1 ! ' AVERAGE DELAY 3EC) • 890015 • COST CESTIMATE FOR CROSSROADS DEL CAMINO �� DECROAD 24, COUNTY ROAD 11 1 7 1988 AND FRONTAGE -ROAD RELOCATION BUILD OUT Weld IA- uln iiii ii W Iwn CL]L ITEM UNIT LOST TOTAL COST 1. Signalization at 3 intersections: a) Co. Rd. 24 & Co. Rd. 11 $ 50,000 b) Relocated Frontage Rd. & ED. Rd. 24 50,0_00 c) Additional road intersection onto Co. Rd. 24 50,000 3 150,000 2. 5,400 ft. of Co. Rd. 24 buildout (64' wide asphalt width with C. & G. both sides). 3110+/Lin. Ft $ 594,000 3. 2,658 ft. of Co. Rd. 11 buildout (40' wide asphalt width with C. & G. both sides) $74+/Lin. Ft. $ 197,000 TOTAL ITEMS 1 THROUGH 3 $ 941,000 lb% Contingency (Engineering Fees, etc. ) $ 141,150 TOTAL $ 1,082,150 NOTE: Items 1 — 3 subject to future participation by adjacent landowners. 4. 3,200 feet of Frontage Road relocation by State Highway Department (40' asphalt width with C. & G. both sides) . $74+/Lin. Ft. $ 237,000 15% Contingency 35,550 TOTAL $ 272,550 890015 E.xi>,1 ' �1 December 6 , 1988 E8 g 1988 Weld County Commissioners : ' yF2 wk 1 EJ -Please address the following issues regarding the proposal to allow 600 mobile homes on Road '24 & 11 . 1 . 600 mobile homes will conservatively bring 1000 children to the area . Wh-er-e willthey be educated ? Mead is overflowing a-nd Frederick is filled to capacity . 2 . Fire protection— where and at whose expense ? Volunteer or paid ? If volunteer— consider that most home owners will commute to employment and will not be available . 3 . Police— If Weld Co . Sheriff said they would have an average response time to Datono of 18 minutes , what kind of time table could they provide out here? I already pay taxes for police protection that is for all extents and purposes—non— existant . I won ' t pay more for less protection . 4 . Roads- have you ever drive-n on Rd 24 East from Del Camino ? I 'm sure not . How about in a snow storm. . . The development will considerably increase traffic of Road 22 (my road ) and my kids have to walk along that road to catch a school bus . 5 . Aroma— country living— Unless you know something about the eattleyard that we don ' t . _Most "city" people will not tolerate the smell or the dust in the summer . That is not a small issue . Although we live more than the legal distance that mandates you contact us , this will have a serious inpact on our quality of life in Weld County . I realize that the County is financially hurting , but development should take into consideration the people who already pay their taxes to Weld County . The billboards along th-e interstate currently make it appear that you are entering a cheap commercial ar-ea on th-e outskirts of some city . I certainly don ' t want that image wh-ere I live and I would hope that the image of Weld County is as important as th-e "Dollars" . ncerely , Pat Wachholtz 4875 Weld County R 22 Longmont , Colorado 80501 p 89001 DATE: November 21 , 1988 TO: The -Board of County Commissioners Weld County, Colorado FROM: Clerk to the Board Office Commissioners: If you have no objections, we have tentatively set the following hearing for the 4th day -of January, 1988 , at 10 :00 A.M. Docket No. 88-77 - Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) and C-3 (Commercial) to Planned Unit Development (C-3 , C-4 , I-1 , R-3 , and R-5) uses as listed in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the open-cut mining of sand and gravel - Grant Brothers/Fifthcoff Company OFFICE OF THE CLER TO THE BOARD BY: '7 Deputy The above mentioned hearing date and hearing time may be scheduled on the agenda as stated above. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WEL OUNTY, CO ORADO _Al �3 -GC 990015 c-11 -rt Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission November 15, 1988 Page 2 - The Chairman called fcr discussion from the members of the Planning Commission. There was no further discussion. The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the -members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Rick Iverson - yes; Lynn Brown - yes; Jerry Burnett - yes; Inn Garrison - yes; Jerry Kiefer - yes; Ernie Ross - yes; Bud Halldorson - yes. Motion carried unanimously. CASE NUMBER: 2-447 APPLICANT: Grant Brothers/Fifthcoff Company REQUEST: A change of zone from A (Agricultural) and C-3 (Commercial) to PUD (C-3, C-4, I-I_ , R-3, and R-5) uses as listed in the [veld County Zoning Ordinance and the open mining of sand and gravel. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The Ni of Section 11 , T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Veld County, Colorado LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 24; east of and adjacent to I-25 . • APPEARANCE: Jennifer Rodriquez, Pocky Mountain Consultants, reviewed the request of the applicant . The land uses, as shown on the drawing presented to the Planning Commission, will be consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. They have reviewed the recommendation of the Department of Planning Services' staff and are in general agreement. She discussed traffic impact studies that have been done. Land west of the Godding Hollow is irrigated and land to the east is dryland. Wally Grant, Attorney and property owner, stated there are currently two working gas wells on the property. Adequate land allowances and rights-of-way will be incorporated into the PUD plan as long as the wells are producing. They own all mineral rights on this property and they are in the process of retrieving all leaseholds so that no further wells would be allowed on this property. Instituting a law enforcerent authority is being studied by the St Frain Sanitation District which is also studying other needs for properties in the area as requested by the Board of County Commissioners. The Chairman called for discussion from the members of the audience . Vill Herdt , adjacent property owner, spoke in support of this request. The Chairman asked that the recommendation and conditions as presented by the Department of Planning Services staff he filed with the summer:_ as a permanent record of these proceedings since there is no opposition to this request. 890015 • E-01at G Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission November 15, 1988 Page 3 NOTION: Ernie Ross moved Case Number Z-477 for Grant Brothers/Fifthcoff Company for a change of zone from A (Agricultural) and 0-3 (Commercial) to PUD (C-3, C-4, I-1, R-3, and R-5) uses as listed in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the open mining of sand and gravel be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval based upon the recommendation and conditions presented by the Department of Planning Services' staff and the testimony heard by the Planning Commission. Motion seconded by Ann Garrison. The Chairman called for discussion from the members of the Planning Commission. Discussion follower. The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Rick Iverson - yes; Lynn Brown - yes; Jerry Burnett - yes; Ann Garrison - yes; Jerry Kiefer - yes; Ernie Ross - yes; Bud Halldorscn - No, while the Comprehensive Plan does provide for the I-25 Mixed—Use area as a rather specific PUD development area, it also sets the highest criteria as the preservation of agriculture land. He believes this is one of the better pieces of agricultural land in this area. It is on the periphery of the I-25 Mixed-Use area, and he personally does not feel development is appropriate at this time. Motion carried with six voting for the motion and one voting against the motion. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS : Chuck Cunliffe, Director, Department of Planning Services, asked the Planning Commission to consider amendments to Sections 10, 11, 12, 20, 20, 82, 86, 90, and 92 of the Weld County Building Code Ordinance. If no objections are received from the audience, he asked that the materials published in the official designated County newspaper and distributed to the Planning Commission be incorporated with the summary to serve as a permanent record of these proceedings. The Chairman called for discussion from the audience. There was none. MOTION: Jerry Kiefer moved the proposed amendments to the Weld County Building Code Ordinance be forwarded to the Foard cf County Commissioners based upon the recommendation of the Department of Planning Services' staff, the Building Trades Advisory Committee, the Weld County Advisory Board of Feaith, and the Weld County Housing Authority. Motion seconded by Rick Iverson. 890015 1 Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission November 1,5, 19E8 Page 4 The Chairman called for discussion from the members of the Planning Commission. Discussion followed. The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Rick Iverson - yes; Lynn Brown - yes; Jerry Burnett - yes; Ann Garrison - yes; Jerry Kiefer - yes; Ernie Ross - yes; Bud Halldorson - yes. Motion carried unanimously. Chuck Cunliffe asked the Planning Commission to consider the proposed increase in land-use applications. If no objections are received from the audience, he asked that the materials published in the official designated County newspaper and distributed to the Planning Commission be incorporated with the summary to serve as a permanent of these proceedings. MOTICN: CN: Ann Garrison moved the proposed increase in land-use application fees be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval based upon the recommendation of the Department of Planning Services' staff and the materials reviewed by the Planning Commission substantiating this request. Motion seconded by Jerry Kiefer. The Chairman called for discussion from the members of the Planning Commission. Discussion followed. The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Rick Iverson - yes; Lynn Brown - yes; Jerry Burnett - yes; Ann Garrison - yes; Jerry Kiefer - yes; Ernie Ross - yes; Bud Halldorson - yes. Motion carried unanimously. Chuck Cunliffe asked the Planning Commission to consider the proposed increase in plan review, pre-move inspection, and mobile home building Termit fees. If no objections are received from the audience, he asked that the materials published in the official designated County newspaper and distributed to the Planning Commission be incorporated with the summary to serve as a permanent of these proceedings. MOTION: Ernie Ross moved the request for an increase in fees for plan review, pre-move inspection, ana mobile home building permit fees be forwarded to The Board of County Commissioners with the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval based upon the recommendation of the Department of Planning Services' staff and the Weld County Building Trades Advisory Committee. Motion seconded by Rick Iverson. 890015 Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission November 15, 1988 Page 5 The Chairman called for discussion from the members of the Planning Commission. Discussion followed. The Chairman asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Rick Iverson - yes; Lynn Brown - yes; Jerry Burnett - no; Ann Garrison - yes; Jerry Kiefer - yes; Ernie Ross — yes; Bud Halldorson - yes. Motion carried with six voting for the motion and one voting against the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 2:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted So �L _ cad Robbie Good Secretary 890015 BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Moved by Ernie Ross that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission. Be it Resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for: Vrn .rPjxs a CASE NUMBER: Z-447 ��. NAME: Grant Brothers/Fifthcoff off Company dp NOV 1 6 1988 -ADDRESS: 515 Kimbark Street, Longmont, CO 80501 REQUEST: A Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) and C-3 (Commercial) to Planned Unit Development (C-3, C-4, I-1, R-3, and R-5) uses as listed in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the open-cut mining of sand and gravel LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the Ni of Section 11, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 24; east of and adjacent to the East I-25 Frontage Road be recommended favorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons: 1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 28.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. 2. The rezoning request is in conformance with Section 28.7 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows: - The proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) district is located within the I-25 Mixed-Use Development (1-25 MUD) area. The uses associated with the proposed PUD district are consistent with the uses described in the I-25 MUD section of the Comprehensive Plan. - The uses allowed in the proposed PUD district will conform with the performance standards contained in Section 35.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. - The Central Weld County Water District will provide water service to the TUD district. Well permits will be obtained prior to excavation of sand and gravel pits within the PUD district. The St. Vrain Sanitation District will provide sewer service to the proposed PUD district. 890015 Grant Brothers/Fifthcoff Company Z-447 Page 2 The applicant has submitted a traffic impact analysis for the PUD district. This analysis recommends certain improvements for Weld County Roads 11 and 24 and the East I-25 Frontage Road because these roads provide access to the PUD. The application explains a road improvement district will be formed to complete certain off-site road improvements. This _concept -has been approved by the Department of Planning Services, County Engineer, and Colorado Division of Highways. The road improvement district will help mitigate impacts to Weld County -toads 11 and 24 and East I-25 Frontage Road. These county roads and the state highway frontage road are currently inadequate in functional design, width, and structural capacity to meet the traffic requirements of uses within the proposed PUD district. Access constraints to development will be addressed with notes on the PUD district plat and as a PUD plan application requirement. - Part of the subject property is located in the 100 year flood plain which may affect development on the site. Flood plain constraints to development will be addressed with notes on the PUD district plat and as a PUD plan application requirement. No other overlay districts affect the site. - A portion of the subject site does contain sand and gravel commercial mineral deposits. Extraction of commercial sand and gravel deposits will be accomplished by approval of a PUD plan application. 'These determinations are based, in part, upon a review of the information submitted by the applicant, other relevant information regarding this request, and responses from referral entities. The Planning Commission's recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following: 1. Prior to recording the PUD district plat, the PUD roadway system and accesses shown to Weld County Roads 11 and 24 shall be removed. 2. Prior to the Board of County Commissioner's PUD district meeting, an estimate shall be provided for the cost of Phase I and Phase II improvements to Weld County Roads 11 and 24 and the future frontage road. The cost estimate may include a low to high range, based on similar improvements in the front range area. 890015 Grant Brothers/Fifthcoff Company Z-447 Page 3 3. The following notes being placed on the PUD district plat: - Prior to recording -a PUD plan plat, a law enforcement authority shall be formed according to State Law. The law enforcement authority to be formed shall be capable of expanding to serve other areas within the I-25 MUD area to avoid duplication of overhead and other operating costs. - All streets within the PUD district, except the future East I-25 Frontage Road, are private and shall be maintained by owners of the PUD district, unless other arrangements are approved by the Board of County Commissioners. - There shall be two accesses from the PUD to Weld County Road 24, the future frontage road and one additional access. The future frontage road shall align with the future frontage road to the north. The additional access shall align with a future access to the north. No access to the PUD shall be allowed onto Weld County Road 24 between the existing frontage road and the proposed frontage road. A right-turn-in only access will also be considered east of the future frontage road onto Weld County Road 24, as a possible access. - There shall be two accesses from the PUD to Weld County -toad 11 . The accesses shall align with future accesses east of Weld County Road 11 and not interfere with the intersection of Roads 11 and 24. - A PUD plan internal circulation system shall include an internal collector street system to deliver traffic to County Arterial Roads 11 and 24. The internal collector system will consider providing access between the different use areas within the PUD district and -property to the south. 'The internal circulation plan shall also include a pedestrian system that allows access between the different use areas, across the natural drainage way. Access to the commercial areas and industrial park areas from the future frontage road shall align. 890015 Grant Brothers/Fifthcoff Company Z-447 Page 4 - The initial PUD plan application will include a road improvements master plan for -Phases I and II. The master plan shall outline improvements, including sight-of-way widths for Weld County Roads 11 and 24 and the future frontage road. - Each PUD plan application shall include a traffic analysis performed in conjunction with the study titled Traffic Impact Analysis, The Crossroads at Del Camino, prepared by Felsbug, Holt, and Yllevig, dated October, 1988. The traffic study shall coordinate with the road improvements master plan. An off-site road improvements agreement or a local improvements district shall also be in place and capable of generating funds to construct the off-site road improvements needed to serve the PUD district and plan. - The required grading and drainage plan for the PUD district shall also discuss and account for the effects of the 100 year flood plain. - The student impact requirements on the St. Vrain Valley Schools shall be met as part of the PUD plan application x-equirements. - A PUD plan that includes an existing gas well shall demonstrate how the operation of the well is compatible with _other uses proposed in the plan. The operation of the two existing wells includes refracturing and drilling to different zones. No additional oil or gas well sites shall be drilled on the PUD district. - Each PUD plan application shall include a management plan to control weeds before, during, and after development. This plan shall be approved by the Longmont Soil Conservation District. - The requirements of the -Longmont Fire Protection District shall be met as part of the PUD plan application requirements. - A site plan review is required in accordance with Section 33.4.5 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. - The requirements of the Boulder Reservoir Company, the Army Corps of Engineers, and Colorado Geological Survey shall be met as part of a PUD plan application. 