HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200535.tiffUSE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR) APPLICATION
FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE
AMOUNT S
APPLICATION RECEIVED BY
DATE RECEIVED:
CASE # ASSIGNED: IUSR190069
PLANNER ASSIGNED:
PROPERTY INFORMATION (Attach additional sheets if necessary)
Is the property currently in violation? O No / ❑ Yes Violation Case Number:
Site Address: 10848 County Road 19. Fort Lupton, CO, 80621
Parcel Number: 1 3 1 1 _ 1 0 _ 2 _ 0 0 _ 0 3 4
Legal Description: 10+I'
SUBX18-0021
Section: 10 , Township 2 N, Range 67 W
Zoning District: Ag Acreage: 104- Within subdivision? No / ❑ Yes Townsite? E No / D Yes
If yes, subdivision or townsite name:
Floodplain O No / ❑ Yes Geological Hazard C No / I _ Yes Airport Overlay E No / ❑ Yes
PROPERTY OWNER(S) (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Name: Troy Andersen
Company: Name of proposed business: A Pet Ranch
Phone #: 303 709.7145
Email: troy8899@comcast.net
Street Address: 7400 Elm St. Enchanted Hills
City/State/Zip Code: Longmont, co 80504
Name:
Company:
Phone #:
Email:
Street Address:
City/State/Zip Code.
APPLICANT/AUTHORIZED AGENT (Authorization must be included if there is an Authorized Agent.)
Name: Neal Andersen
Company:
Phone #: 303.834.5978
Email: neal.andersen@gmail corn
Street Address: 7400 Elm St. Enchanted Hills
City/State/Zip Code: Longmont, CO 80504
I (We) hereby depose and state under penalties of perjury that all statements, proposals, and/or plans
submitted with or contained within the application are true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge.
All fee owners of the property must sign this application. If an Authorized Agent signs, an Authorization
Form signed by all fee owners must be included with the application. If the fee owner is a corporation,
evidence must be included indicating the signatory has the leg a#utfiorjto sign for the corporation.
! 'i/‘ 21 AioJ 2mt
Signatu e
Troy Andersen
Date Signature
Neal Andersen
Print Print
2/7?/
Date
7/29/2019
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONNMENT
1555 NORTH 17TH AVENUE
GREELEY, CO 80631
AUTHORIZATION FORM FOR BUILDING, PLANNING AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT PERMITS
AND SERVICES
Troy Andersen Neal Andersen
I, (We), , give permission to
(Owner - please print) (Applicant/Agent - please print)
to apply for any Planning, Building or Health Department permits or services on our behalf, for the property
located at:
10848 County Road 19, Fort Lupton, CO, 80621
SUBX18-0021
18-0021 10 2 67
Legal Description: of Section Township N, Range W
Subdivision Name: Lot Block
Property Owners Information:
303.709.7145
Phone:
Applicant/Agent Contact Information:
303.834.5978
Phone:
troy8899@comcast.net
E-mail:
E -Mail:
neal.andersen@gmail.com
Email correspondence to be sent to: Owner El Applicant/Agent II Both [ ✓1
Postal service correspondence to be sent to: (choose only one) Owner O Applicant/Agent El
Additional Info:
Owner Signature:
21 Nov 2019
Date:
Owner Signature: j Date:
7/29/2019 9
USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR) QUESTIONNAIRE
Answer the following questions on a separate sheet. If a question does not pertain to your use. please
respond with "not applicable".
Planning Questions: Planner on Call 970-400-6100
1. Explain, in detail, the proposed use of the property. Include. at a minimum, the following:
a. Type of use for which the application is being made.
Proposed use of the property is for a dog kennel and dog daycare facility for 120 dogs. We will
provide indoor and outdoor play areas where the dogs can socialize. The facility will consist of 4
buildings. The main building will be 120 foot long by 60 foot wide that will contain offices, indoor
exercise areas. and an ADA bathroom for both employee and customer use. The four dog -kennel
buildings will connect to this "main" building — see USR map for details. Each dog -kennel is 70 foot
by 30 foot buildings that will house 30 dog kennels with runs, and dog food/water prep area. These
buildings will be built using cinder block walls for noise abatement and have concrete floors. The
concrete and cinder blocks will be painted with epoxy paint to seal them and make cleanup easier.
Each kennel will have a raised dog bed. water and food bowl. Premium insulation will be used in
all buildings for sound remediation for indoor barking. Soothing music will be played in each area
(kennels and indoor exercise areas) to keep the dogs calm.
The outside exercise areas and kennel runs will be fully fenced with 8 foot chain link fence.
Screening (either slats or mesh screens) will be used as needed to isolate the dogs from outside
factors to minimize barking. The kennel runs will have pea gravel and the exercise areas will be
natural grass vegetation that already exists on the property. The drive way and parking area will be
recycled materials (mainly crushed concrete) and will have 58 regular parking spaces and 4
handicapped (ADA) parking spaces. There will be adequate space for emergency vehicles and two
way traffic flow.
A typical day should include:
i. Management and staff show up at 7:00am to start receiving daycare dogs and to check
kennels for cleanliness and to prepare for the day. Check on any boarding dogs. open
access to kennel runs as weather permits, or take them for an out" as needed.
ii. Daycare dogs arrive and are placed into kennels, open access to kennel runs as weather
permits. or take them for an "out" as needed.
iii. Start morning feeding and watering.
iv. Once dogs are feed. staff will "collect" their dogs and take them to an exercise pen for
morning exercise (either inside if the weather is bad, or outside if the weather is good).
v. While dogs are out of the kennels, a staff member will check kennels for cleanliness and
clean as needed. Staff members will collect solid wastes in the exercise areas as they
monitor the dogs during the morning exercise period.
vi. Staff will return their dogs to the kennels for mid -day rest and watering. Those dogs that
require a mid -day meal will receive it at this time. Staff members will inspect the exercise
areas and perform any cleaning required prior to the afternoon exercise period.
vii. Staff will "collect" their dogs and take them to an exercise pen for afternoon exercise (either
inside if the weather is bad. or outside if the weather is good). Staff members will collect
solid wastes in the exercise areas as they monitor the dogs during the afternoon exercise
period.
viii. Staff will return their dogs to the kennels for afternoon rest and prepare for the daycare or
boarder dogs departure.
ix. Daycare and/or boarder dogs depart.
x. Some staff start evening feeding/watering while the rest perform nightly cleaning duties.
xi. Staff leave for the day.
b. Current or previous use of the land, if any.
The property was a managers house for a former turkey farm.
c. Include a statement delineating the need for the proposed use.
Surrounding townships have added more apartments and condominiums with little to no dog areas.
We will be providing the service to dog owners to keep the pets exercised during the day to help
promote the pet's wellbeing. We will also make the larger outdoor pens available to clients for "one
on one off leash time with their pets.
d. Describe the uses surrounding the site and explain how the proposed use is compatible with them.
To the east, south, and west are agricultural land uses (cattle ranch. and hay fields). To the north,
and northeast are agricultural lands with houses. Dog kennel with day care will maintain the
agricultural land by maintaining grassy fields around the kennel.
e. Describe the proximity of the proposed use to residential structures.
The dog kennel will be over 750 foot from the nearest neighbor's house. It will be over 140 foot to
the existing (manager's) house on the property.
f. Describe the hours and days of operation (e.g. Monday thru Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.).
Monday — Friday. 7:00am to 7:00pm
Saturday, 7:00am to 1:00pm
Saturday & Sunday, 4:00pm to 6:00pm (Boarding pickup only)
g. Describe the number of shifts and the maximum number of employees per shift.
There will be one shift with the maximum of 10 employees
h. Describe the maximum number of users, patrons. members, buyers or other visitors that the use
by special review facility is designed to accommodate at any one time.
Approximately 90 people will use the facility throughout the day.
List the types and maximum numbers of animals to be on the site at any one time (for dairies.
livestock confinement operations. kennels. etc.).
Maximum of 120 dogs can be housed at the facility.
List the types and numbers of operating and processing equipment to be utilized.
N/A
k. List the types. number and uses of the proposed structures to be erected.
One 120 foot by 60 foot building that will have offices. indoor exercise areas. and an ADA bathroom
for both employee and customer use. The four dog -kennel buildings will connect to this "main"
building — see USR map for details.
The four dog -kennel buildings are 70 foot by 30 foot and house 30 dog kennels with runs. and dog
food/water prep area. These buildings will be built using cinder block walls for noise abatement and
have concrete floors. The concrete and cinder blocks will be painted with epoxy paint to seal them
and make cleanup easier. Each kennel will have a raised dog bed. water and food bowl.
Premium insulation will be used in all buildings for sound remediation for indoor barking. Soothing
music will be played in each area (kennels and indoor exercise areas) to keep the dogs calm.
Describe the size of stockpile. storage or waste areas to be utilized, if any.
N/A
m. Describe the method and time schedule of removal or disposal of debris, junk and other wastes
associated with the proposed use
Solid waste will be disposed of in a normal municipal landfill via an outdoor dumpster that is emptied
on a regular basis by a licensed disposal company.
n. Include a time table showing the periods of time required for the construction of the operation.
Main Building. one kennel building with runs. and landscaping around main building — 6 months of
USR approval
Fencing for perimeter and northwest runs — 6 months of USR approval
Trees in northwest runs — season permitting
Second kennel building with runs — as business demands require
Third kennel with runs — as business demands require
Fourth kennel with runs — as business demands require
o. Describe the type of lot surface proposed and the square footage of each type (e.g. asphalt, gravel,
landscaping. dirt, grass, buildings).
Lot Surface
Square Footage
Existing Building
3,483
Proposed Buildings
15.600
Concrete
1,760
Recycled Materials
53,052
Gravel
17,240
Grass
344,465
p. How many parking spaces are proposed? How many handicapped (ADA) parking spaces are
proposed?
58 regular parking spaces
4 handicapped (ADA) parking spaces
q. Describe the proposed screening for all parking and outdoor storage areas.
Parking lot will have trees and landscaping around it. No outside storage.
r. Describe the existing and proposed landscaping for the site.
Existing landscaping is grass/weedy fields with 13 evergreen trees in the front of the house.
Proposed landscape will have more grass in the field to the south of the facility and to put in
additional trees, both evergreen and deciduous trees. randomly throughout the field.
s. Describe the type of fence or other screening proposed for the site.
8 foot chain link with screening (slats or screen) where needed.
t. Describe reclamation procedures to be employed as stages of the operation are phased out or
upon cessation of the Use by Special Review activity.
N/A
u. Describe the proposed fire protection measures.
Main building will be a steel truss frame structure with steel panel exterior walls and roof. The dog
kennel buildings will be constructed with cinder block walls with steel truss with steel roof panels.
4 foot steel fire doors, with closures, will be used where the dog kennel connects to the "main"
building There will also be 4 foot steel doors. with closures, at the end of the kennel aisle way to
exit the kennel.
2. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 7.2 Conversion of agricultural land to nonurban residential, commercial and industrial uses
should be accommodated when the subject site is in an area that can support such development.
and should attempt to be compatible with the region.
3. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the zone district in which it is located. (Intent
statements can be found at the beginning of each zone district section in Article III of Chapter 23.)
Kennels are consistent with the intent of the Weld County Code. Chapter 23 (Zoning) and the zone
district in which this site is located.
4. Explain how this proposal will be compatible with future development of the surrounding area or
adopted master plans of affected municipalities.
N/A — not in any master plans of affected municipalities
5. Explain how this proposal complies with Article V and Article XI of Chapter 23 if the proposal is located
within any Overlay Zoning District (Airport, Geologic Hazard, or Historic Townsites Overlay Districts)
or a Special Flood Hazard Area identified by maps officially adopted by the County.
N/A
6. If the proposed use is to be located in the A (Agricultural) Zone District, explain your efforts to conserve
prime agricultural land in the locational decision for the proposed use.
The plan is to keep approximately 80% of the property in grass field. The plan is to plant additional
trees. both evergreen and deciduous. randomly throughout the field.
7. Explain whether this proposal interferes with the protection of the health. safety and welfare of the
inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County.
This dog kennel and dog daycare will not interfere with the protection of the health, safety or
welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood nor the County.
Environmental Health Questions: 970-400-2702
1. What is the drinking water source on the property? If utilizing a drinking water well include either the
well permit or well permit application that was submitted to the State Division of Water Resources. If
utilizing a public water tap include a letter from the Water District. a tap or meter number. or a copy of
the water bill.
Central Weld County Water District
2. What type of sewage disposal system is on the property? If utilizing an existing septic system provide
the septic permit number. If there is no septic permit due to the age of the existing septic system. apply
for a septic permit through the Department of Public Health and Environment prior to submitting this
application. If a new septic system will be installed please state "a new septic system is proposed.'
Only propose portable toilets if the use is consistent with the Department of Public Health and
Environment's portable toilet policy.
A new septic system is proposed.
3. If storage or warehousing is proposed, what type of items will be stored?
N/A
4. Describe where and how storage and/or stockpile of wastes. chemicals, and/or petroleum will occur on
this site.
N/A
5. If there will be fuel storage on site. indicate the gallons and the secondary containment. State the
number of tanks and gallons per tank.
N/A
6. If there will be washing of vehicles or equipment on site. indicate how the wash water will be contained.
N/A
7. If there will be floor drains, indicate how the fluids will be contained.
N/A
8. Indicate if there will be any air emissions (e.g. painting. oil storage, etc.).
N/A
9. Provide a design and operations plan if applicable (e.g. composting, landfills. etc.).
N/A
10. Provide a nuisance management plan if applicable (e.g. dairies, feedlots. etc.).
N/A
11. Additional information may be requested depending on type of land use requested.
Public Works Questions: 970-400-3767
1. Include a traffic narrative with the information below. A traffic impact study may be required.
Improvements to adjacent streets/roads may be necessary to provide adequate safe and efficient
transportation to and from the site. An Improvements Agreement may be required.
a. The projected number of vehicle trips (average per day, maximum per day, peak hour data) to and
from the site and the type of vehicles (passenger. semi -truck, etc.).
See included Traffic Study for details.
b. Describe how many roundtrips/day are expected for each vehicle type: Passenger Cars/Pickups,
Tandem Trucks. Semi-Truck/Trailer/RV (Roundtrip = 1 trip in and 1 trip out of site)
a. Passenger Cars/Pickups: 76 round trips
b. Tandem Trucks: 1 round trip per week for trash service
c. Semi-Truck/Trailer/RV: none
c. Describe the expected travel routes for site traffic.
50% from traffic from county road 24 and 50% from traffic from county road 19
d. Describe the travel distribution along the routes (e.g. 50% of traffic will come from the north. 20%
from the south, 30% from the east, etc.)
50% from traffic from the north and 50% from traffic from the south
e. Describe the time of day that you expect the highest traffic volumes to and from the site.
Mornings (7:30am to 8:00am) and evenings (5:00pm to 5:30pm).
2. Describe where the access to the site is planned.
Use of the existing driveway access off CR 19 - permit #AP -00632.
3. Drainage Design: Design and construction of a detention pond as described in an approved Drainage
Report is required unless the project falls under an exception to stormwater detention requirements
per code. (See below.) Does your site qualify for an exception to stormwater detention? If so. describe
in a drainage narrative the following:
a. Which exception is being applied for? Include supporting documentation.
N/A
Does the water flow onto the property from an offsite source? If so. from where?
N/A
Describe where the water flows to as it leaves the property.
N/A. Building a retaining berm on north (creating a collection area) and south side of property. West
side runoff is prevented by County Road 19 and east side runoff is prevented by gas well service
road.
d. Describe the direction of flow across the property.
See USR drawing.
e. Describe the location of any irrigation facilities adjacent to or near the property.
There is a Coal Ridge concrete irrigation ditch on the east side of the gas well access road on the
east side of the property. The access road is high enough to prevent any stormwater runoff from
the property to enter the irrigation ditch.
f. Describe any previous drainage problems with the property.
None.
4. If your site does not qualify for an exception, the following applies:
a. A Drainage Report summarizing the detention pond design with construction drawings and
maintenance plan shall be completed by a Colorado Licensed Professional Engineer and adhere
to the drainage related sections of the Weld County Code.
b. The Drainage Report must include a certification of compliance. which can be found on the Public
Works website. stamped and signed by the PE.
c. See the attached Drainage Report Review Checklist.
Exceptions to stormwater detention requirements:
1. A second dwelling permit in the A (Agricultural) Zone District.
2. Towers including, but not limited to, wind and telecommunication towers.
3. Pipelines or transmission lines. excluding laydown yards, metering sites, substations, and any other
above ground appurtenances
4. Gravel pits if the stormwater drains into the gravel pit. Releases from the site shall comply with the Weld
County Storm Drainage Criteria, including dewatering. Topographical information shall be provided.
5. Development of sites where the change of use does not increase the imperviousness of the site.
6. Non -Urbanizing areas where the total pre-existing and post development impervious area produces
stormwater runoff of less than, or equal to, 5 cfs for the 1 -hour, 100 -year. storm event. This exception
shall be supported by calculations signed and stamped by a Colorado Licensed Professional Engineer.
7. Parcels with total area less than. or equal to. 1.0 gross acre.
8 An individual parcel with an unobstructed flow path and no other parcel(s) between the Federal
Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) regulatory floodplain channel and the project.
9. A parcel greater than 1 gross acre and less than. or equal to, 5 gross acres in size is allowed a one-time
exception for a new 2.000 sq_ ftbuilding or equivalent imperviousness.
10. A parcel greater than 5 gross acres in size is allowed a one-time exception for a new 4,500 sq. ft. building
or equivalent imperviousness.
11 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO). Animal Feeding Operations (AFO) and Housed
Commercial Swine Feeding Operation (HCSFO) which are covered and approved by the Colorado
Discharge Permit System (CDPS) regulations. Portions of the site not included or covered by the CDPS
permit shall comply with the Weld County Storm Drainage Criteria.
Building Questions: 970-400-6100
1. List the type, size (square footage), and number of existing and proposed structures. Show and label
all existing and proposed structures on the USR drawing. Label the use of the building and the square
footage.
2. Explain how the existing structures will be used for this USR.
The house will be used as a home for the kennel manager, the equipment shed will store tractors
and equipment used to manage the landscape.
3. List the proposed use(s) of each structure.
Main building will be used as office space. bathroom, and indoor exercise area.
The four kennels will be used to house dogs - daycare and boarding clients.
Notice of Inquiry
Weld County
' Pre -application Case #
PRE19-0118
Date of Inquiry
15/2/19
Municipality
Fort Lupton
Name of Person Inquiring
Troy Anderson
Property Owner
Troy Anderson
Planner
Diana Aungst
Planner Phone Number
970-400-3524
Planner Email Address
Daungst@weldgov.com
Legal Description
SUBX18-0021 10-2-67
Parcel Number
1311-1020-0034
Nearest Intersection
CR 19 and CR 24
Type of Inquiry
Dog kennel and dog daycare facility
The above person met with County Planning staff about developing a parcel of land inside your designated
Intergovernmental Agreement/Coordinated Planning Agreement Boundary.
4
County Planner's signature
Would you like to pursu, anryexation of this property? NO YES ,(
Date of Contact
Comments:
S
,
A:, I /71,2." soil 1O/fir5
91 r L
SAM 'IA . /vl7 l44✓ / S
a2t</^1,/ r�vvr ll n /ix
setneAtz-i /it.,
"7' ,cN#✓!Nly 4e re -
Signature of Municipaiity Representative Title I Da
Please sign and date to acknowledge that the applicant has contacted you
and return this signed form to Weld County Department of Planning Services.
Weld County Planning Department
1555 N 17th Ave, Greeley, CO 80631 - (970) 400-6100 -- (970) 304-6498 Fax
20181107
Notice of Inquiry
Weld County
Pre -application Case #
PRE19-0118
Date of Inquiry
5/2/19
Municipality
Firestone CPA
Name of Person Inquiring
Troy Anderson
Property Owner
Troy Anderson
Planner
Diana Aungst
Planner Phone Number
970-400-3524
Planner Email Address
Daungst@weldgov.com
Legal Description
SUBX18-0021 10-2-67
Parcel Number
1311-1020-0034
Nearest Intersection
CR 19 and CR 24
Type of Inquiry
Dog kennel and dog daycare facility
The above person met with County Planning staff about developing a parcel of land inside your designated
Intergovernmental Agreement/Coordinated Planning Agreement Boundary.