890015 Grant Brothers/Fifthcoff Company Z-447 Page 5 Motion seconded by Ann Garrison. VOTE: For Passage Against Passage Rick Iverson Bud Palldorson Lynn Brown Jerry Burnett Ann Garrison Jerry Kiefer Ernie -Ross The Chairman declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I, Bobbie Good, Recording Secretary of the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of the Resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County, -Colorado, adopted on November 15, 1988, and recorded in Book No. XI of the proceedings of the Planning Commission. Dated the 15th day of November, 1988. \ ci\c„o`� Bobbie Good Secretary 630 fl5 INVENTORY OF ITEMS SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION Case Number Z-447 Submitted or Prepared Prior to Tearing et llearink 1 . -Application thrity-three Pages X 2. Application plats) two page(s) X 3. DPS Referral Summary Sheet X 4. DPS Recommendation X 5. DPS Surrounding Property Owner's Mailing List X 6. DPS Mineral Owner's Mailing List X 7. Three DPS Maps Prepared by Planning Technician X 8. DPS Notice of Hearing X 9. DPS Ease Pile Summary Sheet X 10. DPS Field Check X 11 . Memo; two pages; County Engineer X 12. Letter; Division of Highways; two pages X 13. Memo; Sheriff's Department; one page X 14. Letter; school district; two Pages X 15. Memo; Weld County Health Department; one page X 16. Letter; Oil and Gas Conservation Commission; X two pages 17 . Letter; E.C.W.C.D. ; one page X 18. Letter; Longmont Soil Conservation District; X one page; dated October 26, 1988 19. Letter; Zongmont Soil Conservation District; X one page; dated August 24, 1988 20. Letter; Longmont; two pages; dated October 25, X _..988 21. Letter; Division of Water Resources; one page X 22. Letter; Omaha District Corps of Engineers; X one page 23. Letter; Colorado Geological Survey; one page X 24. letter; Longmont; one page dated November 2, 1988 X 890015 -xJ, .k A Z-447 Grant Brothers Page 2 I hereby certify that the twenty—four items identified herein were submitted to the Department of Planning Services at or prior to the scheduled Planning Commission hearing. I further certify that these items were forwarded to the Clerk to the Board's office on November 17, 1988. Current Planner Planner STATE OF COLORADO ) COUNTY OF WELD ' SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS jh day of 79 5c$ . SEAL ck,\c‘",Ax NOTARY UBLIC My Commission Expires 890015 //�� QQ � � EXHIBIT� -INVENTORY rCCONNTdRnOL�fSHHEEET Caset1CJ1' 1�_84071LP/Y-�01,01 # 1C-t� t/— - Y Exhibit Submitted By 0 /�0 Exhibit Description II(go A. @� 4J-COM '4f}1 A "Attfr c 0 jtonn1 1tzthd II/1(4, B. C. P. QA lfin l . 8171INAA-c6-)LJ yl�l c Yvl ntac� t�-FL n Yi 1I1 D. lftnt2. O4•4-u_ nn i1"tn, ( A 1 3p11-600Q )a E. Q.on,lrz, -b 4h it Ronn 4 0, Al n t Ol ni A,c.e 11130F. 6 fil 1tAm t. 1_` c- ap`.F"LCt, a Is �� ey (011:0767,72,70./ / / 21 H. I. J. R. L. M. N. 0. 890015 LAND-USE APPLICATION SUMMARY SHEET Date: November 8, 1988 CASE NUMBER: Z-447 NAME: Grant Brothers/Fifthcoff Company ADDRESS: 515 Kimbark Street, Longmont, CO 80501 REQUEST: A Change of Zone from A (Agricultural) and C-3 (Commercial) to Planned Unit Development (C-3, C-4, I-1, R-3, and R-5) uses as listed in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the open-mining of sand and gravel. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The Ni of Section 11, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 24; east and adjacent to I 25 PLANNING COMMISSION FUNCTION: To make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners consistent with the criteria listed in Section 28.7 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. Site area: 296, acres, more or less Land-Use Plan Acres Percent Units Total Building Space Mobile Home Park 75.0 25 .3 600 n/a Medium Density Residential or 31 0 10.5 248 m/a Mobile Home Park 318,600 sq. ft. Commercial 40.4 13.6 n/a Industrial 81.7 27.6 748,000 sq. ft. Open Space 56.0 19.0 n/a n/a Roads 11 9 4.0 296.0 100.00 Maximum Building sleight 50 0 feet ACCESS: East 1-25 Frontage Road, Weld County -Road 24 and Weld County Road 11 WATER: Central Weld County Water District SEWER: St. Vrain Sanitation District PUD STREETS: Privately built and maintained roadounty improvement district and Standards OFF-SITE ROAD IITROVEMENTS: Funded by -maintained by County FIRE PROTECTION: Longmont Rural Fire Protection District SCHOOL DISTRICT: St. Vrain Valley POLICE PROTECTION: Law enforcement authority ggo®1S Land-Use Application Summary Grant Brothers/Fifthcoff Company 2-447 Page 2 Parking requirements will be determined as part of a PUD Plan application. A landscape plan will be required and approved as part of a PUD Plan application. The mining of sand and gravel would require approval of a separate or combined PUD plan. The future development of oil and gas is not a use allowed within this PUD. The two existing gas wells will be coordinated into the PUD as part of a PUD Plan application. Engineer designed drainage and storm water management and a 100 year flood plain study will be required as part of a PUD Plan application. An off-site road improvements district or agreement would be required as part of a PUD Plan. POSSIBLE ISSUE: The applicant is requesting six accesses to Weld County Road 24 and four accesses on Weld County Road 11 . The Department of Planning Services, County Engineer, and Colorado Division of Highways are recommending two accesses on Weld County Road 24 and two accesses on Weld County Road 11. The accesses should not interfere with the future frontage road, the intersection of Weld County Roads 11 and 24, and line up with future accesses north and east of this site. Referral agencies who have returned specific recommendations are included in this packet. The Department of Planning Services' staff has not received any objections to this request. 890015 FIELD CHECK FILING NUMBER: Z-447 DATE OF INSPECTION: November 3, 1988 NAME: Grant Brothers/Fifthcoff -REQUEST: A Change of zone from A (Agricultural) and C-3 (Commercial) to Planned Unit Development LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Ni of Section 11, T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 24; east and adjacent to East I-25 Frontage Road LAND USE: N Weld County Road 24, agricultural production E Weld County Road 11, agricultural production, farm residences S International Pipe & Steel, Flatiron Office and Maintenance, -agricultural production W East I-25 Frontage . Ztoad, I-25, Texaco, McDonalds, other commercial uses ZCNING: N C-3 and Agricultural E Agricultural S C-3 and Agricultural W C-3, R-5, and Agricultural COMMENTS: The property is adjacent to East I-25 Frontage Road, Weld County Road 24, and Weld County Road 11 . Roads 24 and 11 are County arterials with a 100 Toot future right-of-way. Road 24 is paved and Road 11 is gravelled. Two accesses from Weld County Road 24 and one access from Weld County Road 11 presently serve the farm. There are two gas wells located on the property. A farm house and outbuildings are located in the southeast corner of the property. The Godding Hollow Ditch cuts diagonally from the southwest to the northeast across the property. The property east of the ditch slopes gradually toward the ditch. The property west of the ditch is relatively flat. The balance of the property is used for agricultural production. 1 , By: % Ian lif C r L tOnm -Rod Allison Principal Planner 890015 ••• .. . - ir • Y.� y; .�., „,....r �v et .r ftii t "• is 4I r•l M 43.3 •wY•A • ,I : y. • !• TON ' jTh„� CO' .. pp 25 .. F - . r‘A Y•:- .I • y• '� t It p�40 ! ! y ro n• I •r') sill .• sF „ i K F• /Hy •• .F real: �. yil • v 19,14 . .1. " I h4 j • J4 1 w , - pt 1• p N ..., a 1 Vi e --n m : G• �Iu .m r .� w' • �6i � . . Y y ., v 4 r..........,_ 4 .,' ..„ F • 4 F. •„ .. F.. -q r l !tv • . ( _�IIII �♦f •• ` II tea °Jelk(- � ie i ..,ni• +°` F . L .. . . \ • I`�- ad— ... •--� u t s • It P� �• }-� act 2� a yea a Os Y . y #. 6. 1�1 �- ul ti M x,'NL L. p Y .-"L"'",x•9'9 r4rt Rift' " 4 i • 24 '. ••"' .. .F, , Y ' _ 2 I -. i .. . .� i .1 ...4. s.m- ls.ui! rr C ! r �� 22 O 4 j• • ▪ ... • I• 1d Wu! —. . --gt� ••"('''t.1 P r— - � o 1, U - ,▪ i ▪ y Y v 1 � .. • 1 • • 4 . �0 T2N " �' y.� II) °. 1., 6, • - --ate -Jr�•. AT-• -•'• • Y • es of A° ▪ Y •:,• - ! . 1. I I I .T'-•` s�,.-a-y ° yd • van+ n i •' •1• •• ▪ • Y. p • -�� 4 • .p �' t 1 • • •• 'C • • 16 • I �•• 4 V — --ar.— • .. v •I•1,” •441 4 or ti° 11 •/'C.1Y• �y 14 .I ° Y 4 . 1 21"I " w �y�p pyy .�. .< •y j �R^ ' - ..12 l• PAP r-a r• ' v ----, Y' v •--. Ii ', , ., Y w - n -[� • � ufcc°�t?� nlo• Y. w �- ' ; 10 l u t 4 - •v 1 Y �•� Y 113•7 • y• x ' 4 . 1 ▪ P :% c, t c yl Y 4° , li Y 4 �, Y .., ) S/I Li .TIN r _ .N y• J I „ I jt • • • 4. i `a i ,• • ,I R 6 0 - __YfiFi3._ � " a 4. • yl y . • r-ss,4I F a '" w 4 p �I x I co . -__I__• L. --. ---�s •..i•4i, 9y.,4.-�p1--a -. •C 0. .� •)' I' ••4 . ,. .y 4 iS' y 4 q •• •••• I- 4 ,. • I •. I .. II .P. J .. Y .. Yx •• 4 W. 4 .• • e 1 / Y Y Y I lY� 1•r•' •Y P .. • ,. .. „ 1; �1 P. ,� 4ytlnsY ,.41 N . • . • •... • I• �� r : • : R661N 4 Y - —_- a— R 6T4W I r .c. A D A M S 89OO1e5 •• 1 3 -5 7 9 11 13 15 17 1? 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 3! 2 4,V0 34 yn, ii I4 5 , .—4 1 • 4Hia- NM -� - a:w2� a 4H Mp CHANrF -..-- ii , �_�off 1ee 1 3 i; 2 - f 1 A e •. f 1 9J -.1.. I 1 1 1 1 II'II • w_ - rl ,' u Aire. V y,. X14 �� [• - y '11" , it _„ , _, _ k\ z -‘), •lj j J i ' I• I 1O (K11 < \o , 12 1 D I "Hato o 3° a \x-2 1 RI n Valle • x_ M �. .� anga K On I. b �l L . ' Flume 1 __ I r-� ( I1II �.�' y 1 �I 4970- 7 v9O �Aj 1I. [n • - 155 ..p 14 N, �.� TC-1 c 890015 i 4880 . • l I y � a :Sal ST0069 - .410' ` © . a.,...,_ _ _... _ _.. ,, _, • ../ ,,, t. „Tr..... 1 ., "yy,' cw , ...„ 'xu , _ i tt 1 d Z . - i',‘• 0 ! P 87'x` 'Cl x{ ; +e C a s fib �{. AAA / s ,4r ;a --x 1 1/ Q tai \'.'' a. ti � a �� f.'¢ (( 1. H atGt s + Vf x .i �` e ` 2 ,,,,,,,,,4,-,,,,,, '-' /S a „ r n»A .- ---;a*'"?.j3 f. ra t t a� - �g, - ate'" r. ♦'.a 4 ` -^k' +.a-„'"K :-, ii S#%,; 4 S Y �'•y . 1 u.a �` ..^At+.rus. t,.. *ate r Pp Z A , s i, At-ii iit Y! { 0 fix,. ` ' q k}s^• [ c„,-,..e.,,,-1..„„.0,,.. ..../s , * asp _ { ' t _ mayy. U 41 elk f s. s. ...a I �! kw R .ti ,4,. Vim! ,bar�c -. Eta4,ty FIELD CHECK G Filing Number: Z-447 ]late of Inspection: /0-31- gift' p Applicant's Name: Grant Brothers - Fifthcoff Company Request: A change of zone from A (Agricultural) and C-3 (Commercial) to PIM (C-3, C-4, I-1, R-3, and R-5) uses as listed in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. Legal Description: The Ni of Section 11 , T2N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado Location: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 24; east and adjacent to I-25. Land Use: N r4gr., C L—t Lycoy /� �'r� �G4,Ied C0r:�) E 4 r c (2,1,-t --o,L ( CZvrr4 hrl CIS dv-y lam-1 s AQ -.cu �� A_i� (c Cow‘w cjaL - w S— ZS Zoning: N C©vw " eir-C o, L E A ul-t t_ s Cow," vv. L zS -COMMENTS: qof , II Signature of oard Member ' ,.P N0V ! 1988 890015 ,w hi ;o, REFERRAL LIST APPLICANT: Grant Frothers CASE NUMBER: Z-447 SENT REFERRALS OUT: :c _ i -REFERRALS TO BE RECEIVED BY: November 4, 198E NO SR NR NO SR NR X Weld County Health Dept. X Engineering Department X X Weld County Sheriff's Department c/o Undersherif� pick Dill X State Engineer Division of Water Resources 1313 Sherman St. , Room 818 Denver, CO 80203 X Mr. Ivan Gosneil 11488 Weld County Road 7 Longmont, CO 80501 X X Tri-Area Planningtommission c/o Ms. Rebecca Marker P.O. Fox 363 Frederick, CO 80530 X State Highway Department c/o Mr. Wally Uacobson P.O. -Box 850 Greeley, CO 80_632 X Colorado Geological Survey c/o Ms. Candace Jochim Mineral -Fuels Section 1313 Sherman Street Denver, CO 80203 X Godding=Hollow Ditch c/o Mr. George S . Varra P.O. Box 329 Boulder, CO 80306 NO=No Objection SR-Specific Recommendations NR No Response 89O015 REFERRAL LIST APPLICANT: Grant Brothers CASE NUMBER: Z-447 SENT REFERRALS OUT: v -REFERRALS TO -BE RECEIVED BY: November 4, 1988 NO SR NR NO SR NR County Attorney Weld County Health Dept. Engineering Department County Extension Agent Office of Emergency Mngmt Ed Barring x X Oil and Uns Conservation Commission c/o Mr. Bill Smith 1313 Sherman Street, Room 721 Centennial Building Denver, CO 80203 Xx Army Corp of Engineers c/a Mr. Terry McKee 9307 State Highway 121 Littleton, CO 811123-6901 X -Longmont Fire Protection District c/o Mr. Bill Emerson, Fire Marshall 9119 County tine Read Longmont, CO 80501 St. Vrain -School District c/o Ms. Dorothy Hores 395 South -Pratt Parkway Longmont, LO 80501 yX Longmont -Soil Conservation District 9345 Nelson. Road, Box D Longmont, CO 80501 N City of Longmont Office of Planning and Development c/o Ms. Froda Greenberg Civic Center Complex Longmont, CO 80501 NO---No Objection SR=Specific Recommendations BJ�� IT=No Response J 1$ REFERRAL LIST APPLICANT: Grant Brothers CASE NUMBER: Z-447 SENT REFERRALS OUT: REFERRALS -TO BE RECEIVED BY: November 4, 1988 NO SR NR NO SR NR / X Central Colorado Water Conservancy District Attn: Mr. Tom Cech 3217 West 28th Street Greeley, CO 80634 City _af Greeley Planning Department 1009 10th Street Greeley, CC 80631 Tri Area Planning Commission P.O. Box 363 Frederick, CO 80530 Historical Society of Colorado Historic Preservation State History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver, CO 80203 NO=No Objection SR=Specific Recommendations NR=No Response 890015 mEmo Dun ytityi6 z.....„ slim Rod Allison, Planning November 7, 1988 --- -- i i 1 O To Cate COWRADO From Drew Scheltinga, County Engineer \ w \ 7 .„.., Grant Brothers Zone Change, Z-447 Subject: One of the goals of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan is to insure a well integrated transportation system that preserves the existing -and future road functions. The applicant has acknowledged the peed to provide road improvements and has provided a good traffic impact analysis. However, there are specific items that need resolution prior to the change of zone to a -planned-unit development district. They areas follows: 1. On Weld County Road 24, there should be no access allowed between I-25 and the future frontage road. 2. Accesses into the entire area need to be reduced. There should be one access into the business park area that aligns with the other proposed access on the north side of Road 24. Also, one access should be allowed to the medium density residential area and one access allowed to the mobile home park. All accesses should be aligned with future uses and spaced so as not to interfere with each other or the intersections of -Roads 24 and 11. 3. The internal circulation of traffic and how internal collectors deliver traffic to the arterials, must be considered. There is no connection proposed between the residential uses, business uses, or adjacent property. An internal circulation plan should be developed that considers vehicle and pedestrian access between the different use areas and across the Godding Hollow Ditch, as well as, the property to the south. 4. Accesses to the -commercial area and business park from the future frontage road should align. 5. Estimates should We Trovided for Phase I and Phase II -for the improvement of Weld County Road 11, Weld County Road 24, and the future frontage road. I am aware specific -plans for improvements are not available. The estimates of costs could be provided from a low to high range, used on similar improvements in the front range area. It is important for policy makers to see the financial impact of a development of this extent. S90015 Rod Allison Grant Brothers Zone Change, Z-447 Page 2 6. The applicationmaterials do not discuss the aspect of constructing the internal roads to Weld County standards, and having those roads privately maintained. There are other items of concern that require engineering beyond the scope of a zone change. However, certain requirements should be acknowledged and made a part of the zone -change to the PUD -district. At the time of PUD application within the district, the following items should be addressed for the entire district: 1. Paragraph 13 on Page 5 of the application materials indicates prior to any development within the flood -hazard area, further analysis will be performed. The flood hazard analysis should be performed at the time of the first PUD application -SD the extent of the flood hazard will be known for the entire distri-ct and its consequences taken into consideration. 2. At each -PUP application, a traffic analysis should be performed in conjunction with the study title Traffic Impact Analysis, The Crossroads at Del Camino as prepared by Felsburg, Holt and Yllevig, dated October, 1988. 3. Upon the first PUD application, a road improvements master plan for and Phase II should to outlined for Weld County iioads 24 and 11 and the future front-age road. The master plan -need not be detailed, but should lay out and dimension the proposed lanes and intersections. The master plan should be coordinated with the traffic study mentioned above. 4. Future right—of-way widths should :e determined in accordance with the above-mentioned master plan and consider requirements for utillt ;xpansion. 5. Paragraph 10 on Pages 3 and 4 of the application materials, indicate road improvements will be funded by a special improvement district formed by a group of landowners. A Road Improvements Agreement should accompany the first PUD application, or the local improvement district should be in place and have the capability to generate funds to construct the road improvements needed to serve the development. DLS/mw:mprg b 1-7 Ylsui cU xc: Commissioner Yamaguchi Planning Referral File - Grant Brothers Change of Zone. Z-447 ci "lJ 1-J o 890015 - =�J STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS y-- OF 'C 14/ P.O.53oxi360 t /TAT° Greeley, Colorado 80632-0850 (303)353-1232 r -)*,t) /l October 31, 1988 N0V d 1988 Weld Co. , I-25 Grant gyros. P.U.D. SE of i-25 and SH 119 told Ca. !twig NE a DOH File 45100 Mr. Rod Allison Department of Planning Services Weld County 915 — 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. Allison: We have reviewed the 'application from the Grant Brothers to allow -a zone change for the Crossroads at Del Camino P.U.D. As indicated in our 8/31/88 comments on the sketch plan, we are concerned about the impact of this project on the 1-25/4S.H. 119 interchange, and we have the following comments: 1. We appreciate the Traffic Impact Analysis of this project which has teen performed by Felsburg, Holt and Ullevig. However, this study assumes pertain improvements to the state highway system by 1993 (Phase I) and 2010 (Phase _II) which may-not be in place. In particular, the provision of '. five-lane section under 1-25 by 1993 is unlikely. The moving of the east ramp terminal and relocation of the frontage road within this time frame will depend on the timing of this P.U.D. and the development of the Property to the north. The widening of I-25 to six lanes, and County -toad 24 to bur lanes east of I-25 by 2010 is reasonable to expect. The timing of these improvements in relation to this project cannot be predicted at this time. It should to noted that the Department of Highways is expected to begin a study of the I-25/S.H. 119 interchange in October of 7989. We expect this study to focus primarily on problems west of 1-25. We continue to support the relocation of the east Frontage road as part of -an overall interchange improvement plan. The road realignment through this Property must connect to C.R. 24 directly opposite the frontage road reservation which exists north of the county road. The access to C.R. 24 between the interchange and the relocated frontage road should not be permitted. Even as a right-turn-in and out access, as indicated in the traffic study, it would conflict with the purpose of moving the frontage road intersection away from the interchange. 