-0OA _Uk_nivifisl:
County Planner's signature
Would you like to pursue annexation of this property? NO
Date of Contact
Comments:
YES
Rtoi\IAA
P m m o uttLitervio, 5,7(2/9
Signature of Municipality Representative Title Date
Please sign and date to acknowledge that the applicant has contacted you
and return this signed form to Weld County Department of Planning Services.
Weld County Planning Department
1555 N 17th Ave, Greeley, CO 80631 - (970) 400-6100 - (970) 304-6498 Fax
20181107
Noise Abatement Plan
To reduce noise from the kennel/daycare facility, we plan on constructing the kennel buildings using
cinder blocks, dropped ceiling, and insulating the roof/ceiling. The main building, containing the offices
and indoor exercise areas, will also be insulated. We also plan to have soothing music playing
throughout the facilities. This has been shown to help calm the dogs and reduce barking tendencies.
Whenever the dogs are out of the kennels being exercised, whether inside or outside, there will be a
handler leading the group. The handler is the group leader and will control the group of dogs. If an issue
arises, the handler will call for extra help to remove the trouble dog(s) from the group, thus reducing
any barking. Dogs will never be left unattended in either exercise areas — inside or outside.
We will be using an "interview process" for every new dog. This will help us know if a dog has a bad (or
disruptive) habit prior to accepting them as a client. This will allow us to identify which dogs can be
grouped together to reduce stress and hence reduce barking.
We will be building the facility over 750 foot from our nearest neighbor.
Dust Handling Plan
The outside play areas will either be covered in grass or pea gravel. The grass covered play
areas will be watered and mowed on a regular basis and the gravel covered areas will be
maintained to keep dust down to a minimal. The pea gravel covered dog runs will be maintained
for cleanliness which will include rinsing the run down on a regular basis (weather permitting).
Waste Handling Plan
Solid waste collected from the dogs will be disposed of in a normal municipal landfill via an
outdoor dumpster that is emptied on a regular basis by a licensed disposal company. Other
non -biological wastes will be disposed of in the same outdoor dumpster.
Weld County Treasurer
Statement of Taxes Due
Account Number R8956956
Assessed To
Parcel 131110200034
ANDERSEN TROY L
7400 ELM STREET ENCHANTED HLS
LONGMONT, CO 80504-5436
Legal Description
PT N2 10-2-67 SUB EXEMPT SUBX 18-0021
Situs Address
10848 COUNTY ROAD 19
Year Tax
Tax Charge
Interest Fees Payments Balance
2018 $572.44
Total Tax Charge
$0.00 $0.00 ($572.44) $0.00
50.00
Grand Total Due as of 08/16/2019
$0.00
Tax Billed at 2018 Rates for Tax Area 2258 - 2258
Authority
WELD COUNTY
SCHOOL DIST REI
NORTHERN COLORADO WATER
(NC
PLATTEVILLE-GILCREST FIRE
AIMS JUNIOR COLLEGE
Ilk iH PLAINS LIBRARY
taxes Billed 2018
• Credit Levy
Mill Levy
15.0380000*
19.3930000
1.0000000
8.1 140000
6.3050000
3.2520000
Amount
SI62.12
S209.06
$10.78
S87.47
$67.96
$35.05
53.1020000 5572 44
Values Actual
AG -GRAZING LAND $215
AG -WASTE LAND $4
FARM/RANCH $148,725
RESIDENCE -IMPS
Total
Assessed
$60
$10
$10,710
$148,9.14 510,780
ALL TAX LIEN SALE AMOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO ENDORSEMENT OF CURRENT TAXES BY THE
LIENHOLDER OR TO ADVERTISING AND DISTRAINT WARRANT FEES.
CHANGES MAY OCCUR AND THE TREASURER'S OFFICE WILL NEED TO BE CONTACTED PRIOR TO REMITTANCE AFTER THE
FOLLOWING DATES: PERSONAL PROPERTY, REAL PROPERTY, AND MOBILE HOMES - AUGUST 1
TAX LIEN SALE REDEMPTION AMOUNTS MUST BE PAID BY CASH OR CASHIER'S CHECK.
POSTMARKS ARE NOT ACCEPTED ON TAX LIEN SALE REDEMPTION PAYMENTS. PAYMENTS MUST BE IN OUR OFFICE AND
PROCESSED BY THE LAST BUSINESS DAY OF THE MONTH.
Weld Treasurer 1400 N 17th Avenue, P.O. Box 458, Greeley, CO 80632, (970) 400-3290 Page 1 of 1
Diana Aungst
From: Troy Andersen <troy8899@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 4:45 PM
To: Diana Aungst
Cc: 'Neal Andersen'
Subject: RE: USR19-0069 (ZR,LL) 2/4/20
Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
Valentine day
spring break
Memorial day
Easter
Fathers day
4 of July
Labor day
Thanks giving
Christmas
Jan 1'T
When we had the RV storage in Longmont, we had about 10 days when we had people taking their vacations. I just
guessed that we would have similar days here.
Troy
From: Diana Aungst [mailto:daungst@weldgov.com]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 8:48 AM
To: Troy Andersen <troy8899@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: USR19-0069 (ZR,LL) 2/4/20
Troy.
What are the dates you see as -vacation times'?
Thanks,
Diana
From: Troy Andersen <troy8899@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 8:43 AM
To: Diana Aungst <daungst@weldgov.com>
Cc: 'Neal Andersen' <neal.andersen@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: USR19-0069 (ZR,LL) 2/4/20
This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
sender and know the content is safe.
1
We plan to have 120 borders during vacation times. This will be about 10 weeks per year.
During these times we will not be doing day care. Just don't have the room. We are estimating about 60 day care at
other times. We will have two buildings for the first year of operation and building the other two as needed. Each kennel
building will house 30 dogs.
The reason for the large parking lot is that Excel has built it for their operations. While they install a new service line for
the area.
As long as it is built we would like to keep it. We may need some or all at some future date.
Troy
Cc: 'Neal Andersen' <neal.andersen@gmail.com>
Subject: USR19-0069 (ZR,LL) 2/4/20
Hi
Hope you are well. Just a couple of clarifying questions. Out of the 120 dogs how many do you expect to be
boarders and how many will be in the day care? And will you have dog training or something similar is that the
thinking behind the amount of parking?
Thanks,
Diana Aungst, AICP, CFM
Planner Il
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue - Greeley, Colorado 80631
D: 970-400-3524
O: 970-400-6100
Fax -970-304-6498
daungst(c� weldgov. com
www.weldqov.com
f
a
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in
error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action
concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited.
2
Vacation of USR Letter
I Troy Andersen here by request that the property located at 10484 County Road 19, Fort
Lupton, Colorado, 80621 (parcel number 1311-10-2-00-034, SUBX18-0021 of Section 10,
Township 2N, Range 67W) be vacated from SUP -64.
Owner Signature:
y��� Date: Zl 000 71)t.
Rocky Ridge
Civil Engineering
Preliminary Drainage Report
Andersen Kennel
Weld County, Colorado
Prepared for:
Neil and Troy Andersen
Prepared by:
Rocky Ridge Civil Engineering
420 21st Avenue, Suite 101
Longmont, Colorado 80501
(303) 651-6626
October 2019
RRCE Job#587-2
Engineer's Certification
"I hereby certify that this plan and report for the Preliminary Drainage design of the
Andersen Kennel was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, in accordance with
the provisions of the Weld County Engineering and Construction Guidelines."
1'
�C 7
-t
Joel R. Seat*ns'•
Registered Issional-Engineer
State of Colorado o; 37.162
Table of Contents
Vicinity Map
I. Introduction
II. General Location and Description
III. Existing Soil Conditions
IV. Existing Drainage Conditions
V. Drainage Facility Design
VI. Maintenance
VII. Conclusions
FEMA - FIRMette
Appendix A- Hydrologic Calculations
Appendix B- Detention Calculations
Map Pocket
1- Developed Drainage Plan
1
1
1
I
1
2
2
0 2000' 4000'
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
ANDERSEN KENNEL
VICINITY MAP
i
DATE CAD NO
10/06/19 5872BAS£
J01 NO
587-2
Rocky Ridge
Civil Engineering
420 21irt A'm S1lts 101
Longmont, CO 10601
303.651.1126
nmeacksidisokiLcorn
SHEET NO
1 OF 1
I. INTRODUCTION
This report is site specific for improvements to The Andersen Kennel, hereinafter called
"the Site". The Site will include the construction of an office building, kennels, parking
area, grass fields, and a retention pond.
The drainage design concepts of this project are intended to be in conformance with Weld
County Engineering and Construction Guidelines. Calculations for this report are based
on the Major (100 -year) and Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) storm events.
II. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
This parcel under development is located approximately on the east side of WCR 19,
south of WCR 24. To the north of the site is a gas well, to the east are abandoned barns,
and to the south is open field. The site is located in Section 10, Township 2 N, Range 67
W, of the 6th PM. The site includes approximately 10.0 acres of Agricultural. This 10.0
acre site is proposed to be developed for a dog kennel and dog daycare facility.
There are no major or minor drainage ways on or near the site. The site is located within
"Zone X - Area of Minimal Flood Hazard" according to FEMA Panel 08123C 1895E
effective January 20, 2016.
III. EXISTING SOIL CONDITIONS
The existing topography slopes with an average slope of 0.1% from southwest to
northeast. Existing ground cover includes mostly barren soils with native grasses, weeds
and small shrubs. The soils in this area are a predominant mixture of Type "A" soil.
IV. EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
The existing site drains via sheetflow to existing roadside ditches that run along the east
and west portions of the site. Runoff drains via sheetflow and discharges off the property.
No offsite flows enter the site.
Historic runoff values can be found in the Runoff Summary Table included in this report.
Additional runoff calculations can be found in the Appendix.
V. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
Developed drainage patterns will remain consistent with the historic patterns. Runoff
drains via sheetflow, open channel flow and storm sewer to the proposed infiltration pond
and then held to percolate into the sandy soil or evaporate. Runoff from most of the
proposed site improvements drains to a proposed retention pond where it is held.
C
1
The proposed site has been divided into one (1) drainage basin that has been named Basin
A. A proposed drainage plan can be found at the end of this report.
Basin A contains of the entire site minus the proposed future right-of-way for WCR 19
and consists of the existing buildings and the proposed building and kennels, parking
area, grass fields and retention pond. Runoff drains via sheetflow and open channel flow
to the proposed infiltration pond where runoff is held to percolate. The proposed retention
pond was designed to hold 1.5x the detention volume. The pond is also equipped with a
15 ft long level spreader.
Developed runoff values can be found in the Runoff Summary Table included in this
report. Additional runoff calculations can be found in the Appendix.
Runoff Summary Table
Basins
Area (acres)
Qio (cfs)
Q1oo (cfs)
H (Overall Historic)
9.43
0.13
4.39
A (Overall Developed)
9.43
1.25
7.59
The principle form of water quality is the implementation of Extended Detention Basin.
A retention pond has been included in the proposed development to mitigate additional
runoff from the increased imperviousness of the site. Runoff from the majority of the
proposed site will flow to the proposed retention pond where the runoff will be held and
percolate. The proposed ponds have been designed to provide the Water Quality Capture
Volume (WQCV) and 100 -year detention volume. Additional water quality features will
be implemented in the form of grass buffers and grass -lined swales.
The "Weld County Engineering and Construction Guidelines" and "Urban Storm
Drainage Criteria Manual" were used as a basis for the development of this drainage plan
and report. The Rational Formula Method was used for runoff calculations. The
Modified FAA Method was used for the required pond volume calculations. Additional
calculations can be found in the Appendix of this report.
VI. MAINTENANCE
In order to properly maintain the infiltration pond and level spreader, the property owners
for the site will need to clean and or remove large debris from the pond to prevent
damages to the pond and ensure proper flow through the level spreader. The cleaning of
the structures should be done annually or on an as -needed basis.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
The drainage concepts for this project are consistent with current policies and practices
for storm drainage management as outlined in the Weld County Engineering and
Construction Guidelines and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's Storm
Drainage Criteria Manual.
The concepts presented for this project are also consistent with current policy and
practices that allow the continued release of historic runoff while mitigating hazards of
flooding. The proposed retention pond was sized for 1.5x the 100 -year developed storm
detention volume using an allowable (10 -year historic) release rate. The site will maintain
the flow patterns and release rates as have been historically seen from this site.
VII. REFERENCES
Weld County Engineering and Construction Guidelines. Weld County, July, 2017.
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, March 2017. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria
Manual - Volumes I, II, and II.
(3 1 _
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
40°9'41.40"N
Feet
2000
1:6.000
40`9'1
3.90"N
0 250 500
1 000
1 500
UN R67W S10
FEMA
alltSGS He Ndlionai Map Djthoiinager,j/- Data .reffestieii April. 2019.
Legend
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE or Depth Zono AE. AO. AFCVE. AR
HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway
OTHER AREAS OF
FLOOD HAZARD ,'AO
M20. Lt.ZS0P0I
OTHER -
FEATURES
MAP PANELS
9
NO SCREEN
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas
of 1% annual chance flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage
areas of less than one square mile
Future Conditions 1% Annual
Chance Flood Hazard
Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to
Levee. See Notes.
Area with Flood Risk due to Levee
Area of Minimal Flood Hazard
Effective LOMRs
OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard •
GENERAL - — - - Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer
STRUCTURES milli
Levee, Dike, or Floodwall
20.2 Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance
17.5 Water Surface Elevation
Coastal Transect
—N. Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Limit of Study
Jurisdiction Boundary
--- Coastal Transect Baseline
Profile Baseline
Hydrographic Feature
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate
point selected by the user and does not represent
an authoritative property location.
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of
digital flood maps if it is not void as described below.
The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap
accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from the
authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map
was exported on 10/8/2019 at 10:42:34 AM and does not
reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and
time. The NFHL and effective information may change or
become superseded by new data over time.
This map image is void if the one or more of the following map
elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels,
legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers,
FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for
unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for
regulatory purposes.
Rocky Ridge
Civil Engineering
Appendix A
Hydrologic Calculations
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2
Location name: Fort Lupton, Colorado, USA`
Latitude: 40.1586°, Longitude: -104.8847°
Elevation: 4945.45 ft**
• source: ESRI Maps
" source: USGS
POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
Santa Penca, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic. Ishani Roy, Michael St. Laurent, Carl Trypaluk. Dale
Unruh Michael Yekta. Geoffery Bonnin
NOAA. National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland
PF tabular I PF graphical I Maps & aerials
PF tabular
PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)1
Duration
Average recurrence interval (years)
1
2
5
10
25
50
100
200
500
1000
5 -min
0.232
(0.179-0.299)
0.281
(0.218-0.364)
0.378
(0.292-0.490),
0.474
(0.363-0.617)
I 0.627
(0.476-0.877)
0.764
(0.562-1.07)
0.915
(0.650-1.32)
1.09
(0.739-1.60)
1.33
(0.873-2.02),
1.54
(0.974-2.34)
10 -min
0.339
(0.263-0.438)
0.412
(0.319-0.532)
1 0.554
(0.427-0.718)
f 0.693
(0.532-0.904)
0.919
(0.697-1.28)
1.12
(0.822-1.57)
1.34
(0.952-1.93)
1.59
(1.08-2.35)
1.95
(1.28-2.96)
2.25
(1.43-3.43)
15 -min
0.413
(0.320-0.534)
0.502
(0.388-0.649)
0.675
(0.521-0.876),
0.846
(0.649-1.10)
I 1.12
(0.850-1.57)
1.36
(1.00-1.92)�I
1.63
(1.16-2.35)
1.94
(1.32-2.86)
2.38
(1.56-3.61)
2.75
(1.74-4.18)
30 -min
0.559
(0.433-0.723)
0.676
(0 523-0.875)
i 0.907
(0.699-1.18)
I 1.14
(0.870-1.48)
1.50
(1.14-2.10)
1.83
(1.35-2.58)
2.20
(1.56-3.16)
2,61
(1.78-3.85)
3.21
(2.10-4.87)
3.70
(2.34-5.63)
60 -min
0.684
(0.530-0.885),
0.825
(0.638-1.07)
1.11
(0.852-1.43)
1.39
l (1.06-1.81)
1.84
(1.40-2.58)
2.25
(1.66-3.17)
2.71
[(1.93-3.91)
3.22
3.98
(2.61-6.05)
4.61
(2.92-7.01) J
�i
2 -hr
0.810
00.634-1.03)
0.973
(0.761-1.24)
I 1.30
1.02-1.67)
1.64
01.27-2.11) 1
2.18
(1.68-3.02)
2.67
(1.99-3.72)
3.22
(2.32-4.59)
r(2.20-4.77)
3.84
! (2.65-5.61)
4.75
(3.15-7.13)
x
5.52
(3.53-8.27)
3 -hr
0.880
(0.693-1.12) I
1.05
(0.829-1.34)
1.41
, (1.10-1.79)
1.76
L (1.37-2.25)
2.35
(1.82-3.23) I
2.88
(2.16-3.98)
3.47
(2.514.91)
4.14
(2.87-6.01)
I 5.13
(3.42-7.63)
5.96
(3.84-8.86)
6 -hr
1.04
(0.829-1.30)
1.23
(0.981-1.55)
1.62
I (1.28-2.04)
2.01
(1.59-2.54)
2.65
(2.074.60)
3.23
(2.44-4.39)
3.87
(2.83-5.40)
4.60
(3.23-6.57)
5.67
(3.82-8.31)
6.67
(4.27-9.62)
12 -hr
1.26
(1.02-1.56)
1.49
(1.20-1.84)
0.54_11..99222.39)
2.35
i (1.87-2.93)
3.02
(2.37-4.01)
3.61
(2.764.83)
4.27
j3.15-5.84)
5.00
(3.54-7.02)
6.07
(4.13-8.74)
6.95
(4.57-10.0)
24 -hr
1.51
(1.23-1.84)
1.79
(1.45-2.19)
2.30
(1.86-2.82)
2.77
(2.23-3.41)
3.49
(2.75-4.52)
4.10
(3.15-5.36)
4.75
(3.53-6.37)
5.47
(3.90-7.53)
6.49
(4.45-9.17)
7.32
(4.87-10.4)
2 -day
1.72
(1.41-2.07)
2.08
(1.71-2.52)
2.71
(2.22-3.28)
3.25
I (2.64-3.95)
4.02
(3.18-5.09)
4.66
(3.59-5.96)
5.30
(3.96-6.96)
5.99
I (4.30-8.07)
6.94
(4.79-9.61)
7.68
[(5.17-10.8
3 -day
1.88
(1.55-2.25)
2.25
(1.86-2.69)
2.88
(2.38-3.46)
3.43
(2.814.14)
4.22
(3.36-5.29)
4.86
(3.77-6.17)
5.61
(4.15-7.17)
6.21
(4.48-8.29)
7.16
(4.98-9.82)
7.91
(5.35-11.0)
4 -day
2.00
(1.67-2.39)
2.38
(1.97-2.83)
3.01
(2.49-3.60)
3.56
(2.93-4.27)
4.35
(3.48-5.43)
4.99
(3.90-6.30)
5.66
(4.27-7.31)
6.36
(4.61-8.44)
7.32
(5.12-9.98)
8.08
(5.50-11.2)
7 -day
2.30
(1.93-2.71)
2.69
(2.26-3.18)
3.36
(2.81-3.97)
3.93
(3.26-4.67) II
4.74
(3.83-5.84)il
5.39
(4.25-6.72)
6.07
(4.62-7.74) II
6.77
(4.95-8.86)
7.73
(5.45-10.4)
8.48
(5.82-11.6)
10 -day
2.55
(2.15-2.98)
2.97
(2.50-3.48)
3.67
(3.08-4.31)
4.26
(3.56-5.03) i
5.10
(4.13-6.22)
5.77 I
(4.57-7.12) I
6.44
(4.93-8.14)1
7.14
(5.25-9.27)
8.09
(5.73-10.8)
8.82
(6.09-11.9)
20 -day
3.26
(2.78-3.77)
3.74
(3.194.33)
4.54
(3.86-5.26)
5.20
(4.39-6.05)
6.11
(5.00-7.31)
6.81
(5.45-8.27)
7.52
(5.82-9.35)
8.24
(6.13-10.5)
9.20
(6.58-12.0)
9.92
(6.93-13.2)
30 -day
3.82
(3.29-4.38)
4.37
(3.76-5.02)
5.27
(4.51-6.06) l
6.00
(5.11-6.93)
7.00
C (5.76-8.29)
7.76
[
8.52
(6.63-10.5)
9.27
(6.93-11.7)
10.3
1(7.39-13.3)
11.0
[(7.74-14.5)
45-dayi(3.89-5.12)
4.50
5.16
(4.46-5.87)
6.21
(5.35-7.09)
7.06
(6.05-8.09)
8.21
(6.78-9.62)
9.06
(7.34-10.8)
9.90
(7.75-12.0)
10.7
(8.07-13.4)
11.8 L
(8.54-15.1) I
12.6
(8.89-16.4)
60 -day
5.05
(4.39-5.71)
6.81
(5.05-6.58)
7.03
(6.09-7.98)
I 8.01
(6.90-9.12)J
9.30
(7.71-10.84
10.3
(8.33-12.1)
11.2
I (8.78-13.5) ,
12.1
(9.11-14.9)
13.2
(9.60-16.8)
14.0
(9.97-18.2),
Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS).
Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates
(for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper
bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values.
Please refer to NOM Atlas 14 document for more information.
Back to Top
PF graphical
PDS-based depth -duration -frequency (DDF) curves
Latitude: 40.1586°, Longitude: -104.8847°
c_
a 10
8
O
y
2
a 6
V
G1
t_
4
cc
_
t
tb
I
4.4
Duration
t
4
N rzi nil 4
T T
fa fa fa
T >.
f0 f0 f0 f0 f0 f0
, 7 7 7 77I
O N fy1 S
2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000
NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2
Average recurrence interval (years)
Created (GMT): Tue Oct 1 19:45:13 2019
Back to Top
Maps & aerials
Small scale terrain
A,erage recurrence
interval
(years)
1
2
— 5
10
25
50
100
200
500
1000
Duration
5 -min — 2 -day
t 0-mtn 3 -day
15-mmn 4 -day
- 30 -min — 7 -day
60 -min — 10 -day
— 2 -hr — 20 -day
— 3 -hr 30 -day
6 -hr — 45 -day
— 12 -hr — 60 -day
24 -hr
i
i
'vc
Large scale terrain
-t
73 FortCollins
f
N
J3
Longs Peak
4345 m .
Boulder
4
100krn
SOmi
•
■
Lheyenne
•
• Greeley
2.I. po n t
Denver
•
U N
Large scale map
.%en__
(Cheyenne
Fort Collin
100km
1
1
60mi
Colorado
Ctwirl (le
Greeley
Lottmont
oBou cc!r
aver
Large scale aerial
Back to Top
US Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Weather Service
National Water Center
1325 East West Highway
Silver Spring. MD 20910
Questions?: HDSC.Questions�¢noaa.gov
Disclaimer
40° 9'31"N
40° 7 21" N
104° 53'10" W
5)9700
Soil Map —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part
5CG7c1;
Map Scale: 1:1,420 if printed on A portraat (8.5' x 11") she et.
$ N 0 20 40
80
Meters
120
Feet
,N1 0 50 100 200 300
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 13N WG584
509350
°
S
40° 7 31" N
40° 9'21"N
1.5tm Natural Resources
a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
Web Soil Survey
10/8/2019
Page 1 of 3
Soil Map —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOl)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
® Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
V
Blowout
Borrow Pit
X Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
:.
0
a
z,a
e
0
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
f__ Rails
ti
Background
Aerial Photography
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
MAP INFORMATION
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map. Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System. Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part
Survey Area Data: Version 18, Sep 13, 2019
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Sep 20, 2015 —Oct
21, 2017
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
t tiun Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/8/2019
Page 2 of 3
Soil Map —Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part
Map Unit Legend
1
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
1
72
Vona loamy sand, 0 to 3
percent slopes
9.9
100.0%
Totals for Area of Interest
9.9
100.0%
t.crn Natural Resources Web Soil Survey
a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey
10/8/2019
Page 3 of 3
Runoff Chapter 6
Table 6-3. Recommended percentage imperviousness values
Land Use or
Surface Characteristics
Percentage Imperviousness
(%)
Business:
Downtown Areas
95
Suburban Areas
75
Residential lots (lot area only):
Single-family
2.5 acres or larger
12
0.75 — 2.5 acres
20
0.25 - 0.75 acres
30
0.25 acres or less
45
Apartments
75
Industrial:
Light areas
80
Heavy areas
90
Parks, cemeteries
10
Playgrounds
25
Schools
55
Railroad yard areas
50
Undeveloped Areas:
Historic flow analysis
2
Greenbelts, agricultural
2
Off -site flow analysis (when land use not
defined)
45
Streets:
Paved
100
Gravel (packed)
40
Drive and walks
90
Roofs
90
Lawns, sandy soil
2
Lawns, clayey soil
2
6-8 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 1
August 2018
Chapter 6
Runoff
Table 6-4. Runoff coefficient equations based on NRCS soil group and storm return period
NRCS
Soil
Group
Period
Storm Return
2 -Year
5 -Year
10 -Year
25 -Year
50 -Year
100 -Year
500 -Year
A
CA=
CA=
CA=
CA =
CA =
CA =
CA =
0.8411.302
0.8611.276
0.8711.232
0.88/1 124
0.851+0.025
0.781+0.110
0.651+0.254
B
CB=
CB =
CB=
CB =
CB=
CB =
CB =
0.84/1'69
0.8611.088
0.81/+0.057
0.631+0.249
0.56i+0.328
0.471+0.426
0.37i+0.536
C/D
CC'D=
CLOD=
CC/D =
Cc: D =
COD =
CC/D =
CCD =
0.8311 1222
0.821+0.035
0.741+0.132
0.56/+0.319
0.491+0.393
0.41i i-0.484
0.321+0.588
Where:
/ = % imperviousness (expressed as a decimal)
C:, = Runoff coefficient for Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) HSG A soils
C„ = Runoff coefficient for NRCS HSG B soils
Cup = Runoff coefficient for NRCS HSG C and D soils.
The values for various catchment imperviousness and storm return periods are presented graphically in
Figures 6-1 through 6-3, and are tabulated in Table 6-5. These coefficients were developed for the
Denver region to work in conjunction with the time of concentration recommendations in Section 2.4.
Use of these coefficients and this procedure outside of the semi -arid climate found in the Denver region
may not be valid. The UD-Rational Excel workbook performs all the needed calculations to find the
runoff coefficient given the soil type and imperviousness and the reader may want to take advantage of
this macro -enabled Excel workbook that is available for download from the UDFCD's website
www.udfcd.org.
Sec Examples 7.1 and 7.2 that illustrate the Rational Method.
August 2018
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 6-9
Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 1
C factors & Impervious %
ANDERSEN KENNEL
HYDROLOGIC SOIL 'I'YPE:
10/8/2019
HISTORIC
LAND USE
AREA (sf)
AREA (AC)
% IMPERV
C2
C5
CIO
C100
HISTORIC
-
0.00
2%
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.13
HISTORIC
-
0.00
2%
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.13
HISTORIC
-
0.00
2%
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.13
HISTORIC
435,600
10.00
2%
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.13
TOTA1.
435.600
10.000
2.0%
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.13
DEVELOPED
LAND USE
AREA (sf)
AREA (AC)
% IMPERV
C2
C5
C 1 0
C100
ROOF
19,083
0.44
90%
0.73
0.75
0.76
0.81
DRIVE WALK
1,760
0.04
90%
0.73
0.75
0.76
0.81
GRAVEL STREET
70.292
1.61
40%
0.25
0.27
0.28
0.42
LAWN
344.465
7.91
2%
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.13
TOTAL
435,600
10.000
12.3%
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.21
5872 BASIN&DETENTION.XLS
Calculation of Peak Runoff using Rational Method
Onions,:
Company. Rocky R. (wit nO ..e q
Was :War 15
h•loa1. `S 2
Lot An Wall Lou tl
Verson 2.00 ninon Sin 1017
.4 _ 1•.l cob. of •„r aq.... an..wa:.p;1
C•� MIIs.Cat we Uf •Ohmalsminummion
CS of 0ua cob, Irt lar cakubbd mrah hoyl on variants
f nnput.d I. a 1, • r,
\,moat 1 -ILD-17111
In
40(14, ♦ 41
0100 ialmn)
fainted Ir • tap
. unn(Ea.npa1M (., Or/b.41 to))
tyf 1y, Iayt 10.0 10yf 1'3Y. HOyr
1Mur ; nld•a pm PI Irnl • 043 1 II
•
O
119 I IM di J5 : l ?21 I 141
t �
P
0
i4rt,
716
RaiRainfallf.MSnatty fa•.ton C...mcrnta • » 50 t 10,90
II chi I
11.)lr -LA
SabaAk•wn1
Mow
An.
Inal
MRCS
NOrGNa
NO Growl
ryr<t nt
Runoff
Ca• rant
C
°SYS(Wal) Flow flow
Clistalrb7tTnwq FM Moo
Timm of Gootonlrtton
1____.._J
Waif Swim 11011.44
Pula Plow•0
tie)
IYr
Ilyr
t9y.
$6.5n
100Yr
9o1yr
oats
Frwt/•e
0.• NC
tat
(lit
IOFto1r.J1
mrwow,
(m
IOOrx,�. ,ry
O•rlend
Pot. blow
a IMIII
OWNS/
Fbw limo
Lie)
Cll1/I a0/a/
Flaw
4NM
(A lbwlb•
IO pmm di
WlitYrb•
IOpona0
(1u •Ikon
Fbw►bN
AIMff1
IMC\
Gava roar
y
Foablk
Caaaa•Mla/
Flaw Yalla/i,
IA Min)
CMwN111a/
Cl...
tlminl
CayW
limb)
iceman
i.ImMI
aarata.
llmnl
1 r
Y
/1't
N'7,
»ryr
NM
500+/t
NOV
IV
1'Yt
t/y1
My.
lOyr
INYn
N fYr
4wyarw
':d vrn rnf
Dal
_
JJ+
Joe
�)'
011
900.00
• hr
52 a1
4W J1
.10'rl
e._ r
I Ye
00
5a t1
li +,
,+•,'
110
100
201
205
1>5
1O'
574
Oat
000
I25
2121
1N
f50
1a@
.001
lig
.a1.1"R0
eo
..
pay
J0I
•
00•
OW
.