898015 r r ROD ALLISON October 31, 1988 Grant Bros. P.U.D. Page Two 2. The traffic study and P.U.D. plat -show a number of major and minor access approaches to the I--25 frontage _road through this property. The State -Highway Access Code would not allow this many points of access based on a projected 45 mph speed limit and minimum 400-foot spacing criteria. Furthermore, -the design of speed change lanes required by The Code and supported by this study would call for much greater spacing to prevent the overlapping of these turn lanes. In order to determine what access to the frontage read is to be permitted and discuss other traffic-related issues, we would like to meet with the applicant and the County. Other items which need to be discussed include: the right of way width necessary for the frontage road including turn lanes, C.t. 24 widening and right of way needs, signalization of the C.R. 24/frontage road intersection, and the appropriate timing of the _required improvements. 3. The potential impact of drainage from this development on the existing and future highway drainage systems must be evaluated and adequate mitigation provided. The historic _runoff rate is not to be exceeded as a result of this development. The drainage study should identify the necessary detention areas) and release volume(s) . Thank you for the opportunity to review this P.U.D. Please coordinate with Wally Jacobson regarding the proposed access/traffic meeting. Very truly yours, DOUGLAS RAMES DISTRICT 2NGINEER Johz Crier District Planning/Environmental Manager JKC:mbc(WJ) cc: D. Yost Area Foreman File: Crier-Jacobson via -tames 890015 • TO ' .rd :�1 t712-�-g 1311YYiT,'�� ,u r t Lie if t FROM .;herlff ?'d Jordan DATE 198:i RE n._L: —Reaploc t ise have reviewed the pxoposal for PUD zoning from the Grant °rother3 regarding approximately 320 acres northeast of Del Camino. Based upon density statistics from the Planning Department, this project could ad-d nearly 2,000 persons in mobile home and apartment type housing. Del Camino already utilizes a significant amount of law enforcement resources and such a project is likely to demand _considerably more in the future. We are requesting that a law enforcement authority be a condition remui-red to be satisfied -prior to the final phase of approval in order to generate aditioral revenue needed to -purchase 1aw enforcement services. With the LEA condition satisfied, we would otherwise have no _objections to this project. EJ:1-ch • • 89O01 DEPAR-. _NT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT.4400 t` 915 10th STREET GREEL₹Y,COLORADO 80 806311 4 14 e ., ;. *y CASE NUMBER Z-447 (` 19Uu COLORADO Lc' :;PION October 19, 198E TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Grant Brothers - Fifthcoff Company for a change of tone from A (Agricultural) and G-3 (Commercial) to PUD (C-3, C-4, I-1, R-13, and P-5) uses as listed in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. The parcel of land 1s described as the N} of Section 11, T2N, EEB4; of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. The location of the parcel of land for which this application has teen submitted is -south of and adjacent to Weld County Road 24; east and adjacent to I-25. This application is submitted to your office for review and recommendation. Any comment or recommendation you consider -relevant to this request would be appreciated. Sour prompt reply will -help to facilitate the processing of the proposal and will ensure prompt consideration of your recommendation. Please reply by November 4, 1988, so that we may give full _consideration to your recommendation. _Please tall Rod Allison, Principal Planner, if you have any questions about this referral. Thank you for your help and cooperation in -this matter. Check the appropriate boxes below and return to our address listed above. 1. We have reviewed this request and find that the -request r n (does/does not) comply with our Comprehensive Plan g �J for the following reasons. R l_T arril --1 r J2. We do not have a Comprehensive Plan, but we feel this request < (is/is not) compatible with the interests of our town for the following reasons: co tl co zl - r J3. XXX We have reviewed the proposal and find no conflicts with our interests. 4. A formal recommendation is under consideration and will be submitted to you prior to: _ 5. Please refer to the enclosed letter. Agency: Longmont Fire Protection District William P. -Emerson — Fire Marshal Date: 24 October 1988 _ 590015 S-t.-Vrain Valley Schaal District Keith-Blue,Superintendent of Schools l �� 395 S.Pratt Parkway Longmont, Colorado 80501-6499 October 24, 1988 Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 RE: Crossroads at Del Camino PUD Case Number Z-447 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: We have -reviewed the -proposed Crossroads at Del Camino DDD and have determined the student impact on the St. Vrain Valley Schools„ based upon the development of 880 units. I STUDENTS STUDENT OVER CAPACITY ENROLLMENT + PROJECTED = IMPACT CAPACITY ELEMENTARY: Frederick 840 758 + 350.24 = 1108.24 Yes JUNIOR/SENIOR: Frederick 645 517 + 272.8 = 789.8 Yes At the present time, students living in this subdivision will be attending Frederick -Elementary School and Frederick Junior/Senior High School. However, the potential impact of pupil yield from this development may be great enough that none of the three Weld County school communities can accommodate the increase alone. Further, the timeline for development may be ahead of our ability to provide new construction for additional classrooms. The most likely solution is a divided attendance area for Crossroads students; some students will attend Erie elementary and Erie Junior/Senior, and other students will attend Frederick elementary and _Frederick Junior/Senior. Weld County subdivision regulation 8-15-B addresses the need for land dedication or cash-in-lieu as a result of the cumulative impact of additional students from residential growth. According to the District formula for this purpose, the developers of Crossroads at Del Camino PUD should donate to the district a total of 19.26 acres. Because of the density of residential development, we project that approximately 65% of the capacity of a standard elementary in our district will be needed to accommodate these students. It is our practice to locate elementary schools in the neighborhood where the greatest number of students live who will be served by a school. Based on these reasons the Long Range Facility Planning Committee is recommending and the administration is requesting the dedication of a 10 acre elementary school site within the Crossroads at Del Camino PUD. We will need collector street access to the site, but it should not be located on a future arterial. We are ready to work with the developer on the location for a site. 890015 The remaining 9.26 acres is not adequate for a secondary site and the district would prefer to accept a cash—in—lieu contribution to be added to contributions from other developers for the purchase of a secondary site. If you need any further information regarding this planning referral please call me at 449-4978, extension 209. Sincerely, i Dorothy Hores, Director Planning and Evaluation DH/dj 88222 890015 r STATE_OF COLORADO OIL AND C=AS CONSERVATION COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF NAT_URAL-RESOURC-ES SUITE 380 LOGAN TOWER BUILDING WILLIAM R. SMITH 1580 LOGAN-STREET Director DENNIS R. BICKNELL DENVER, COLORADO 80203 Deputy Director (303) 894-2100 ROY ROMER Governor October 24 , 1988 Department of Planning Services 913 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 8D631 Attn: Rod Allison Gentlemen: We have reviewed Case Number z-447 and find no conflicts with our interest . The-re are two wells included in the proposed area . A well it the NE1/4 of the NE1/4 of Section 11, Township 2 North, Range 68 West, 990 feet from the north section line and 9-90 feet from the east section line and a well in the NE1/4 of the NW1/-4 located 1120 feet from the north line and 1490 feet from frhe west line. As noted above, the-re are no conflicts with our rules and regulations; however, cur regulations provide specific -distances from a well and -a house or road as well as distances from other facilities to surface structures. I have attached a copy of our rules section 600 which deals with these distances . We think that oil and -gas development is compatible with subrdivision development and bot₹1 share some responsibility for working with the outer in plan development . We do recommend that you include in your plan of approval, set-backs for surface structures similar to those included in our series 600 . 1 ( ( 0CT 2-6 1988 "L L 1VHIU to. Itowo t uotrookSCEW 890015 I hope the above comments will be helpful in your development of "conditions of approval" of the proposed plan Z-447 . If you have any questions regarding my comments or would like to discuss some of the issues further, please contact me at our new number 894-2100 . Yours very truly, William R. Smith, P .E . Director WRS/clk 6175C cc: Vessels Oil and Gas Co . 1050 17th Street Suite 2000 Denver, Colorado 80205 Adolph Coors Co. Golden, Colorado 80401 (copy in both well files ) - 2 - 890015 CC CI central colorado water conservancy district 3209 'Nest 28th -reet Greeley. Coloraco `x053` 303) 330-4540/330-4541 • Metro (303) 825-0474 November 7, 1988 Mr. Rod Allison Weld County Department of Planning Services 913 - 10th Street Greeley, CO 80-631 Dear Rad: Thank you for providing us a copy of the Change of Zone application -for Crossroads, Del Camino. As you would expect, my only concern is that the applicant provide augmentation for evaporative losses from the gravel mining operation listed in the application. I did not find mention of that listed in Ms. Rodriguez's letter of October 26, 1988 or in the original application. Thank you for allowing us to comment. Sincerely, I Div) Tom Cech Executive Director TVC/sam fr NOV 8 1988 Ii 890015 't n.CO. "I:lnaid,e '.gpNa !lu a Longmont Soil Conservation District '3595 Nelson Road, Box D - Longmont, Colorado 80501 October 26, 1988 Mr. Rod Allison, Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 Tenth Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Case No. S-296 - Grant Brothers - Fifthcoff Company Dear Rod: Upon reviewing the application from Grant Brothers - Fifthcoff Company for a change of zone from A (Agricultural) and C-3 (Commercial) to PUD (C-3, C-4, I-1, R-3, and R-5) , we find our comments to you dated August 24, 1988 on the Grant Brothers application are still appropriate. Please refer to our comments regarding Case #S-296 - Grant Brothers. If you need additional information, please contact us. Sincerely, Orville L. Sadar President OLS:rah 890015 CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT - SELF-GOVERNMENT August 24, 1-988 Mr. Rod Allison, Planner Weld County Department _of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, tO 80631 "ear Rod: -This letter is in response to the proposed planned unit development from Grant Brothers. As shown in the sketch plan, most of the soils in this locale are either Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum or Aquolls and Aquepts flooded. The building site development Sable shows that there is severe limitations for any buildings or roads put on this type of soil. It is recommended that a complete engineering design be developed for any construction in this area. Any time urbanization occurs around an irrigation canal, agriculture suffers. A plan needs to be developed in order to protect the _quality and quantity o₹ water in the Rural Ditch during and after construction. Weeds are becoming a major problem in this area. A management plan needs to be -developed to control weeds before, during, and after construction for this development. This will help maintain the value of she area and avert some of the - weed problems in the area. Sincerely, Orville L. Sadar President OLS:rah 890015 h .v.F4 - .. � �°'b` .. .,�„ w �.eta ,,., ��.$ ,�-.� ._ .r''s •: `' �.' .o S i` � �y,A m 'xy�� pS LONG, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION * * Civic Center Complex / Longmont, CO 80501 (303) 651-8330 cOLORA9p October 25, 1988 Mr. Rod Allison, Principal Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Case Number Z-447 Dear Mr. Allison: Thank you for sending the Crossroads @ Del Camino PUD Change of Zone -application to the City of Longmont for our review and comment. This 296 acres± site is located east of I-25 and south of WCR24. Previously the City of _Longmont has commented on the sketch plan for this proposed development. This letter is a follow-up to our previous comments. The City supports the applicant' s intentions to incorporate open space -and perimeter landscaping into this PUD. We look forward to seeing the -detailing of the proposed trail system at a later stage of the review process . Given the fact that residential units are proposed adjacent to two arterials , we suggest that special attention be given to required setbacks , building orientation, berming, and landscaping which will help buffer people from the impacts of arterial traffic. Previously the City has commented upon the importance of protecting the function and integrity of arterials in Del Camino, and therefore limiting the number of access points to arterial streets . Direct access to lots should be taken from local or collector streets . We again respectfully suggest that the number of access -points be reduced: particularly the access to WCR24 west of the future location of the Frontage Road and the access points which provide direct arterial access to lots . -Although there will be over one million square feet of non-residential development, the plan indicates that with the exception of the Frontage Road, all internal streets will be classified as local streets ; none are collectors. The City also suggests that an internal collector street system be established and identified, and that Weld County consider requiring its continuation to other parcels , e.g. , the parcel to the south , across the ditch to the east. 890015 Finally, the City would like Weld -County to consider an issue which is not exclusive to this applic-ation. Since the concept for the I-25 Mixed Use Development Area is that it will develop into an urban corridor of intense development. We also recommend that a traffic study analyze the impact of all the proposed development in the Del Camino area upon the transportation system: particularly the Frontage Road and the I-25/SH119 interchange. Together with the planning of a detailed/urban-oriented coll-ector street system and access control polici-es and plans , this study will benefit the Cnunty in -the long term, and can be a solid foundation for its economic development efforts. As always , if you have any questions , please call either Froda Greenberg or me at 651-8330. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment upon this application. Sincerely, � utte 41111,XIW 7C Marta Bromschwig, AICP ' Planning -Director MB/cr xc: Phil Del Vecchio, Community Development Director Sue Reed, Transportation Planner #2050-36a znerl rir 890015 fi'` NOV Y 1988 !!i IU CU. ii;m,uay a srm�'.;W O4 C°4 -c A Op +IOY-ROMER �e �90 Governor O JERIS A. DANIELSON *\\U`, . *I State Engineer 41876 * OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street-Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 November 3, 1988 Mr. Rod Allison Weld County Planning Department 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Crossroads Del Camino N1/2, Sec. 11, T2N, R68W -Dear Mr. Allison: This is to acknowledge receipt of rezoning and sketch plan material for the above referenced project on approximately 296 acres. The proposed PUD would include the mining of sand and gravel . It would appear that this mining will expose ground water. We require that well permits be obtained from our office prior to the excavation of the pits since the source of water for the new lakes that will be created by the gravel pit operation is ground water and the ground water will be used beneficially. Otherwise, the operator will be in violation of Section 37-90-137, C.R.S. (1973) . Since the gravel pits are located in an over-appropriated basin, well permits could not be obtained until a plan for augmentation has been approved in Water Court. The applicant will not be able to use water from the pits for the mining operation unless replacement water for the additional consumptive use is also included in the plan for augmentation. In conclusion, we would not recommend the mining portion of this referral based upon the submitted information. Other development proposed would include 248 medium density residential units, a 600-unit mobile home park, and over 122 acres of commercial and industrial development. The Central Weld County Water District has been designated as the source of water and a letter of commitment for service has teen submitted. Information available in our files indicates that the District has sufficient water resources to serve this development and we do not object to sketch plan approval of this portion of the PUD. Since this idevelopment is quite large, we would ask that the District update our office concerning the specific supply for the development at preliminary plat submittal . Sincerely, Hal D. Simpson, P.E. : , , r� Deputy State Engineer nr HDS/JRH/8423I cc: Alan Berryman, Div. Eng. �� NOV1488 h Steve Lautenschlager O 5390015 fido gp. ign,nr��,u 'DEPARTMENT OF THE -ARMY q OMAHA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS ROCKY MOUNTAIN AREA 2860 S. CIRCLE MR.. NORTH -BLDG.. SUITE GL 10 \ •. COLORADO SPRINGS. COLORADO 80908.4188 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF October 26, 1988 Jennifer Rodriquez Rocky Mountain I,onsultants 1-960 Industrial Circle, Suite A Longmont, CO 80501 Dear Ms. Rodriquez: Reference is made to the Del Camino Development site -Case No. Z-447 located in Ni, Section 11, T-2-N, R-68-W, Weld County, Colorado. See attached letter dated August 30, 1988. As stated in my letter to Mr. Allison, prior authorization may be required -by the Corps of Engineers for this project. Therefore, this office ahould receive a mapped area of Lodding -Hollow Ditch and wetlands within the proposed development site before construction begins. The mapped area shall include Existing wetlands and Codding Hollow Ditch boundaries, showing existing acerage and the area of fill and adverse modification to these areas caused by any fill and channelization which will occur due to project _construction. If you -have any questions concerning this matter, -please feel free to contact this office or -call Terry McKee at 303/979-4120 ar 4121: Sincerely, \\\NVI Terry ,„McKet Environmental Resource Specialist cf: Permit piles Omaha Permits Branch ROp 4U;soto 890O15 (fell Arfi ROY R. ROMER E3 `\ oG WE-$9-0004 GOVERNOR * JOHN W.