:.
0:'
5 00
hr
IITI
mill
troy W)
duo
'0
,,f,l
.. .1
N41
1'4t.
1'5e
•]
'52
110
2'r2
I(A
11'
544
OCi
DOe
5ri
ax
'22
41d
'13
�
-11111r—
IIIIIMEMIIII
—'tom
I..
11.1
611•1
ate.
-
Rocky Ridge
Civil Engineering
Appendix B
Detention Calculations
WQCV 10/8/2019
ANDERSEN KENNEL
WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME - OVERALL DEVELOPED
UDFCD, Volume 3, Chapter 3
Drain time: =10 Hours
a =
1.0
I =
0.12 %/100
WQCV =
0.080 inches
Area =
435,600 ft2
WQCV = a(0.911' — 1.19/' + 0.784
WQCV
WQCV = 4,348 ft3
5872 BASIN&DETENTION.XLS
POND S -S 10/8/2019
ANDERSEN KENNEL
PROPOSED POND
STAGE -STORAGE TABLE
Stage
WSE
feet
A
ft2
Vincrementai
ft3
Vcumuiative
ft3
ac -ft
199.00
11,975
N/A
0
-
199.25
12,988
3,119
3,119
0.072
WQCV
199.50
14,046
3,378
6,498
0.149
199.75
15,149
3,649
10.146
0.233
200.00
16,297
3,930
14.076
0.323
200.25
18,181
4,308
18,384
0.422
200.50
19,861
4,754
23,138
0.531
200.75
20,956
5,102
28,239
0.648
100 -YEAR
201.00
22,516
5,433
33,672
0.773
5872 BASIN&DETENTION.XLS
DETENTION BASIN STAGE -STORAGE TABLE BUILDER
UD-Ootentlon, Verafon 3.07 (February 1017)
!`V
1000000
_.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
xx
3^
t ,
:y
g
•
iE
O
ti
T
;.
Pi
iVM1
d
!
g
g
11E!
0
O
0
0
O
O
It
rq
a —
g,h8
T• tel
O
E
0
8r87C51r8
0
0
-'
_
F
I'€
r
a
8
•
i
R
$
Ittffff
0
0-R-gS
0
••
•.
•.
r.
N
N
'1
it�IIIIIIII
en:::IyzjIIJJJ
Y Y
g
g
E
g
g'
g
g&
g
g
F
a
8
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
1!!1
i >
•• k ic c e x
O
O
O
h
WWI
;1k
N ON
i
X Y 0 a e1 E > e e e 5 c e e
; 3 p' - 5g
g i p g A$ S L l i 5 a a a a n n a i v 1≥ ?
III"g i:1111111!%.. ''�;�i��3
° g i y> a a c 9 a s n a a a a a
kk
3111111111111!
1
2172tiO Demon v30) warn
DETENTION BASIN STAGE -STORAGE TABLE BUILDER
UP -OrzfenUon. Vers:or 3 0' HG plrW5 201'.
] SC
SC
:a
sr.s.IM
—WET t^.1 A'..:W w I
: ;o
—Mwfww) +1 4U
Detention Basin Outlet Structure Design
UD-Detention, Version 3.07 (February 2017)
Project:
Basin ID:
ZOOK 3
toOVR
POIAMIll
z viocv
►NI MI Kt
POOL
a
DOW r AM r
oisnces
aoweai
oxasxe
Example Zone Configuration (Retention Pond)
Zone 1 (WQCV)
Zone 2 (10 -year)
lone 3(100 -year)
Stage (ft)
Zone Volume (ac -ft) Outlet Type
0.22
0.063
Orifice Plate
0.27
0.015
Not Utilized
0.87
0.198
Weir&Pipe (Circular)
User Input: Orifice at Underdraln Outlet (typicaly used to drain WQCV in a Titration BMP)
Underdrain Orifice Invert Depth = N/A ft (distance below the filtration media surface)
Underdrain Orifice Diameter = N/A inches
0.275
Total
Calculated Parameters for Underdrain
Underdrain Orifice Area = N/A ft
Underdrain Orifice Centrotd = N/A feet
User Input: Orifice Plate with one or more orifices or Elliptical Slot Weir typically used to drain WQCV and/or EURV in a sedimentation BMP)
Invert of Lowest Orifice =
Depth at top of Zone using Orifice Plate =
Orifice Plate: Orifice Vertical Spacing =
Orifice Plate: Orifice Area per Row =
0.00
0.25
3.00
2.29
ft (relative to basin bottom at Stage = 0 h)
ft (relative to basin bottom at Stage = 0 h)
inches
sq. inches (diameter = 1-11/16 inches)
User Input: Stage and Total Area of Each Orifice Row (numbered from lowest to highest)
Stage of Onfice Centroid (ft)
Orifice Area (sq inches)
Stage of Onfice Centroid (ft)
Office Area (sq 'tithes)
Calculated Parameters for Plate
WQ Orifice Area per Row =
Elliptical Half -Width =
Elliptical Slot Centroid =
Elliptical Slot Area =
1.590E-02
N/A
N/A
N/A
h'
feet
feet
ft'
Row I (required)
Row 2 (optional)
Row 3 (optional)
Row 4 (optional)
Row 5 (optional)
Row 6 (optional)
Row 7 (optional)
Row 8 (optional)
0.00
0.20
0.40
229
229
2.29
Row 9 (optional)
Row 10 (optional)
Row 11 (optional)
Row 12 (optional)
Row 13 (optional)
Row 14 (optional)
Row 15 (optional)
Row 16 (optional)
User Input: Vertical Orifice (Grcular or Rectangular)
Invert of Vertical Orifice =
Depth at top of Zone using Vertical Orifice =
Vertical Orifice Diameter =
Not Selected
Not Selected
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ft (relative to basin bottom at Stage = 0 f)
h (relative to basin bottom at Stage = 0 f)
inches
Calculated Parameters for Vertical Orifice
Vertical Orifice Area =
Vertical Orifice Centroid =
Not Selected
Not Selected
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
h'
feet
User Input: Overflow Weir (Dropbox) and Grate (Flat or Sloped)
Overflow Weir Front Edge Height. Ho =
Overflow Weir Front Edge Length =
Overflow Weir Slope =
Horiz. Length of Weir Sides
Overflow Grate Open Area % _
Debris Clogging % _
Zone 3 Weir
Not Selected
0.27
N/A
3.00
N/A
3.00
N/A
0.50
N/A
70%
N/A
50%
N/A
ft (relative to basin bottom at Stage = 0 ft)
feet
H:V (enter zero for flat grate)
feet
%, grate open area/total area
User Input: Outlet Pipe w/ Flow Restriction Plate (Circular Orifice, Restrictor Plate, or Rectangular Orifice)
Depth to Invert of Outlet Pipe =
Circular Orifice Diameter =
Zone 3 Circular
Nat Selected
0.00
N/A
2.20
N/A
ft (distance below basin bottom at Stage = 0 ft)
inches
User Input: Emergency Spillway (Rectangular or Trapezoidal)
Spillway Invert Stage= 3.00 ft (relative to basin bottom at Stage = 0 ft)
Spillway Crest Length = 20.00 feet
Spillway End Slopes = 4.00 H:V
Freeboard above Max Water Surface = 0.00 feet
Calculated Parameters for Overflow Weir
Height of Grate Upper Edge. H,
Over Flow Weir Slope Length
Grate Open Area / 100-yr Orifice Area
Overflow Grate Open Area w/o Debris
Overflow Grate Open Area w/ Debris =
Zone 3 Weir
Not Selected
0.44
N/A
0.53
N/A
41.93
N/A
1.11
N/A
0.55
N/A
feet
feet
should be ≥ 4
ft:
h'
Calculated Parameters for Outlet Pipe w/ Flow Restriction Plate
Outlet Orifice Area =
Outlet Orifice Centroid =
Half -Central Angle of Restrictor Plate on Pipe =
Zone 3 Circular
Not Selected
0.03
N/A
0.09
N/A
N/A
N/A
Calculated Parameters for Spillway
Spillway Design Flow Depth= 0.24 feet
Stage at Top of Freeboard = 3.24 feet
Basin Area at Top of Freeboard =
0.52
acres
h'
feet
radians
Routed Hydrograph Results
Design Storm Return Period
One -Hour Rainfall Depth (in)
Calculated Runoff Volume (acre -It)
OPTIONAL Ovemde Runoff Volume (we -fl)
Inflow Hydrograph Volume (acre -ft)
Predevelopment Unit Peak Flow. q (daracre)
Predevelopment Peak Q (ifs)'
Peak Inflow 0 (ifs)
Peak Outflow Q (ifs) _
Ratio Peak Outflow to Predevelopment O =
Structure Controlling Flow =
Max Velocity through Grate 1 (fps)
Max Velocity through Grate 2 (fps)
Time to Drain 97% of Inflow Volume (hours)
Time to Drain 99% of Inflow Volume (hours)
Maximum Fending Depth (R) _
Area at Maximum Ponding Depth (acres) _
Maximum Volume Stored (acre -ft) =
WQCV
=
EURV
2 Year
5 Year
10 Year
25 Year
50 Year
100 Year
500 Year
0.53
1.07
0.83
1.11
1.39
1.84
2.25
2.71
3.98
0.063
0.090
0.041
0.060
0.084
0.141
0.262
0.498
1.196
0.062
0.090
0.040
0.059
0.083
0.140
0.261
0.497
1.195
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.17
0.43
1.17
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
1.6
4.1
11.0
0.9
1.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
2.1
3.8
7.3
17.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.1
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
Plate
Outlet Plate 1
Plate
Plate
Outlet Plate 1
Outlet Plate 1
Outlet Plate 1
Outlet Plate 1
Outlet Plate 1
N/A
-0.01
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
35
40
29
35
39
47
58
75
113
40
45
34
39
44
52
65
83
127
0.20
0.28
0.13
0.19
0.26
0.44
0.78
1.37
2.00
0.29
0.30
0.29
0.29
0.30
0.32
0.35
0.43
0.52
0.054
0.081
0.034
0.051
0.075
0.127
0.243
0.469
0.768
WQCV Retention Volume
0.094 acre -ft
100 Year Retention Volume
0.746 acre -ft
Detention Basin Outlet Structure Design
UD-Detention, Version 347 (February 2017)
20
14 —
12 —
3 •`
O
U.