-BOLD DIRECTOR\(�� COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURALRESOUROES 715 STATE-CENTNNIAL BUILDING - 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER. COLORADO 80203 PHONE(303) 866=2611 November 8, 1988 Mr. Rod Allison Weld County Planning 91-5 10th Street Greel-ey, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. Allison: RE: -CROSSROADS DEL CAMINO PUD We have revi-ewed the materials submitted on -this proposal and the general and engineering geology of the site. There appear to ±e no geology-related problems or constraints asso2iated with this _property, given detailed planning and adequate engineering practice. We, therefore, have no objection to the approval of this PUD and zone change. As is the case for most of _C-olorado, the 'potential for radon accumulation in occupied structures should be mitigated as part of the development plan. Yours truly, Jeffrey L. Hynes Senior Engineering Geologist vjr:JLH-89-028 I I IiG) t .l � NOV 14 1988 ' j GAD LD _G Y STORY OF THE PAST...-KEY TO THE FUTURE 'PiI6 L'u. ;;,,, y,; 890015 '- DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION Civic Denter Complex / Longmont, CO 80501 (303) 651-8330 cH* ORP'%v<N O November 2, 1988 Mr. 'Rod Allison, Principal 'Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Case Number Z-447 Dear Mr. Allison: Thank you for sending the supplement to The Crossroads @ Del Camino PUD Change of Zone application to the Dity of Longmont for our review and comment. This 296 acres± site is located east of I-25 and -south of WCR2-4. Previously the City of Longmont has commented on both the sketch plan and the change of zone for this proposed development. This letter i-s a follow-up to our previous comments. The intent of the supplement is to allow the mining of sand and gravel as a permitted use in -the PUD. The -mining will be restricted to the flood plain/open space area. It is -the City's understanding that the next stage -of Weld aunty's PUD review is the one when measures are detailed to ensure compatibility between the mining operation ,and other land uses. The City looks forward to reviewing those measures at that time. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please call either Froda Greenberg or me at fi5l.--8330. Sincerely, a?t,c l Marta Bromschwig, AICP 1 Planning Director MB/cr xc: Phil DelVecchio, Community Development Director #2050-36a pl l tr rod all i-son iUI�ILr�� tiy��J�j I ' � r ovia1988 ICI • engineers • planners • surveyors October 13, 1988 Mr. Rod Allison Current Planner Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Change of Zone Crossroads, Del Camino P.U.D. N1/2, Section 11, T2N, R68W Dear Rod: Inclosed is the Change of Zone application for the Crossroads, Del _C-amino P.U.D. Issues raised at the Sketch Plan review stage have been addressed in the Change of lone application. We wish to proceed with review of the Change o₹ Zone application by the Planning Commission at their November meeting and the County Commissioners in December, 1988. Per my conversation with you, a draft of the off-site road improvements agreement will be forthcoming upon review of the Traffic Impact Analysis. Please review the enclosed application materials and contact me if you Have any questions. Sincerely, ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONS TAN , INC. J nnifer Rodriguez, A. I .C. rinsipa dt Enclosure cc: Doug Grant Wally Grant A\\CRPIJD.REQ\4.0 Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc. 1960 Industrial Circle, Suite A Longmont, Colorado-80501 303-772-5282 Offices also in Denver • Boulder • and Estes Park,CO Metro line: 665-6283 890015 :VD CILA:,NEn 1'1:IT DEVELOPMENT) REZONING APPLICATION Case . : Dept. of Planning Services App. Ch'd By: Date Rec'd: 915 10th Street App. Fee: Raceint 0: Greeley, Colorado Sn631 Record. aue: Receipt A: Phone: 356-4000, Est. 4400 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT. Please print or type, except for necessary signature. I (we), the undersigned• hereby request hearings before the Weld County Planning Commission and the Weld County Board of County Commissioners concerning the proposed • rezoning of the following described unincorporated area of Weld County, Colorado: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Attached Exhibit-A (If additional space is required, attach an additional sheet) Property Address (if available): southeast corner of 125 end Weld County Road 2A PRESENT ZONE C3, agricultural PROPOSED ZONE MUPUU TOTAL ACREAGE 296+ OVERLAY ZONES SURFACE FEE (PROPERTY OWNERS) OF AREA PROPOSED FOR-REZONING: Name: Grant 33rothers/Fifthcoff Company -Home Telephone 0: Address: 615 Kimbark Bus. Telephone 0: //6-9119 Longmont, CO 80601 Name: Home Telephone 0: Address: Bus. Telephone 0: Name: Home Telephone 0: Address: Bus. Telephone 0: Applicant or Authorized Agent (if different than above): Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc. Name: Jennifer Rodriguez, -AICP Home Telephone 0: Address: 1960 Industrial Circle Suite -A Bus. Telephone 0: 772-5282 Longmont, LO 80601 (metro) 665-6283 Owner(s) and/or lessees of mineral rights on or under the subject _properties of record in the Weld County Assessor's Office: Name: Matchii Moss Petroleum CO. Address: Suite 3070, 3420 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, GA -90405-3305 • Name: Vessles Oil -and Gas Co./Thomas Vessles • Address: Suite 2000, Prudential Plaza 1050 17th St. Denver, CO -80205 Name: Adol'h Coors Co. Address: 1..olden, CO 80401 I hereby depose and state under the penalities of perjury that all statements, proposals and/or plans submitted with or contained within this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. COUNTY OF WELD ) / STATE OF COLORADO ) i!a ignat e: Owner or Au. o trod . •ent Subscribed and sworn to before me this day n QJ-t b17. SEAL 1 -aI NOTARY PURL 1y [r• ,:_f55i'.fYYpilc5: - p q 890015 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE NORTH ONE HALF OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF WELD, STATE -OF COLORADO, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, STATE OF COLORADO, BY DEED RECORDED ON JUNE 19, 1958, IN BOOK 1505 AT PAGE 504, WELD COUNTY RECORDS, CONTAINING 296+ ACRES MORE OR LESS. 890015 lia bs1-:r1114 C/2 O s a-r6 ap -_ P.I. xaaae!da g'llt !• - I s r (xg ,liwol"s a =a:': ! I n' n ' I rat Z a, :ave.e�si __.!; a t' r! I I I I2 54 y10,112a ea -rah! , e; h O w i gad Ir: 'sa It s e J a p g I ; s I li s III I. ; • Ul > W ° '� tYI p°'IL Ul V ra si A II 'ON (MU AiNnOJ 0`3M _ ^ CIF — %. .. - W y;. 1Ylve. 1 w ZCe -�I.: OTC I Y_ .. : iR • On ��. 1 . / 1 !! 4. 5 27 3� lg .d r E_� 1l+ H�k 2 ids O i `�J 'f✓ �l• -a ..`f_r ,..., ik 1 ! G J) f i ! { f`.o,!:. - , -4 A - \\---- ® ia�i)iJ f hfr%f \\';" D q I: tN ;- ii gi3:: :::......:it/ ��i�f.,. �\•\ O.`� O J a 'YY �.'•'3i�r�17f'_�::LE!a E _ - i�'Iliij....�._...., _{'}oT+•y \ � \ l � 'I t: __..... 'd"�!'i!!;!!!.-::trig,;,::::::: .>.. r. \ • . !I H E A PI ff fl ! §II ...„,, ,F,------)1!, .y.Ry1 �'rj 1. - { �1. b `-- II C . : _ K i LY...............„7,,,...,,„:„,,,..,..,11W _i M ,� P_ 4b5 �J I o. I ..... . , ,' ....................... ) � � e t 7 i �k : Y Y :y i =, .i Y 1 J ! ! ! !i4 s irk ii E i p t \\ 7.�- ti '_ (n -t--1- � ,r; _ Cr Y r e a s s i s �� b. �• r 3 - -- I 1-i) I \ . a �,_,. e Y $ r 1 ` O7. c'71''c '\� �1,�✓�/ '�� it ait3Y,•'64! --. O E � a-0 t�\ No 1, eV - JJ _ b \� @3" l_ U ,� �/��`( I A� ` a '4s°oL �'� 11 �a it \\ �0 v r` -- ili ne..:b:�� s\.N, m S pa- 11171► _; i ` _i_ 0 '� 1 \� I f .a groG is f≤ --�.. .iii tYY.41i 3 s I lgaKri t¢ f ` Ver\O 4riZYi�e 3 I O 17'..-.71.. ,., 17; N a _I 7"i_ i9 NI <1 a `. Y. .tl` �� ., ._ i tat-gilt }_. x 8 ll ----"_--__•------ '•'_0VPtl 3 '1N.e�---- ,..:$�' v trgsa s i x S2 31v1Sl131N1 `� w¢0 8•3� 43Q N 2 O r- •r :iti di &U 7 I No z cep C' 420 u.89O01a-1 seta-s99-ax33n zxzs-9(1.3xnxe + C Ina 1f1d7 7 - s F losox oa•xalw '3xon9xol ' N 1^ z tf,gp , I mans '3l}M IIItlRII]xl 0961 J 11I7U\ i , p • Dru'SINrn ISNO3 foram' AN3O �� n„x .o l6 X- i31sxorsl;3x Qrilkiv lIa kr 5ado.2155o7l7 :i ail g • 4o p ki\\ a \ a - \ \ \ tip\ •72 E1-m enln h\ a o \ j S JIN B J _ a s $ 3 ti F. li 5 g , \ S I i N 890015 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SKETC-H PLAN APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS CROSSROADS DEL CAMINO OCTOBER 26, 1888 1. The PUD district application forms andapplication fee. The PUD District application forms and application fee of $450 are attached. 2. A statement describing the proposed PUD Concept, land-use(s), and architectural style of the PUD. The 296+ acre PUD will integrate commercial , industrial and residential uses. The commercial and industrial uses will be located west of the Godding -Hollow drainageway. An open space greenway is planned along the drainageway to provide a buffer to the medium density residential units and/or mobile home park to the east. The open space will be linked by trails to both areas. The Crossroads Del Camino PUD will be governed by private covenants which will address architectural and design features of the development. Items such as, building materials, landscape requirements, maintenance, fencing and signs will be addressed in the covenants. 3. A statement which demonstrates the proposed PUD rezoning is consistent with the policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed land uses are consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan designation. Uses allowed within the MUPIJD are intended to fall within the following Weld County Zoning classifications: C-3, C-4, I-1, R3, R5 and additionally to include the mining of sand and gravel . The general location of these uses is shown on the accompanying District plat Map. 4. A statement which demonstrates how the USES allowedby the proposed PIJD rezoning will be compatible within the PUD district. In addition, a detailed description of how any conflicts between land uses within the PUD district are being avoided or mitigated and tan comply with Section 35.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. In order to insure compatibility of uses within the PUD, the commercial and industrial uses are located adjacent to one another. Design standards will be established through architectural covenants -and will specifically address the Performance Standards outlined in Section 35.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. In addition the uses allowed within the commercial/industrial portion of the pUD will be limited to the following Weld County Zoning Classifications: C-3, C-4 and I-1 and the mining of sand and gravel as identified on the District Plat Map. As stated in Exhibit E, the mining of sand and gravel is not economically feasible, under current conditions, unless combined with other purposes, such as, the development of drainage 1 890015 facilities, site amenities, 'or the reduction of flood Main area. The aggregate area identified for potential development generally follows a portion of the 'open space area as designated on the District Plat Map. In order to insure Compatibility with adjacent uses within the -PUD, final PUD plans for the minin-g area and adjacent commercial , industrial or residential areas will address specific compatibility issues including the following: noise, dust, traffic, -hours of -operation, duration of mining, and reclamation. Techniques such as berms, revegetati'on, internal siting of processing equipment, limitation on hours of operati'on, and limitati'on on vehicular access points will be utilized to insure harmonious devel'opment. The Godding Hollow drainageway will serve as a major buffer between the commercial/industrial 1-and and the proposed medium density residential . connections to the greenway are planned from both the east and the west so that the proposed greenway will serve as open space for -the commercial/industrial area, as well as, the residential . 5. A statement which demonstrates how the USES allowed by the proposed BUD rezoning will be compatible with land uses surrounding the PUD district; in addition, a detailed description of how any conflicts between land _uses surrounding the PUD district are being avoided or miti.gat-ed. Compatibility with surrounding land uses will be ensured by the following: 1. The proposed uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations. 2. The industrial uses proposed will be limited to the I-1 zoning category, thus requiring any manufacturing to be contained within buildings. 3. Architectural covenants will be established which provide for design standards and ensure a quality development. 4. Perimeter landscaping will be required in conjunction with the development. 5. Gravel mining will be restricted to the flood plain/open space area located generally internal to the PUD. 6. A description "If -each use within the PUD. A description of all building, structures, and 'open storage areas, including size, floor area, and height. -A description of the type 'of residential units within the PUD, including total number of units for each type. A preliminary estimate of the F.A.R. and building square footage is as follows: F.A.R. Square Footage Commercial .25 440,000 Industrial .21 748,000 890015 2 The proposed height limitation for structures is 50 feet. Open storage areas will be screened per the I-1 Zoning regulations and as specified in the Private Covenants. A total of 106+ acres will be developed as medium tensity residential -at 8 units/acre. The units may include a mobile home park for a portion or the entirety of the residential area. Preliminary estimates project 248 units of medium tensity residenti-al and 600 mobile home units. 7. A description of the size and type of any public and private open space and -semi-public uses, including parks, recreation areas, school sites, fire and sheriff facilities, and similar uses. A proposed open space area along the Godding Hollow ditch will provide private open space for use by both the residential areas and the commercial/industrial users. It is anticipated that a trail system in conjunction with ponds -may he developed to enhance the openspace. The acreage, configuration and the inclusion of ponds within the open space area is dependent upon final drainage analysis, flood plain delineation and design. Discussions with the fire and sheriff's departments are underway to -determine their interest in locating facilities on s tte. 8. A description of the -water source and system and a statement from the representative of the provider o₹ the water system-which demonstrates that the water supply quality and quantity is sufficient to meet the requirements of the uses within the PhD district. A PLD district with residential USES shall be served by a PUBLIC WATER system. Water services for the PUD will be provided by the Central Weld County Water District. There is an existing 24" line along the western boundary and an existing 12" line along the northern boundary of the site. The internal water system will be developed consistent with the Fire Protection District Regulations and approved ty the Central Weld County Water District. A latter from Mr. John Zadell indicating the District's ability to serve the area is attached as Exhibit A. In addition, the requirements for mining operations setforth by the State Engineer's Division of Water Resources will be -met in the final PUD Mining -Plan. 9. A description of the sewage disposal facility. If the facility is a sewer system, a statement from the representative of the provider of the sewer system utility which demonstrates that the sewer system will adequately serve the uses within the PUD district. Sanitary sewer service for the PUD will be provided by the Saint Vrain Sanitation District. The on site system will be designed consistent with the District's standards. A letter from Mr. Lee 3 890015 Lawson, outlining the conditions for service is att-ached as Exhibit B. 10. A description of the functional classification, width and structural rapacity of the STREET and highway facilities which provide access to the PhD district. if the street or highway facilities providing access to the PUD District are not adequate to meet the requirements -of the proposed district the applicant shall supply information which demonstrates the willingness and financial capability to upgrade the STREET or highway facilities in conformance -with the Transportation Section of the Wel-d County Comprehensive Plan. This shall be shown by submitting, with the Planned _Unit _Development District application, a separate off-site road improvements agreement describing the proposed road improvements and method of guaranteeing installation of said improvements in conformance with the Weld County Polity on Collateral for Improvements. The agreement shall be used for the purposes of review, evaluation, and compliance with this section. No rezoning shall be finally approved by the Board of County Commissioners until the applicant has submitted an improvements agreement or contract which sets forth the form of improvements and guarantees and is approved by the Board of County Commissioners. A traffic impact analysis of the Crossroads Del Camino PUD has been completed by Felsburg, -Holt & Ullevig and is attached as Exhibit C. Recommendations for off site improvements are outlined in the report. Based on their recommendations, a site specific traffic analysis will be performed as an addendum to their report in conjunction with each Final PUD Plan; this specifically includes an addendum for the mining of sand and gravel . This addendum will contain recommendations for phasing of off site improvements based upon the traffic impact of each use within the Final PUD phase. It is contemplated that financing of off-site road improvements will be accomplished as follows: A group of landowners within the Del Camino Area are currently pursuing formation of a Special Improvement District for transportation improvements. Once in place this will act as the funding mechanism for off site improvements. 11. A soil survey and study of the site proposed for the change of zone with a statement regarding suitability of soils to support all USES allowed in the proposed zone. If the soils survey and study indicate soils which present moderate or severe limitations to the construction of STRUCTURES or facilities on the site, the applicant shall submit information which demonstrates that the limitations -can -be overcome. This information will be forwarded to the Colorado Geological Survey for evaluation. The soils within the PUD are made up of two general types as defined by the Soil Conservation Service soil survey of Weld County southern part. Olney.kim.otero: Deep, nearly level to moderately sloping, 89O015 4 well drained sandy loans and loans formed in mixed alluvium and eolian deposits. Aquolls.Aquents.Bankard: Deep, level and nearly level poorly drained and somewhat excessively drained loamy soils and sandy loans formed in alluvium. Generally the soils to the east of -the God-ding Hollow ditch are better drained and ars well suited to development. The soils to the west of the ditch have the characteristics of drainageways and tend to hold water. The Soil Conservation Service survey of the area is attached as -Exhibit D along with the description of each of the subclassifications within the PUD site. Site -specific soils testing will be performed by a professional soils engineer prior to development of each area within the PUD. All development within the PUD will adhere to the soils engineer's recommendations. 