4
2
Soon M
SOOER OUT
MIMI IN
— a 100,* OUT
KIM IN
— a SortOut
- —1SYe a1
_e_ rnR Out
10H1 Rs
SYR M
SIR OUT
—his
--- 1YR Our
Eumv m
_
— . amour
wacves
WON Our
1
TIME (h(]
10
2.5
DRAM TIME [hr]
AREA (ft% VOLUME (h^31
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20.000
15,000
10,000
5,000
O User Area (ft^2)
Interpolated Area )h^2)
Summary Area (ft"2)
Volume [ft A3)
•••••• Summary Volume iftA3)
Outflow Ids]
• • •4 • • Summary Outflow [chi
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
i
0.10g
0.08
006
0.04
0.02
0 0.00
0.00 0.50
1.00 : S[
VONDING DEPTH (ft)
2 O" 2.50
S -A -V -O Chart Axis Override X-axis Left le -Axis Right V -Axis
minimum bound
maximum bound
Detention Basin Outlet Structure Design
Outflow Hydrograph Workbook i' enarne
Storm Inflow Hydrographs UD-Detention, Version 3.07 (February 2017)
T e use; can override the calculated inflow hydrographs from this workbook min inflow hydrographs developed in a separate program
Fine Interval
5.70 min
Hyd rograph
Constart
0 877
SOURCE
WORKBOOK
WORKBOOK
WORKBOOK
WORKBOOK
WORKBOOK
WORKBOOK
WORKBOOK
WORKBOOK
WORKBOOK
TIME
WQCV [cfs]
EURV [cfsj
2 Year [cfsj
S Year [cfsj
10 Year Ms]
25 Year (cfs;
50 Year [cfs'
100 Year [cfsj
500 Year ;cfs;
0:00:00
0.00
0.00
0.00
000
000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0:05:42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0:11:24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17:06
0.04
0.06
0.03
0.04
046
0.10
0.17
0.32
0/5
0/2A8
0.11
0.16
0.07
0.11
0.15
0.25
0.46
0.87
2.05
0/830
0.29
0.42
0.19
0/8
0.39
0.65
1.19
2.23
5/5
0:34:12
0.80
116
0.53
0/7
1.08
1.79
3/7
6.14
14.43
0:39.54
0.93
135
0.61
0.89
1/5
2.09
3.84
7/6
17/8
0:45:36
0.88
128
0.57
0.84
1.18
1.98
3.66
6.92
16.52
0:51:18
0.80
1.16
0.52
0/6
108
1.80
3.33
6.30
15.0:
0:57:00
0/0
102
0.46
0.67
0.95
1.59
2.%
5.62
1348
1:02:42
0.60
0.87
0.39
0.57
0.81
1.36
2.54
4/W
11.68
1:08:24
0.52
0.76
0.34
0.50
0/1
1.19
2.22
4.22
10.16
1:14:06
047
0.69
0.31
045
0.63
1.05
2.00
3.83
9.21
11948
0.38
0.56
0/4
0.36
052
0.87
1.64
3.15
7.64
1/530
0.30
0.45
0.19
0/9
0.41
0/0
1.33
2.57
6.28
1:31:12
0/2
0.33
0.14
0.21
0.31
0.53
1.01
1.97
4.88
13654
0.16
0.24
0.10
015
0/2
0.38
0.74
1.46
3.68
1:42:36
0.12
018
0.08
0.11
0.16
0/8
0.54
1.06
2.68
1:48:18
0.09
0.14
0.06
0.09
0.13
0/2
0.42
0.82
2.05
1.54.00
0.08
0.12
0.05
0.07
0.11
0.18
0.35
0.68
1.68
1:59:42
0.07
0.10
0.04
0.06
0.09
0.16
0.30
0.58
1.42
2:05:24
0.06
0.09
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.14
0/6
0.52
1/5
2:11.06
0.05
0.08
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.12
0/4
0.46
1.12
2:16:48
0.05
0.07
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.12
0.22
0.42
1.03
2/2.30
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.05
0.09
0.16
0.31
0/6
2/812
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.12
0.23
0.55
2:33:54
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.09
0.17
0.41
2:39.36
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.12
0.30
2:45.18
0.01
0.01
0.01
041
0.01
0.02
044
0.09
0/2
2.51.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
041
0.01
0.02
003
0.06
0.15
2:56:42
0.00
001
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.71
3:02:14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.07
3:08:06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.05
3:13:48
040
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
3:19:30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
003
3/512
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3:30:54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
000
3:36:36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3:4218
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.48:00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.53:42
0.00
000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3:59:24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.05.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4:10:48
040
000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4:16:30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
000
040
0.00
0.00
0.00
4:22.12
0.00
040
0.00
0.00
040
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4:27:54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4:33:36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4:39:18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4:45:00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
040
4:50:42
0.00
000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4:56:24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5:02:06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5:07:48
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.13.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
040
0.00
5:19:12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.24:54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
040
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5:30:36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5:36:18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5A2'O0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
040
0.00
5:47:42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.53:24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
040
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5:59:06
0.00
0.00
0.00
000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6:04:48
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6:10:30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6:16:12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6/154
0.00
040
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6/736
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
040
0.00
0.00
6:33:18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6:39:00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6:44:42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
040
0.00
650:24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
000
0.00
Weir Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® AutoCAD® Civil 3D® by Autodesk. Inc.
<Name>
Trapezoidal Weir
Crest
Bottom Length (ft)
Total Depth (ft)
Side Slope (z:1)
Calculations
Weir Coeff. Cw
Compute by:
Known Q (cfs)
Depth (ft)
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
= Sharp
= 15.00
= 0.50
= 4.00
= 3.10
Known Q
= 7.59
<Name>
Highlighted
Depth (ft)
0 (cfs)
Area (sqft)
Velocity (ft/s)
Top Width (ft)
Monday. Oct 7 2019
= 0.29
= 7.590
= 4.69
= 1.62
= 17.32
0 2
Weir
4 6 8
W.S.
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Depth (ft)
1.00
0.50
0.00
-0.50
Length (ft)
You created this PDF from an application that is not licensed to print to novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
. nwtm INFLUAOCOI .On
COUNTY ROAD 19
COttMR Rw0.1a
*kJ•
•
ii
SW WEIR as'
SOS .. ..w _ WOO -0 nee •w+++« .___
ikt
N
MOWS St
41.2
In
>n
20
APPIONIAnt MATS O
MOOS OIASOIMIDOCI
Meow, OWED
4
POMPOM o1,olOOll POMO
S. nee W,
i
1
I
SCALE' 1'.*0
t0
BASIN
HISTORIC BASIN FLOWS
AR(Acs) EA Ow (Os) (cs) (Os)
A 943 013 439
DEVELOPED BASIN FLOWS
BASIN
AREA a,
(Acres) (ctt)
felt)
A 94:5 12S 59
POND SUMMARY TABLE
STAGE
V.S.E.
ITEM
VOLUME
HE ann
%T11
VOLUME
manors
%PI
WQLV
199 S0
4.346
1149E
100:i E.,
20100
324%
19671
.IRA
QB SJAGF r ,n
A
fICNMARK:
A tut-MAM
VOWS to -.W ttYWl
VAW 100-0 Mel
0tln1 .Ow1
OS tat
EDIOR4 WNW 11.06 COEc S
ttr W A Ma • IS. wiM A I Cr as tfR *LW,MASOt C
S}AVO Lt WS At tK MwSIWM$t PICKIITI COYER AMMO
[IFYAOPt - 'n 2O
LOST&
.'L .oC..c .oat.
— tOG Or SI MI AWN IQ At Ill V 202.00
0
gnfUrtACSAP°"i
1e
p
a
Cn
C 4 1
L
18gt
OJ 'C 114
cnaAl
E2
UU
O
1Y
ANDERSEN KENNEL
3.9
DRA!NAGY PLAN
ACV is
1 OF 1
Pet Ranch
10848 CR 19, Fort Lupton, CO 80621
Weld County, Colorado
Traffic Impact Study
KE Job #2019-037
Prepared for
Troy Andersen
10848 CR 19
Fort Lupton. CC 80621
Prepared by.
KELLAR ENGINEERING
970.219.1602 phone
August 6. 2019
Sean K. Kellar, PE, PTOE
This document together with the concepts and recommendations presented herein as an instrument of service is intended only for the
specific purpcse and client for which it was prepared Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authonzat,on from
Kellar Engineenng L_C snail be without liability to Kellar Engineering LLC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Existing Conditions and Roadway Network
2.1 Recent Traffic Volumes
3.0 Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities
4.0 Proposed Development
4.1 Trip Generation
4.2 Trip Distribution
4.3 Traffic Assignment
4.4 Short Range Total Peak Hour Traffic
5.0 Traffic Operation Analysis
5.1 Analysis Methodology
5.2 Intersection Operational Analysis
5.3 Auxiliary Lane Analysis
6.0 Findings
List of Figures:
Figure 1
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6.
Figure
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
Recent Peak Hour Traffic
2021 Background Peak Hour Traffic
Trip Distribution
Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic
2021 Short Range Total Peak Hour Traffic
Page
3
3
3
6
6
6
6
7
7
8
8
8
8
17
Page
4
5
10
11
12
13
14
Pet Ranch 1'Is Page 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
List of Tables:
Table 1
Table 2:
Table 3.
Table 4:
Trip Generation
Recent Peak Hour Operations
2021 Background Peak Hour Operations
2021 Short Range Total Peak Hour Operations
Appendices:
Appendix A: Traffic Counts
Appendix B Level of Service (LOS) Tables
Appendix C: Aerial and Site Photos
Appendix D: Weld County Functional Classification Map
Appendix E. HCM Calculations (Synchroi
Page
9
15
15
16
Page
19
20
21
24
25
Pet Ranch TIS
Page 2
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this Traffic Impact Study (TIS) is to identify project traffic generation
characteristics. to identify potential traffic related impacts on the adjacent street system, and to
develop mitigation measures required for identified traffic impacts. This TIS is for the proposed
Pet Ranch project located at 10848 CR 19, Fort Lupton. CO. See Figure 1: Vicinity Map.