12. If, according to maps and other information available to Weld County, the Department of Planning Services determines that there appears to be a sand, gravel , or other mineral resource on or under the subject property, the applicant shall provide a mineral resource statement prepared iv a certified geologist or other qualified expert. The statement shall indicate the estimated quality of resources and indicate the economic feasibility of recovery, now and in the future, of the resources so that the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners can determine whether a COMMERCIAL MINERAL DEPOSIT, -as defined in Colorado Revised Statutes is contained on or under the subject properties. This information will be forwarded to the Colorado Geological Survey for evaluation. Preliminary soils testing has been performed to determine if the gravel deposits on the site fall under the Colorado Revised Statutes definition of Commercial Mineral Deposits. The results of the testing are outlined in a letter from Mr. Ken Rollin, a certified geologist, attached as Exhibit E. 13. If the proposed change of zone is located within a FLOOD HAZARD AREA, identified by maps officially adopted by Weld County, the applicant shall submit information which either documents how the Weld tounty supplementary regulations concerning flood plains have been satisfied or document how the applicant intends to meet the requirements of the Meld County supplementary regulations concerning flood plains. All development in the initial phases of the Crossroads Del Camino PUD will take place outside of the Flood Hazard Area as identified by FEMA flood insurance maps of the site. Prior to any development within the identified flood hazard area a site specific flood plain analysis will be performed. Any information required to amend the FEMA maps will be obtained at that time. Any improvements necessary to amend the current flood hazard boundary will be installed consistent with the Weld County 890015 5 Supplementary Regulations concerning flood plains. 14. If the proposed change of zone is located within a GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREA identified by maps officially adopted by Weld County, the applicant shall submit information which either documents how the Weld County supplementary regulations concerning geologic hazards have been satisfied, or documents how the applicant intends to meet the requirements of the Weld County supplementary regulations concerning geologic hazards. The PUD is not located within any Geologic Hazard Areas as defined by the Geologic Hazard Map adopted by Weld County on April 19, 1978. 15. A sign shall be posted on the property under consideration for PUD rezoning. The sign shall be posted by the applicant, who shall certify that the sign has been posted for at least ten (10) days preceding the hearing date. The sign shall be provided by the Department of Planning Services. The required sign will be posted by the applicant and the affidavit will be forwarded to the County at that time. 16. A certified list of the names, addresses and the corresponding parcel identification number assigned by the Weld County Assessor of the owners of property (the surface estate) within five hundred (500) feet of the property subject to the application. The source of such list shall be the records of the Weld County Assessor, or an ownership update from a title or abstract company or attorney, derived from such records, or from the records of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. If the list was assembled from the records of the Weld County Assessor, the applicant shall certify that such list was assembled within thirty (30) days of the application submission date. A certified list of property owners within -500 feet of the property was prepared by Stuart Title and is attached as Exhibit F. 17. A certified list of the names and addresses of mineral owners and lessees of mineral owners on or under the parcel of land being considered. The source of such list shall be assembled from the records of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder, or from an ownership update derived from such records of a title or abstract company or prepared by an attorney derived from such records. A certified list of the names and addresses of mineral owners and leases of mineral owners on or under the parcel was prepared by Wallace Grant and is attached as -Exhibit G. 18. Such additional information as may be required by the Department of Planning Services, the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners in order to determine that the application meets the goals, policies, and standards set forth in the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. 6 8sOO15 EXHIBIT A 890015 CWri CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT October 3 , 1988 Rocky Mountain Consultants , Inc . ATTN: Barb Brunk 1960 industrial -Circle . Suite A Longmont , -CO 80501 RE: Water Service to -Grant Brothers Property Dear Ms . Brunk : This letter is in response to your request for water strvice to serve the following described property: N 1/2 Section 11 , Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M . , Weld County , Colorado excepting therefrom that portion conveyed to the Department of Highways , State of Colorado , by deed recorded June 19, 1958, in Book 1505 Page-504 Weld County Records . 296+ acres m/1 -Water service can be made available to the above described property provided all requirements of the District are satisfied , including easements where required for District facilities . Central Weld County Water District requires that contracts be consumated within one ( 1 ) year from the date of this letter , or this letter shall become null and void unless extended in writing by the District . Very truly yours , CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 1' J -p � W . Zadel eneral Manage JWZ/ca 89401.5 2235 2nd Avenue • Greeley, Colorado 80631 • (303) 352-1284 • John Zadel, General Manager EXHIBIT B 890015 cSt. gizain cSanitation istzict (Saint San) p Ooo Xt,n5aa tits«t JELL/36O.m -auuc iS /504 /76-Q570 -Cony.nont, C'v 3050! October 4, 1988 Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc. 1960 Industrial Circle Longmont, Colorado 80501 ATTN: Ms. Barbara Brunk Re: Saint Vrain Sanitation District - Commitment to Serve Dear Barb: This letter is in reference to the following-described real property: Grant Brothers Property - North one-half of Section 11, Township 2 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado. Saint Vrain Sanitation District has 1852 SFE (single family equivalent) taps, of which 112.4 have been purchased, resulting in 1739.6 available for purchase. These taps are available to you and other eligible landowners on a first-come, first-served basis, with a single exception. Prior to the adoption of its present policy, the District committed itself to reserve 163 SFE taps for a period of time. This commitment expires December 31, 1988; they will then be converted to this same first-come, first-served basis. This results in 1576.6 SFE taps presently available. -As the present supply of taps is consumed, the District plans to increase the size of its treatment plant to serve 5,555 SFE taps. These additional taps will also be made available on a first-come, first-served basis. The above-referenced property is eligible to utilize the available supply of taps on a first-come, first-served basis, subject to the following: a. Installation of on-site collection system and connection to the District's system by the applicant; th. execution of a Service Agreement; c. purchase and payment of the required number of taps; and d. compliance with the District's Rules and Regulations. 690015 Ms. Barb Brunk Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc. October 4, 1988 Page 2 Should you wish to obtain an absolute commitment to serve, taps may be pre- purchased and held until needed. Monthly service charges will be assessed upon completion of construction or twelve months, whichever comes first. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly urs, L. D. Lawson, P.E. Manager LDL:js SAINT-L.RMC cc: Nelson Engineers Grant Brothers 590015 EXHIBIT C 890015 SEE REPORT ENTITLED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS UNDER SEPARATE COVER 880015 EXHIBIT D 890015 • soil survey of Weld County, Colorado Southern Port United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in cooperotion with Colorado Agricultural Experiment Station 890015 WELL) COUNTY, COLORADO, SOUTHERN -PART 5 Tassel soils are on the crests and shoulders of the loamy and have a seasonal-high water table. Bankard soils ridges and breaks. Thedalund soils are below the breaks, have a sandy loam surface layer and sand underlying and Terry soils are on the smoother side slopes above the material. breaks."Tassel soils have a fine sandy loam surface layer Minor in this unit are the poorly drained Aquepts and and very fine sandy loam underlying material. Sandstone the ave11 drained Colombo, Haverson, and Nunn soils. is between 10 and 20 inches. Thedalund soils have a loam This map unit is used mainly for rangeland and wildlife surface layer and underlying material. Shale is between habitat. Wetness and the hazard of flooding are the main 20 and 40 inches. Terry soils have a fine sandy loam sur- limitations in farming and for most other purposes. The face layer and subsoil. Sandstone is between 20 and 40 potential is good for development of wetland wildlife inches. habitat. This map unit also has good potential as a source Minor in this unit are the well drained Nelson and of sand and gravel. Otero soils. This map unit is used mainly for rangeland. Shal- 10. Loup-Boel lowness and steep slopes are the main limitations in farm- Deep, level and nearly level, somewhat poorly drained ing and for most other purposes. The potential is fair to and poorly drained loamy sands formed in sandy alluvi- poor for wildlife habitat. UM S. Valent-Vona-Osgood This level and nearly level map unit is along Lost Creek in the sandhill area and in a small area north of Deep, nearly level to moderately sloping, well drained to Milton Reservoir. It makes up about 1 percent of the sur- excessively drained sands and sandy !Dams formed in vey area. About 55 percent is Loup soils,20 percent is eolian deposits Boel soils, and 15 percent is soils of minor extent. This nearly level to moderately sloping map unit is in Loup soils are in the lower, or depression, areas that the eastern and south-central parts of the survey area, receive additional runoff. Boel soils are at the slightly mainly in the sandhill area. It makes up about 36 percent higher elevations. Loup soils are poorly drained, and Boel of the total acreage. About 55 percent is Valent soils, 30 soils are somewhat poorly drained. Both soils have a percent is Vona soils, 9 percent is Osgood soils, and 6 per- loamy sand surface layer and underlying material and a cent is soils of minor extent. seasonal high water table. Valent soils are on the rolling and dunelike topography. Minor in this unit are the poorly drained Aquolls, the Vona soils are on the more gently sloping side slopes well drained Osgood soils, and the excessively drained along the outer edges of the sandhills. Osgood soils are in Valent soils. the concave, nearly level areas within the sandhills. This map unit is used mainly for rangeland. Wetness Valent soils have a sand surface layer and underlying and sandy texture are the main limitations in fanning. material. Vona soils have a loamy sand or sandy loam sur- The potential is fair for development of rangeland wildlife face layer and a sandy loam subsoil. habitat. Minor in this unit are the well drained Olney and Terry soils. 11. Nunn-Haverson This map unit is used mainly for rangeland. Some small Deep, level and nearly level, well drained loams and clay areas are used for irrigated and nonirrigated cropland. loans formed in alluvium Sandy texture is the main limitation in farming. The This level and nearly level map unit occupies long nar- potential is fair for urban development. The potential is row flood plains and alluvial fans along the major inter- mittent streams that disect the southeastern part of the 9. Aquolls-Aquents-Bankard survey area. It makes up about 4 percent of the total Deep, level and nearly level, poorly drained andacreage. About 45 percent is Nunn soils, 35 percent is Haverson soils, and 20 percent is soils of minor extent. somewhat excessively drained loamy soils and sandy Nunn soils are on the low terraces and alluvial fans and foams formed in alluvium are slightly higher in elevation than Haverson soils. "This level and nearly level map unit is on flood plains Haverson soils are on the bottom land and in areas of along major streams throughout the survey area. It more recent deposition. Nunn soils have a loam or clay makes up about 5 percent of the total acreage. About 35 loam surface layer and a clay loam subsoil. Haverson soils percent is Aquolls, 20 percent is Aquents, 20 percent is have a loam surface layer and underlying material and Tankard soils, and 25 percent is soils of minor extent. are stratified. Aquolls and Aquents form an intermingled complex Minor in this unit are the well drained Colombo, pattern along the outer limits of the bottom land, or flood Dacono, and Olney soils and the somewhat excessively plain. Bankard soils are adjacent to the streams. Aquolls drained Bankard soils. and Aquents are poorly drained, and Bankard soils are This map unit is used mainly for irrigated and nonir- somewhat excessively drained. Aquolls and Aquents are rigated cropland. The soils are well suited to all commonly 890015 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SOUTHERN PART 9 These are deep, poorly drained soils that formed in If summer fallowed in alternate years, this soil is well recent alluvium. No one pedon is typical. Commonly the suited to winter wheat, barley, and sorghum. Winter soils have a mottled, mildly to moderately-alkaline loamy wheat is the principal crop. The predicted average yield is or clayey surface layer and underlying material that ex- 33 bushels per acre. If the crop is winterkilled, spring tends to a depth of 60 inches or more. In places they have wheat can be seeded. Generally precipitation is too low a gleyed layer in the underlying material. for-beneficial use of fertilizer. Most of the acreage is subject to excessive runoff. The Stubble mulch farming, striperopping, and minimum til- water table is at or near the surface in spring and during lage are needed to control soil blowing and water erosion. the peak of the irrigation season. Terracing also may be needed to control water erosion. These soils are used for rangeland and wildlife habitat. The potential native vegetation on this range site is Some small areas are irrigated pasture. dominated by sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, and blue The potential native vegetation is dominated by grama. Needleandthread, switchgrass, sideoats grama, switchgrass, prairie cordgrass, saltgrass, alkali sacaton, and western wheatgrass are also prominent. Potential -big bluestem, indiangrass, western wheatgrass, slender Production ranges from-2,200 pounds per acre in favora- wheatgrass, sedge, and rush. Cattails and bullrush grow ble years to 1,800 pounds in unfavorable years. As range in the swampy spots associated with these range sites. condition deteriorates, the sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, Potential production ranges from 4,000 pounds per acre in and switchgrass decrease and blue grama, sand dropseed, favorable years to 3,000 pounds in unfavorable years. As and sand sage increase. Annual weeds and grasses invade the site as range condition becomes poorer. range condition deteriorates, the tall and mid grasses Management of vegetation should be based on taking decrease, production drops, and saltgrass, sedge, and rush half and leaving half of the total annual production.-Seed- increase. The farming and irrigation in to adjacent areas has ing is desirable if the range is in poor condition. Sand increased the amount of salts on much of the acreage. bluestem, sand reedgrass, switchgrass, sideoats grama, Management of vegetation on this soil should be based blue grama, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested wheat- on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- grass are suitable for seeding. The grass selected should lion. switchgrass, big bluestem, indiangrass, western meet the seasonal requirements of livestock. It can be wheatgrass, pubescent wheatgrass, intermediate wheat- seeded into a clean, firm sorghum stubble, or it can be grass, tall wheatgrass, and tall fescue are suitable for drilled into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in seeding. The plants selected should met the seasonal spring has proven most successful. requirements of livestock. For successful seeding, a firm Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally prepared seedbed is needed. A grass drill should be used. suited to this soil. Soil blowing, the principal hazard in Seeding early in spring has proven most successful. Til- establishing trees and shrubs, can be controlled by cul- lage is needed to eliminate the undesirable vegetation. tivating only in the tree row and by leaving a strip of Wetland wildlife, especially waterfowl, utilize this unit. vegetation between the rows. Supplemental irrigation The wetland plants provide nesting and protective cover may be needed at the time of planting and during dry as well as some food. The nearby irrigated cropland, periods. Trees that are best suited and have good survival where wildlife obtain much of their food and find protec- are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderosa tive cover, makes this unit valuable to both wetland and pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and hackberry. The openland wildlife. shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, and Siberi- Openland wildlife, especially pheasant, use this unit for an peashrub. cover and nesting. Deer find excellent cover in some Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The areas. These valuable wildlife areas should be protected cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked from fire and fenced to prevent encroachment and pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can overuse by livestock. They should not be drained. Capa- be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape bility subclass VIw; Aquolls in Salt Meadow range site, cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- Aquepts in Wet Meadow range site. tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- 5—Ascalon sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes. This is ment. Rangeland wildlife, for example, the pronghorn an- a deep, well drained soil on uplands at elevations of 4,600 telope, can be attracted by developing livestock watering to 5,200 feet. It formed in alluvium. Included in mapping facilities, managing livestock grazing, and reseeding are small areas of rock outcrop. where needed. Typically the surface layer is brown sandy loam about Few areas of this Ascalon soil are in major growth and 10 inches thick. The subsoil is pale brown and yellowish urbanized centers. The shrink-swell potential of the sub- brown sandy clay loam about 15 inches thick. The sub- soil as it wets and dries is the most limiting soil feature stratum to a depth of 60 inches is calcareous fine sandy that must be considered in planning homesites and con- loam. structing roads. Capability subclass IIIe nonirrigated; Permeability is moderate. Available water capacity is Sandy Plains range site. high. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. 6—Ascalon sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes. This is Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is low. a deep, well drained soil on uplands at elevations of 4,600 890015 • 8 SOIL SURVEY filter the leachate. Sewage lagoons require sealing. 60 percent of the unit. Aquents, which have a lighter Lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. Capability subclass colored surface layer, make up about 35 percent. About 5 Its irrigated. percent is Aque_pts and Bankard sandy loam. 2—Altvan loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes. This is a deep, These are deep, poorly drained soils that formed in well drained soil on terraces at elevations of 4,500 to 4,900 recent alluvium. No one pedon is typical. Commonly the feet. It formed in old alluvium deposited by the major soils have a mottled, mildly alkaline to moderately al- rivers. Included in mapping are small areas of soils that kaline loamy or clayey surface layer and underlying show evidence of poor drainage. Also included are small, material and are underlain by sand or sand and gravel long and narrow areas of sand and gravel deposits. within 48 inches. In places they have a gleyed layer in the Typically the surface layer of this Altvan soil is grayish underlying material. brown loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil is brown Most of the acreage is subject to flooding. The water and light yellowish brown clay loam and sandy clay loam table is at or near the surface early in spring and recedes about 14 inches thick. The substratum is calcareous loamy to as deep as 48 inches late in fall in some years. sand about 5 inches thick over gravelly sand. These soils are used for rangeland and wildlife habitat. Permeability and available water capacity are Some small areas have been reclaimed by major drainage moderate. The effective rooting depth is 20 to 40 inches. and leveling and are used for irrigated crops. Surface runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is low. The potential native vegetation is dominated by alkali This soil is used almost entirely for irrigated crops. It sacaton, switchgrass, and western wheatgrass. Saltgrass, is suited to all crops commonly grown in the area, includ- sedge, rush, and alkali bluegrass are also prominent. ing corn, sugar beets, beans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes, Potential production ranges from 3,000 pounds per acre in and onions. An example of a suitable cropping system is 3 favorable years to 2,000 pounds in unfavorable years. As to 4 years of alfalfa followed by corn, corn for silage, range condition deteriorates, the switchgrass, alkali sugar beets, small grain, or beans. Land leveling, ditch sacaton, and western wheatgrass decrease and saltgrass, lining, and installing pipelines may be needed for proper sedge, and rush increase. water application. Management of vegetation should be based on taking All methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow ir- half and leaving half of the total annual production. Seed- rigation is the most common. Barnyard manure and corn- ing is difficult and costly because numerous tillage prac- mercial fertilizer are needed for top yields. tices are required to eliminate the saltgrass sod. Windbreaks and environmental plantins of trees and Switchgrass, western wheatgrass, alkali sacaton, tall shrubs commonly grown in the area are are generally well wheatgrass, and tall fescue are suitable for seeding. They suited to this soil. Cultivation to control competing _can be seeded into a clean, firm seedbed. Seedbed vegetation should be continued for as many years as possible following planting. Trees that are best suited and preparation usually requires more than 1 year to have good survival are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern eliminate the saltgrass sod. A grass drill should be used. Seeding early in spring has proven most successful. redcedar, ponderosa pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and hackberry. The shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, Wetland wildlife, especially waterfowl, utilize this unit. lilac, Siberian peashrub, and American plum. The wetland plants provide nesting and protective cover, This soil can produce habitat elements that are highly as well as some food. The nearby irrigated cropland, suitable for openland wildlife including pheasant, cotton- where wildlife obtain much of their food and find protec- tail, and mourning dove. Such crops as wheat, corn, and tive cover, makes this unit valuable to both wetland and alfalfa provide suitable habitat for openland wildlife, openland wildlife. especially pheasant. Tree and shrub plantings and Openland wildlife, especially pheasant, use this unit for undisturbed nesting cover would enhance openland wil- cover and nesting. Deer find excellent cover in some dlife populations. areas. This Altvan soil has fair to good potential for urban These valuable wildlife areas should be protected from and recreational development.The chief limiting soil fea- fire and fenced to prevent encroachment and overuse by tures for urban development are the shrink-swell poten- livestock. They should not be drained. tial of the subsoil as it wets and dries and the rapid These soils have good potential as a source of sand and permeability of the sand and gravel substratum. Septic gravel. Capability subclass VIw; Salt Meadow range site. tank absorption fields function properly, but in places the 4—Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded. This nearly level substratum does not contain enough fines to properly map unit is in depressions in smooth plains and along the filter the leachate. Sewage lagoons require sealing., bottoms of natural drainageways throughout the survey Lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. Capability subclass area. Aquolls, which have a dark colored surface layer, IIe irrigated. make up about 55 percent of the unit. Aquepts, which 3—Aquolls and Aquents, gravelly substratum. This have a lighter colored surface layer, make up about 25 nearly level map unit is on bottom lands and flood plains percent. About 20 percent is soils that are well drained of all the major streams in the survey area. Aquolls, and soils that have sandstone or shale within 48 inches of which have a dark colored surface layer, make up about the surface. 590015 • ,20 SOIL SURVEY from grass and weeds are the principal hazards in tion ranges from 1,600 pounds per acre in favorable years establishing tree and shrub plantings. Summer fallowing a to 1,000 pounds in unfavorable years. As range condition year in advance in nonirrigated areas and continued cul- deteriorates, the tall grasses decrease, blue grama and tivation for weed control are needed to insure establish- buffalograss increase, and forage production drops. Un- ment and survival of plantings. Supplemental irrigation desirable weeds and annuals invade the site and erosion may be needed. Trees that are best suited and have good can occur as range condition becomes poorer. survival are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, Management of vegetation on this toil should be based ponderosa pine,Russian-olive, and hackberry. The shrubs on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, Siberian peashrub, tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. and American plum. Western wheatgrass, switchgrass, sand reedgrass, Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The sideoats grama, pubescent wheatgrass, intermediate cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked wheatgrass, and blue grama are suitable for seeding. The pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can grass selected should meet the seasonal requirements of be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape livestock. It can be seeded into a firm prepared seedbed. cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- A grass drill should be used. Seeding early in spring has tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- proven most successful. ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Windbreaks and environmental plantings are well This soil is poorly suited to urban and recreational suited to this soil. Flooding and moisture competition development because of the susceptibility to flooding. from grass and weeds are the principal hazards in Capability subclass IIw irrigated. establishing tree and shrub plantings. Summer fallowing a 26—Haverson loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes. This is a tivation for weed control are needed to insure establish- year in advance in nonirrigated areas and continued cul- deep, well drained soil on low terraces and flood plains at elevations of 4,500 to 4,800 feet. It formed in stratified ment and survival of plantings. Supplemental irrigation _calcareous alluvium. Included in mapping are small areas may be needed. Trees that are best suited and have good fine sandy loam and sandy loam under- ponderosa are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, of soils that have Ponderosa pine, Russian-olive, and hackberry. The shrubs lying material and small areas of soils that have sand and best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, Siberian peashrub, gravel within a depth of 40 inches. and American plum. Typically the surface layer of this Haverson soil is a sh brown loam about 4 inches thick. The underlying Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The gr cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked material material to a depth of 60 inches is pale brown loam pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can stratified with thin lenses of loamy sand and clay loam. be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape Permeability is moderate. Available water capacity is cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- high. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- Surface runoff is slow to medium, and the erosion hazard ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range- is low. land wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can be In irrigated areas this soil is suited to all crops com- attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, manly grown in the area, including corn, sugar beets, managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. ibeans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes, and onions. An exam- This soil is poorly suited to urban and recreational ple of a suitable cropping system is 3 to 4 years of alfalfa development because of the susceptibility to flooding. followed by corn, corn for silage, sugar beets, small grain, Capability subclass Ile irrigated, IVe nonirrigated; or beans. Land leveling, ditch lining, and installing Loamy Plains range site. pipelines may be needed for proper water applications. 27—Heldt silty clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes. This is a All methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow ir- deep, moderately well drained soil on plains at elevations rigation is the most common. Barnyard manure and com- of 4,950 to 5,050 feet. It formed in alluvial sediment mercial fertilizer are needed for top yields. derived from shale. Included in mapping are small areas In nonirrigated areas this soil is suited to winter wheat, of soils that have a clay loam or silt loam subsoil and sub- barley, and sorghum. Most of the acreage is planted to stratum. winter wheat. The predicted average yield is 28 bushels Typically the surface layer is light brownish gray and per acre. The soil is summer fallowed in alternate years light yellowish brown silty clay about 7 inches thick. The to allow moisture accumulation. Generally precipitation is subsoil is light brownish gray silty clay about 27 inches too low for beneficial use of fertilizer. thick. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches is silty clay. Stubble mulch farming, striperopping, and minimum til- Permeability is slow. Available water capacity is high. lage are needed to control soil blowing and water erosion. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Surface Terracing also may be needed to control water erosion. runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is moderate. The potential native vegetation is dominated by In irrigated areas this soil is suited to crops commonly western wheatgrass. Blue grama, switchgrass, sand grown in the area, such as corn, sugar beets, beans, alfal- -reedgrass, big bluestem, slender wheatgrass, indiangrass, fa, and small grain. The high clay content generally and green needlegrass are also present. Potential produc- restricts some crops. 890015 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SOUTHERN PART 21 Most methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow ir- grown crops should be grown at least 50 percent of the rigation is the most common. Proper irrigation water time. Contour ditches and corrugations can be used in ir- management is essential. Barnyard manure and commer- rigating close grown crops and pasture. Furrows, contour cial fertilizer are needed for top yields. furrows, and cross slope furrows are suitable for row In nonirrigated areas this soil is suited to winter wheat, crops. Keeping tillage to a minimum and utilizing crop barley, and sorghum. Most of the acreage is planted to residue help to control erosion. Maintaining fertility is im- winter wheat.-the predicted average yield is 25 bushels portant. Crops respond to applications of phosphorus and per acre. The soil is summer fallowed in alternate years nitrogen. to allow moisture accumulation. Generally precipitation is In nonirrigated areas this soil is suited to winter wheat, too low for beneficial use of fertilizer. barley, and sorghum. Most of the acreage is planted to Stubble mulch farming, striperopping, and minimum til- winter wheat. The predicted average yield is 20 bushels lage are needed to control soil blowing and water erosion. per acre. The soil is summer !allowed in alternate years The potential native vegetation is dominated by to allow moisture accumulation. Generally precipitation is western wheatgrass and blue grama. Buffalograss is also too low for beneficial use of fertilizer. present. Potential production ranges from 1,000 pounds in Stubble mulch farming, striperopping, and mimimum favorable years to 600 pounds in unfavorable years. As tillage are needed to control soil blowing and water ero- range condition deteriorates, a blue grama-buffalograss sion. Terracing also may be needed to control water ero- sod forms. Undesirable weeds and annuals invade the site sion. as range condition becomes poorer. The potential native vegetation is dominated by Management of vegetation on this soil should be based western wheatgrass and blue grama. Buffalograss is also on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- present. Potential production ranges from 1,000 pounds tion. Range pitting can help in reducing runoff. Seeding is per acre in favorable years to 600 pounds in unfavorable desirable if the range is in poor condition. Western years. As range condition deteriorates, a blue grama-buf- wheatgrass, blue grama, sideoats grama, buffalograss, pu- falograss sod forms. Undesirable weeds and annuals in- bescent wheatgrass, and crested wheatgrass are suitable vade the site as range condition becomes poorer. for seeding. The grass selected should meet the seasonal Management of vegetation on this soil should be based requirements of livestock. It can be seeded into a clean, on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- firm sorghum stubble, or it can be drilled into a firm tion. Range pitting can help in reducing runoff. Seeding is prepared seedbed. Seeding early in spring has proven desirable if the range is in poor condition. Western most successful. wheatgrass, blue grama, sideoats grama, buffalograss, pu- Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally bescent wheatgrass, and crested wheatgrass are suitable not suited to this soil. Onsite investigation is needed to for seeding. The grass selected should meet the seasonal determine if plantings are feasible. Successful windbreaks requirements of livestock. It can be seeded into a clean, require supplemental water. firm sorghum stubble, or it can be drilled into a form Openland wildlife, such as pheasant, mourning dove, prepared seedbed. Seeding early in spring has proven and cottontail, are best suited to this soil. Supplemental most successful. water is needed in wildlife habitat development, including Windbreaks and environmental plantings generally are the tree and shrub plantings that serve as nesting areas. not suited to this soil. Onsite investigation is needed to This soil has poor potential for urban and recreational determine if plantings are feasible. Successful windbreaks development. Slow permeability and high shrink swell require supplemental water. create problems in dwelling and road construction. Capa- Openland wildlife, such as pheasant, mourning dove, bility subclass Its irrigated, IVe nonirrigated; Clayey and cottontail, are best suited to this soil. Supplemental Plains range site. water is needed for wildlife habitat development, includ- 28—Heldt silty clay, 3 to 5 percent slopes. This is a ing tree and shrub plantings that serve as nesting areas. deep, moderately well drained soil on plains at elevations This soil has poor potential for urban and recreational of 4,950 to 5,050 feet. It formed in alluvial sediment development. Slow permeabiity and high shrink swell derived from shale. Included in mapping are small areas create problems in dwelling and road construction. Capa- of soils that have a clay loam or silt loam subsoil and sub- bility subclass IIIe irrigated, IVe nonirrigated; Clayey stratum. Plains range site. Typically the surface layer is light brownish gray and 29—Julesburg sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes. This light yellowish brown silty clay about 7 inches thick. The is a deep, well drained soil on terraces at elevations of subsoil is light brownish gray silty clay about 21 inches 4,700 to 4,800 feet. It formed in alluvium deposited by the thick. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches is silty clay. South Platte River. Included in mapping are some leveled Permeability is slow. Available water capacity is high. areas and small areas of soils that have a loamy sub- The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Surface stratum. runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is moderate. Typically the surface layer of this Julesburg soil is In irrigated areas this soil is suited to crops commonly brown sandy loam about 12 inches thick. The subsoil is grown in the area. Perennial grasses and alfalfa or close brown and pale brown sandy loam about 18 inches thick. 890015 _'li SOIL SURVEY shale is about 18 inches. Permeability is moderate. Availa- plication of -barnyard manure and commercial fertilizer. ble water capacity is low. The effective rooting depth is Keeping tillage to a minimum and utilizing crop residue 10 to 20 inches. Surface runoff is medium to rapid, and are important. the erosion hazard is moderate. In nonirrigated areas this soil is suited to winter wheat, This unit is used as rangeland and wildlife habitat.-The barley, and sorghum. Most of the acreage is planted to potential native vegetation is dominated by alkali sacaton, winter wheat and is summer followed in alternate years western wheatgrass, and blue grama. Buffalograss, to allow moisture accumulation. Generally precipitation is sideoats grama, needleandthread, little bluestem, sedge, too low for beneficial use of fertilizer. winterfat, and fourwing saltbush are also present. Poten- Stubble mulch farming, striperopping, and minimum til- tial production ranges from 800 pounds per acre in laze are needed to control soil blowing and water erosion. favorable years to 500 pounds in unfavorable years. As The potential native vegetation on this range site is range condition deteriorates, the mid grasses decrease dominated by sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, and blue and forage production drops. Undesirable weeds and an- grama. Needleandthread, switchgrass, sideoats grama, nuals invade the site as range condition becomes poorer. and western wheatgrass are also prominent. Potential Management of vegetation on this unit should be based production ranges from 2,200 pounds per acre in favora- on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- ble years to 1,800 pounds in unfavorable years. As range -tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. condition deteriorates, the sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, Western wheatgrass, blue grama, alkali sacaton, sideoats and switchgrass decrease and blue grama, sand dropseed, grama, little bluestem, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested and sand sage increase. Annual weeds and grasses invade wheatgrass are suitable for seeding. The grass selected the site as range condition becomes poorer. should meet the seasonal requirements of livestock. It can Management of vegetation on this soil should be based be seeded into a clean, firm sorghum stubble, or it can be on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- drilled into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. spring has provenmost successful. Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, switchgrass, sideoats Rangeland wildlife, such as antelope, cottontail, and grama, blue grama, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested coyote, are best suited to this unit. Because forage wheatgrass are suitable for seeding. The grass selected production is typically low, grazing management is needed should meet the seasonal requirements of livestock. It can if livestock and wildlife share the range. Livestock water- be seeded into a clean, firm sorghum stubble, or it can be ing facilities also are utilized by various wildlife species. drilled into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in -The nearby cropland makes areas of this unit valuable as spring has proven most successful. -escape cover for openland wildlife, especially pheasants. Windbreak and environmental plantings are generally Capability subclass VIe irrigated, VIe nonirrigated; Shaly not suited to this soil. Onsite investigation is needed to Plains range site. determine if plantings are feasible. 37—Nelson fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes. Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The This is a moderately deep, well drained soil on plains at cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked elevations of 4,800 to 5,050 feet. It formed in residuum pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can from soft sandstone. Included in mapping are small areas be developed by establishing areas for nesting and escape of soils that have sandstone at a depth of more than 40 cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- inches. tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- Typically the surface layer is light brownish gray fine ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range- sandy loam about 9 inches thick. The underlying material land wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can be is light olive brown fine sandy loam. Soft sandstone is at attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, a depth of about 30 inches. managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. Permeability is moderately rapid. Available water The underlying sandstone is the most limiting feature capacity is moderate. The effective rooting depth is 20 to of this soil. Neither septic tank absorption fields nor 40 inches. Surface runoff is slow to medium, and the ero- sewage lagoons operate properly. Site preparation for sion hazard is low. dwellings is more costly. Environmental and beautifica- This soil is suited to most of the irrigated crops com- tion plantings of trees and shrubs may be difficult to monly grown in the area, but it is somewhat restricted establish. This soil, however, does have good potential for -because it is only moderately deep. A suitable cropping such recreational development as camp and picnic areas system is corn, corn for silage, barley, 3 to 4 years of al- and playgrounds. Capability subclass Ills irrigated, IVe falfa, and wheat. This soil is also well suited to irrigated nonirrigated; Sandy Plains range site. pasture. 38—Nelson fine sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes. Row crops can be irrigated by furrows or sprinklers. This is a moderately deep, well drained soil on plains at Flooding from contour ditches and sprinkling are suitable elevations of 4,800 to 5,050 feet. It formed in residuum in irrigating close grown crops and pasture. Small heads derived from soft sandstone. Included in mapping are of water and short runs help to reduce erosion. Produc- small areas of soils that have sandstone at a depth of tion can be maintained with frequent irrigations and ap- more than 40 inches. f3910015 • WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SOUTHERN PART 97 Typically the surface layer is light brownish gray fine establish. This soil, however, does have good potential for sandy loam about 8 inches thick. The underlying material such recreational development as camp and picnic areas is light olive brown fine sandy loam. Soft sandstone is at and playgrounds. Capability subclass IVe irrigated, VIe a depth of about 28 inches. nonirrigated; Sandy Plains range site. Permeability is moderately rapid. Available water 39—Nunn loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes. This is a deep, capacity is moderate. The effective rooting depth is 20 to well drained soil on terraces at elevations of 4,550 to 5,000 40 inches. Surface runoff is medium to rapid, and the ero- feet. It formed in mixed alluvium. Included in mapping sion hazard is moderate. are small, long and narrow areas of sand and gravel This soil is suited to limited cropping. Intensive deposits and small areas of soil that are subject to occa- cropping is hazardous because of erosion. The cropping sional flooding. Some small leveled areas are also in- system should be limited to such close grown crops as al- eluded. falfa, wheat, and barley. This soil is also suited to ir- Typically the surface layer of this Nunn soil is grayish rigated pasture. A suitable cropping system is 3 to 4 brown loam about 12 inches thick. The subsoil is light years of alfalfa followed by 2 years of corn and small brownish gray clay loam about 12 inches thick. The upper grain and alfalfa seeded with a nurse crop. part of the substratum is light brownish gray clay loam. Close grown crops can be irrigated from closely spaced The lower part to a depth of 60 inches is brown sandy contour ditches or sprinklers. Contour furrows or sprin- loam. klers should be used for new crops. Applications of Permeability is moderately slow. Available water nitrogen and phosphorus help in maintaining good produc- capacity is high. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches tion. or more. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is The potential native vegetation on this range site is low. dominated by sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, and blue This soil is used almost entirely for irrigated crops. It grama. Needleandthread, switchgrass, sideoats grama, is suited to all crops commonly grown in the area, includ- and western wheatgrass are also prominent. Potential mg corn, sugar beets, beans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes, -production ranges from 2,200 pounds per acre in favora- and onions. An example of a suitable cropping system is 3 ble years to 1,800 pounds in unfavorable years. As range to 4 years of alfalfa followed by corn, corn for silage, condition deteriorates, the sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, sugar beets, small grain, or beans. Few conservation prac- dropse and switchgrass decrease and blue grama, sand dropseed, bees are needed to maintain top yields. and sand sage increase. Annual weeds and grasses invade All methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow ir- the site as range condition becomes poorer. rigation is the most common. Barnyard manure and com- Management of vegetation on this soil should be based mercial fertilizer are needed for top yields. on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- Windbreaks and environmental plantings of trees and tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. shrubs commonly grown in the area are generally well Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, switchgrass, sideoats suited to this soil. Cultivation to control competing grama, blue grama, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested wheatgrass are suitable for seeding. The grass selected vegetation should be continued for as many years as should Possible following planting. Trees that are best suited and meet the seasonal requirements of livestock. It can be seeded into a clean, firm sorghum stubble, or it can be have good survival are Stocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderosa pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and drilled into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in hackberry. The shrubs best suited are skunkbush, lilac, spring has proven most successful. Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally Siberian peashrub, and American plum. not suited. Onsite investigation is needed to determine if Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The plantings are feasible. cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can cropland areas provide wildlife habitat for ring-necked be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- -be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- This soil has fair to poor potential for urban develop- ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range- ment. It has moderate to high shrink swell, low strength, land wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can be - and moderately slow permeability. These features create attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, problems in dwelling and road construction. Those areas managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. that have loam or sandy loam in the lower part of the The underlying sandstone is the most limiting feature substratum are suitable for septic tank absorption fields of this soil. Neither septic tank absorption fields nor and foundations. Some areas are adjacent to streams and sewage lagoons operate properly. Site preparation for are subject to occasional flooding. This soil has fair poten- dwellings is more costly. Environmental and beautifica- tial for such recreational development as camp and picnic tion plantings of trees and shrubs may be difficult to areas and playgrounds. Capability class I irrigated. 890015 • 32 SOIL SURVEY are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderosa ble years to 1,800 pounds in unfavorable years. As ru;ge pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and hackberry. The condition deteriorates, the sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, and Siberi- and switchgrass decrease and blue grama, sand d ropseed, an peashrub. and sand sage increase. Annual weeds and grasses invade Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The the site as range condition becomes poorer. cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked Management of vegetation on this soil should be based pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, switchgrass, sideoats tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- grama, blue grama, and pubescent wheatgrass are suita- ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. ble for seeding. The grass selected should meet the Rapid expansion of Greeley and the surrounding area seasonal requirements of livestock. It can be seeded into has resulted in urbanization of much of this Olney soil. a clean, firm sorghum stubble, or it can be drilled into a This soil has good potential for urban and recreational firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in spring has development. The only limiting feature is the moderately proven most successful. rapid permeability in the substratum, which causes a Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally hazard of ground water contamination from sewage suited to this soil. Soil blowing, the principal hazard in lagoons. Lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. Capability establishing trees and shrubs, can be controlled by cul- class I irrigated. tivating only in the tree row and by leaving a strip of 47—Olney fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes. vegetation between the rows. Supplemental irrigation This is a deep, well drained soil on plains at elevations of may be needed at the time of planting and during dry 4,600 to 5,200 feet. It formed in mixed outwash deposits. periods. Trees that are best suited and have good survival Included in mapping are small areas of soils that have a are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderosa dark surface layer. Some small leveled areas are also in- pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and hackberry. The eluded. shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, and Siberi- Typically the surface layer of this Olney soil is grayish an peashrub. brown fine sandy loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The is yellowish brown and very pale brown sandy clay loam cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked about 14 inches thick. The substratum to a depth of 60 pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can inches is very pale brown, calcareous fine sandy loam. be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape Permeability and available water capacity are cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- moderate. 'The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- more. Surface runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range- low' land wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can be In irrigated areas this soil is suited to all crops corn- attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, monly grown in the area, including corn, sugar beets, managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. beans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes, and onions. An exam- Rapid expansion of Greeley and the surrounding area ple of a suitable cropping system is 3 to 4 years of alfalfa has resulted in urbanization of much of the Olney soil. followed by corn, corn for silage, sugar beets, smallgrain, This soil has good potential for urban and recreational or beans. Land leveling, ditch lining, and installing development. The only limiting feature is the moderately pipelines may be needed for proper water application. All rapid permeability in the substratum, which causes a methods of irrigation are suitable, but fun-ow irrigation is hazard of ground water contamination from sewage the most common. Barnyard manure and commercial fer- lagoons. Lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. Capability tilizer are needed for top yields. subclass IIe irrigated, IVe nonirrigated; Sandy Plains In nonirrigated areas this soil is suited to winter wheat, range site. barley, and sorghum. Most of the acreage is planted to 48—Olney fine sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes. winter wheat. The predicted average yield is 28 bushels This is a deep, well drained soil on plains at elevations of per acre. The soil is summer fallowed in alternate years 4,600 to 5,200 feet. It formed in mixed outwash deposits. to allow moisture accumulation. Generally precipitation is Included in mapping are small areas of soils that have a too low for beneficial use of fertilizer. dark surface layer and small areas of soils that have Stubble mulch farming, striperopping, and minimum til- sandstone and shale within a depth of 60 inches. lage are needed to control soil blowing and water erosion. Typically the surface layer of this Olney soil is grayish Terracing also may be needed to control water erosion. brown fine sandy clay loam about 8 inches thick. The sub- The potential native vegetation on this range site is soil is yellowish brown and very pale brown fine sandy dominated by sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, and blue loam about 12 inches thick. The substratum to a depth of grama. Needleandthread, switchgrass, sideoats grama, 60 inches is very pale brown, calcareous fine sandy loam. and western wheatgrass are also prominent. Potential Permeability and available water capacity are production ranges from 2,200 pounds per acre in favora- moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or B90015 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SOUTHERN TART 33 more. Surface runoff is medium, and the erosion-hazard is ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range- low. land wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can be In irrigated areas this soil is suited to the crops corn- attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, monly grown in the area. Perennial grasses and alfalfa or managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. close grown crops should be grown at least 50 percent of Rapid expansion of Greeley and the surrounding area the time. Contour ditches and corrugations can be used in has resulted in urbanization of much of this Olney soil. irrigating close grown crops and pasture. Furrows, con- The soil has good potential for urban and recreational tour furrows, and cross slope furrows are suitable for row development. The only limiting features the moderately crops. Sprinkler irrigation is also desirable. Keeping til- rapid permeability in the substratum, which causes a lage to a minimum and utilizing crop residue help to con- hazard of ground water contamination from sewage trol erosion. Maintaining fertility is important. Crops lagoons. Lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. Capability respond to applications of phosphorus and nitrogen. subclass IIIe irrigated, IVe nonirrigated; Sandy Plains In nonirrigated areas this soil is suited to winter wheat, range site. barley, and sorghum. Most of the acreage is planted to 49—Osgood sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes. This is a deep, winter wheat. The predicted average yield is 25 bushels well drained soil on smooth plains at elevations of 4,680 to per acre. The soil is summer fallowed in alternate years 4,900 feet. It formed in eolian sands. Included in mapping to allow moisture accumulation. Generally precipitation is are small areas of soils that have a subsoil within 20 too low for beneficial use of fertilizer. inches of the surface. Also included are small areas of Stubble mulch farming, striperopping, and minimum til- soils that have a loam and sandy clay loam subsoil. lage are needed to control soil blowing and water erosion. Typically the surface layer of this Osgood soil is gray- Terracing also may be needed to control water erosion. ish brown sand about 22 inches thick. The subsoil is The potential native vegetation on this range site is brown sandy loam about 12 inches thick. The substratum dominated by sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, and blue to a depth of 60 inches is pale brown loamy sand and grama. Needleandthread, switchgrass, sideoats grama, sand. and western wheatgrass are also prominent. Potential Permeability is moderately rapid. Available water production ranges from 2,200 pounds per acre in favora- capacity is moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 ble years to 1,800 pounds in unfavorable years. As condi- inches or more. Surface runoff is very slow, and the ero- tion deteriorates, sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, and sion hazard is low. switchgrass decrease and blue grama, sand dropseed, and This soil is suited to limited cropping. Intensive sand sage increase. Annual weeds and grasses invade the cropping is hazardous because of erosion. The cropping -site as range condition becomes poorer. system should be limited to such close grown crops as al- Management of vegetation on this soil should be based falfa, wheat, and barley. This soil also is suited to ir- on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- rigated pasture. A suitable cropping system is 3 to 4 tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. years of alfalfa followed by 2 years of corn and small Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, switchgrass, sideoats grain and alfalfa seeded with a nurse crop. grama, blue grama, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested Closely spaced contour ditches or sprinklers can be wheatgrass are suitable for seeding. The grass selected used in irrigating close grown crops. Contour furrows or should meet the seasonal requirements of livestock. It can sprinklers should be used for new crops. Applications of be seeded into a clean, firm sorghum stubble, or it can be nitrogen and phosphorus help in maintaining good produc- drilled into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in tion. spring has proven most successful. -The potential vegetation on this soil is dominated by Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, switchgrass, sideoats suited to this soil. Soil blowing, the principal hazard in grama, needleandthread, little bluestem, and blue grama. establishing trees and shrubs, can be controlled by cul- Potential production ranges from 2,500 pounds per acre in tivating only in the tree row and by leaving a strip of favorable years to 1,800 pounds in unfavorable years. As vegetation between the rows. Supplemental irrigation range condition deteriorates, the sand bluestem, may be needed at the time of planting and during dry switchgrass, sand reedgrass, sideoats grama, and little periods.Trees that are best suited and have good survival bluestem decrease; forage production drops; and sand are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderosa sage increases. Undesirable weeds and annuals invade pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and hackberry. The and "blowout" conditions can occur as range condition shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, and Siberi- becomes poorer. an peashrub. Management of vegetation on this soil should be based Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, indiangrass, switchgrass, he attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape sideoats grama, little bluestem, and blue grama are suita- cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- ble for seeding. Because this soil is susceptible to soil tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- blowing, the grasses should be seeded with an interseeder 890015 l' 48 SOIL SURVEY Management of vegetation on this soil should be based Windbreaks and environmental plantings are general!) on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- suited to this soil. Soil blowing, the principal hazard in tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. establishing ores and shrubs, can he controlled by cul- Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, switchgrass, sideoats tivating only in the tree row and by leaving a strip of grama, blue grama, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested vegetation between the rows. Supplemental irrigation wheatgrass are suitable for seeding. -The grass selected may be necessary at the time of planting and during the should meet the seasonal requirements of livestock. It can dry periods. Trees that are best suited and have good be seeded into a clean, firm sorghum stubble, or it can be survival are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, drilled into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in ponderosa pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive,and hackber- spring has proven most successful. ry.The shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, and Windbreaks and environmental plantings are fairly well Siberian peashrub. suited to this soil. Blowing sand and low available water Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. capacity are the principal -hazards in establishing trees Ring-necked pheasant, mourning dove, and many non- and shrubs. This soil is so loose that trees should be game species can be attracted by establishing areas for planted in shallow furrows and vegetation maintained nesting and escape cover. For pheasants, undisturbed between the rows. Supplemental irrigation may be needed nesting cover is essential and should be included in plans for habitat development, especially in areas of intensive to insure survival. Trees that are best suited and have good survival are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern agrculture. redcedar, ponderosa pine, and Siberian -elm. The shrubs This soil has good potential for urban and recreational best development. Lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. The suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, and Siberian g eashrnb. stratum, which causes a hazard of ground water con- only limiting feature is the rapid permeability in the sub- Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. Ran- g eland wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can Lamination from sewage lagoons. Capability subclass IIs irrigated. be attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. 76—Vona sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes. This is a This soil has good potential for urban and recreational deep, well drained soil on plains and high terraces at elevations of 4,600 to 5,200 feet. It formed in eolian and development. Once established, the lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. The primary limiting soil feature is the alluvial deposits. Included in mapping are some leveled areas. Also included are small areas of soils that have a rapid permeability in the substratum, which causes a loamy substratum and areas of soils that are-noncalcare- hazard of ground water contamination from sewage ous to a depth of 60 inches. lagoons. 1n places recreational development is limited by Typically the surface layer of this Vona soil is grayish the susceptibility to soil blowing. Capability subclass Vie brown sandy loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil is irrigated, VIe nonirrigated; Sandy Plains range site. brown fine sandy loam about 18 inches thick. The sub- 15—Vona sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes. This is a stratum to a depth of 60 inches is sandy loam. deep, well drained soil on high terraces at elevations of Permeability is moderately rapid. Available water 4,650 to 4,950 feet. It formed in alluvial deposits. Included capacity is moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 in mapping are some leveled areas and small areas of inches or more. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion soils that have a loamy substratum. hazard is low. Typically the surface layer of this Vona soil is grayish In irrigated areas this soil is suited to all crops corn- -brown sandy loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil is monly grown in the area, including corn, sugar beets, brown fine sandy loam about 20 inches thick. The sub- beans, alfalfa, small grain, and onions. An example of a -stratum to a depth of 60 inches is sandy loam. suitable cropping system is 3 to 4 years of alfalfa fol- Permeability is moderately rapid. Available water lowed by corn, corn for silage, sugar beets, small grain, or capacity is moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 beans. Land leveling, ditch lining, and installing pipelines inches or more. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion are needed for proper water applications. hazard is low. All methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow ir- This soil is used almost entirely for irrigated crops. It rigation is the most common. Barnyard manure and com- is suited to all crops commonly grown in the area, includ- mercial fertilizer are needed for top yields. ing corn, sugar beets, beans, alfalfa (fig. 7), small grain, Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally potatoes, and onions. An example of a suitable cropping suited to this soil. Soil blowing, the principal hazard in system is 3 to 4 years of alfalfa followed by corn, corn for establishing trees and shrubs, can be controlled by cul- silage, sugar beets, small grain, or beans. The rapidly tivating only in the tree row and by leaving a strip of permeable substratum slightly restricts some crops. vegetation between the rows. Supplemental irrigation All methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow ir- may be necessary at the time of planting and during dry rigation is the most common. Proper irrigation manage- periods. Trees that are best suited and have good survival ment is essential. Barnyard manure and commercial fertil- are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderosa izer are needed for top yields. pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and hackberry. The 89 015 • WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SOUTHERN PART 49 shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, and Siberi- and switchgrass decrease and blue grama, sand dropseed, an peashrub. and sand sage increase. Annual weeds and grasses invade Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The the site as range condition becomes poorer. cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked Management of vegetation on this soil should be based pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape tion. Seeding is desirable if range is in poor condition. cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, switchgrass, sideoats tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- grama, blue grama, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range- wheatgrass are suitable for seeding. The grass selected land wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can be should meet the seasonal requirements of livestock. It can attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, be seeded into a clean, firm sorghum stubble, or it can be managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. drilled into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in This soil has good potential for urban and recreational spring has proven most successful. development. Lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. The Windbreaks and environmental plantings generally are only limiting feature is the rapid permeability in the sub- suited to this soil. Soil blowing, the principal hazard in stratum, which causes a hazard of ground water con- establishing trees and shrubs, can be controlled by cul- tamination from sewage lagoons. Capability subclass IIe tivating only in the tree row and by leaving a strip of irrigated; IVe nonirrigated; Sandy Plains range site. vegetation between the rows. Supplemental irrigation 77—Vona sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes. This is a may be needed at the time of planting and during dry deep, well drained soil on plains at elevations of 4,600 to periods. Trees that are best suited and have good survival 5,200 feet. It formed in eolian deposits. Included in are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderosa mapping are small areas of soils that have a loamy sub- pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and hackberry. The -stratum and areas of soils that are noncalcareous to a shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac and Siberi- depth of 60 inches. an peashrub. Typically the surface layer of this Vona soil is grayish Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The brown sandy loam about 8 inches thick. The subsoil is cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked -brown fine sandy loam about 15 inches thick. The sub- pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can stratum to a depth of 60 inches is sandy loam. be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape Permeability is moderately rapid. Available water cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- capacity is moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- inches or more. Surface runoff is medium, and the erosion ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range- hazard is low. land wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can be In irrigated areas this soil is suited to the crops com- attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, monly grown in the area. Perennial grasses and alfalfa or managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. close grown crops should be grown at least 50 percent of This soil has good potential for urban and recreational the time. Contour ditches and corrugations can be used in development. Lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. The in-igating close grown crops and pasture. Furrows, con- only limiting feature is the rapid permeability in the sub- tour furrows, and cross slope furrows are suitable for row stratum, which causes a hazard of ground water con- crops. Sprinkler irrigation is also desirable. Keeping til- Lamination from sewage lagoons. Capability subclass Iife lage to a minimum and utilizing crop residue help to con- irrigated, VIe nonirrigated; Sandy Plains range site. trol erosion. Maintaining fertility is important. Crops 78—Weld loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes. This is a deep, respond to applications of phosphorus and nitrogen. well drained soil on smooth plains at elevations of 4,850 to In nonirrigated areas this soil is suited to winter wheat, 5.000 feet. It formed in eolian deposits. Included in barley, and sorghum. Most of the acreage is planted to mapping are small areas of soils that have a subsoil of winter wheat. The predicted average yield is 28 bushels loam and light clay loam. Also included are some leveled per acre. The soil is summer fallowed in alternate years areas. to allow moisture accumulation. Generally precipitation is Typically the surface layer of this Weld soil is brown too low to make beneficial use of fertilizer. loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil is brown and pale Mulch farming, striperopping, and minimum tillage are brown heavy clay loam and light clay about 20 inches needed to control soil blowing and water erosion. Terrac- thick. The substratum to a depth of 60 inches is silt loam. Mg also may be needed to control water erosion. Permeability is slow. Available water capacity is high. The potential native vegetation on this range site is The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Surface dominated by sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, and blue runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is low. grama. Needleandthread, switchgrass, sideoats grama, This soil is used almost entirely for irrigated crops. It and western wheatgrass are also prominent. Potential is suited to all crops commonly grown in the area includ- production ranges from 2,200 pounds per acre in favora- ing corn, sugar beets, beans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes, ble years to 1,800 pounds in unfavorable years. As range and onions. An example of a suitable cropping system is 3 condition deteriorates, the sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, to 4 years of alfalfa followed by corn, corn for silage. 890015 EXHIBIT A TO: AFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS MINERALS AND/OR SUBSURFACE The following is a list of the names and addresses of all mineral owners and lessees of mineral owners on or under the N1/2 of Section 11, Township 2 North, Range 68 West. of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. 1. Mineral Owners: Same as surface owners. 2. Lessees: The following individuals and/or entities have leasehold interests in the oil and gas rights underlying the property: Machii - Ross Petroleum Company Suite 3070, 3420 Ocean Park Boulevard Santa Monica, California 90405-3305 Vessels Oil and Gas Company/Thomas Vessels Suite 2000, Prudential Plaza 1050 - 17th Street Denver, Colorado 80205 Adolph Coors Company Golden, Colorado 80401 WHG/pkf MIS/EXBT.A 101288 890015 Hello