Kellar Engineering LLC (KE) has prepared the TIS to document the results of the projects
anticipated traffic conditions in accordance with Weld County s requirements and to identify
projected impacts to the local and regional traffic system.
2.0 Existing Conditions and Roadway Network
The project site is located at 10848 CR 19. Fort Lupton. CO in Weld County. CO. Access to the
site is proposed from an entrance only driveway and an exit only driveway to CR 19. CR 19 is a
north/south 2 -lane arterial roadway with a posted speed of 45 mph for northbound traffic and a
posted speed of 55 mph for southbound traffic south of the CR 19/CR 24 intersection.
2.1 Recent Traffic Volumes
Recent peak hour traffic volume counts were conducted using data collection cameras on July
11. 2019. The traffic counts were conducted during the peak hours of adjacent street traffic in
15 -minute intervals from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4 00 PM to 6:00 PM. These turning
movement counts are shown in Figure 3 with the count sheets provided in Appendix A.
Pet Ranch 1'IS Page 3
re
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
4
Site
X
CR 22
--.
Pet Ranch TIS
Page 4
1E
Figure 2: Site Plan
Pet Ranch TIS
Page 5
le
3.0 Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities
Currently there are no existing sidewalks or bicycle facilities adjacent to the project site.
Additionally. the project is not anticipated to generate additional pedestrian or bicycle trips. Any
additional pedestrian or bicycle traffic from this project. if any. would be negligible.
4.0 Proposed Development
The proposed development consists of a dog boarding and dog daycare facility. See Table 1
Trip Generation and Figure 2: Site Plan.
4.1 Trip Generation
Site generated traffic estimates are determined through a process known as trip generation.
Rates and equations are applied to the proposed land use to estimate traffic generated by the
development during a specific time interval. The acknowledged source for trip generation rates
is the Trip Generation Report published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The
Institute of Transportation Engineers. (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition does not
provide detailed data on dog boarding/daycare facilities. As such, KE was able to estimate the
weekday peak hour trip generation for the AM and PM peak hours based upon information
provided by the client and project team. The proposed project is anticipated to typically
generate approximately 76 daily weekday trips. 36 AM total peak hour trips. and 38 PM total
peak hour trips. See Table 1: Trip Generation.
4.2 Trip Distribution
Distribution of site traffic on the street system was based on the area street system
characteristics. existing traffic patterns and volumesanticipated surrounding development
areas. and the proposed access system for the project. The directional distribution of traffic is a
means to quantify the percentage of site generated traffic that approaches the site from a given
direction and departs the site back to the original source. Figure 5 illustrates the trip distribution
used for the project's analysis.
Pet Ranch '[IS
['Age (,
Li
4.3 Traffic Assignment
Traffic assignment was obtained by applying the trip distributions to the estimated trip
generation of the development. Figure 6 shows the site generated peak hour traffic assignment.
4.4 Short Range Total Peak Hour Traffic
Site generated peak hour traffic volumes were added to the background traffic volumes to
represent the estimated traffic conditions for the short range 2021 horizon. These background
(2021) and short range (2021) total traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 7
respectively. The short range analysis year 2021 includes the proposed development for the
project plus an increase in background traffic per the growth rates from the NFRMPO (North
Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization)
Pet Ranch TIS Page 7
5.0 Traffic Operation Analysis
KE's analysis of traffic operations in the site vicinity was conducted to determine the capacity at
the identified intersection. The acknowledged source for determining overall capacity is the
Highway Capacity Manual.
5.1 Analysis Methodology
Capacity analysis results are listed in terms of level of service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative term
describing operating conditions a driver will experience while traveling on a particular street or
highway during a specific time interval. LOS ranges from an A (very little delay) to an F (long
delays). A description of the level of service (LOS) for signalized and unsignalized intersections
from the Highway Capacity Manual are provided in Appendix B.
5.2 Intersection Operational Analysis
Operational analysis was performed for the short range 2021 horizon. The calculations for this
analysis are provided in Appendix E. Using the short range total traffic volumes shown in Figure
7, the projects intersections are projected to operate acceptably See Table 4 for the 2021
Short Range Total Peak Hour Operation.
5.3 Auxiliary Lane Analysis
The auxiliary lane analysis for the study intersections were conducted using CDOT State
Highway Access Code (SHAC). Based upon the SHAC. a left -turn deceleration lane is required
at an intersection with a projected peak hour ingress turning volume greater than 10 vph.
Additionally. a right -turn deceleration lane is required at an intersection with a projected peak
hour ingress turning volume greater than 25 vph. and a right -turn acceleration lane is required at
an intersection with a projected peak egress turning volume greater than 50 vph.
Based upon the projected traffic of the development and the State Highway Access Code
(SHAC). auxiliary lanes are not projected to be required. See Figure 7. 2021 Short Range
Total Peak Hour Traffic.
Pet Ranch TIS E'a8
O
Table 1: Trip Generation
ITE
Code
Land Use
Size
Average Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour Trips
PM Peak Hour Tri
Rate
Total
Rate
In
Rate
Out,
Total
Rate
In
Rate
Out
Total
N/A
Dog Boarding/Daycare
15.6 KSF
•
76
•
18
•
18
36
•
18
•
20
38
Total
76
36
38
KSF = Thousand Square Feet
• The Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 109' Edition does not provide detailed data on dog
boarding/daycare facilities. As such, KE was able to estimate the weekday peak hour trip generation for the AM and PM peak hours
based upon information provided by the client and project team. See Section 4.1 Trip Generation
Pet Ranch TIS Page 9
Figure 3: Recent Peak Hour Traffic
c0
re) r is)
icr r co
JIL
38/86 --st
35/81 --i-
26/29
6/9
70/47
2/3
sir
r- N u)
�n -
7 r
r (�
N
NTS
CR 24
Le end
.411-- A PM
Pet Ranch TIS
Page 10
Figure 4 2021 Background Traffic
ti
rn co
o
to r
C
Jlt
40/91
37/8b
2813'
—4
—6/10
40-- t 74/50
2/3
TIT
o r li7
o tr)
N
NTS
CR 24
Legend
�— Ai\,1 PM
Pet Ranch TIS
Page 11
cs
Fiqure 5: Trip Distribution
_0)
•
N
NTS
Site Access tt1
(Entrance)
Project
Site
Site Access tt2
(Exit)
Pet Ranch TIS Page 12
Figure 6: Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic
N
NTS
Site Access #1
(Entrance)
Project
Site
Site Access #2
(Exit)
Le end
ANiffPN1
Pet Ranch TIS
Page 13
Figure 7: 2021 Short Range Total Peak Hour Traffic
N
O
rn
IL
Pet Ranch TN
C)
U
it
L
9iI
nw 9/10
N
NTS
Site Access #1
(Entrance)
Project
Site
Site Access #2
(Exit)
Le end
AMIPM
Page 14
Table 2: Recent Peak Hour Operations
Intersection
Level of Service (LOS)
Movement
AM
PM
LOS
LOS
CR 19/CR 24
EB Left/Thru/Right
B
C
EB Approach
B
C
WB Left/Thru/Right
B
B
WB Approach
B
B
NB Left/Thru/Right
A
A
NB Approach
A
A
SB Left/Thru/Right
A
A
SB Approach
A
A
Table 3: 2021 Background Peak Hour Operations
Intersection
Movement
Level of Service ,LOS)
AM
PM
LOS
LOS
CR 19/CR 24
EB Left/Thru/Right
B
C
EB Approach
B
C
WB Left/Thru/Right
B
B
WB Approach
B
B
NB Left/Thru/Right
A
A
NB Approach
A
A
SB Left/Thru/Right
A
A
SB Approach
A
A
Pet Ranch T1S
Page 15
It
Table 4: 2021 Short Range Total Peak Hour Operations
Intersection
Level of Service (LOS)
Movement
AM
PM
LOS
LOS
CR 19/CR 24
EB Left/Thru/Right
B
C
EB Approach
B
C
_
WB Left/Thru/Right
B
B
WB Approach
B
B
NB Left/Thru/Right
A
A
NB Approach
A
A
SB Left/Thru/Right
A
A
SB Approach
A
A
Intersection
Movement
Level of Service (LOS)
AM
PM
LOS
LOS
CR 19/Site Access #1
NB Thru/Right
A
A
Entrance
NB Approach
A
A
SB Left/Thru
A
A __
SB Approach
A
A
Intersection
Movement
Level of Service (LOS)
AM
PM
LOS
LOS
CR 19/Site Access #2
WB Left/Right
A
B
Exit _
WB Approach
A
B
NB Thru
A
A _
NB Approach
A _
A
SB Thru
A
A
SB Approach
A
A
Pet Ranch TIS
Page 16
6.0 Findings
Based upon the analysis in this study. the proposed project will be able to meet Weld County.
Colorado requirements and not create a negative impact upon the local and regional traffic
system.
The findings of the TIS are summarized below
• The proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 76 daily weekday trips. 36
AM peak hour trips. and 38 PM peak hour trips
• Access to the site is proposed from an entrance only driveway and an exit only driveway
to CR 19.
• The proposed access to CR 19 will operate acceptably during the AM and PM peak
hours with the proposed development per Weld County. CO requirements
• Additional auxiliary lanes are not required at the study intersections per Weld County
CO requirements.
• Signal warrants are not anticipated to be met at the study intersections.
Pet Ranch u s Page 17
APPENDICES:
Pet Ranch TIS Page 18
IE
Appendix A: Traffic Counts
Traffic Counts
CR 24 and CR 19 Intonelttlln Point AM IS Minute Summary
t1lw Men
44140141411. a at
tanae.ae- CR 34
Iota 1 lo.o•..rew,.a a 14
ItMnbwwtt Cs II
'Ml
1lanit%,.n*
tarama
all
lieu
Item
rut/
l/1
ran.,
bite
•o11
art
nee
VOrt
total
ton
llr4
t
/Nat
/ It
a
Is
1,
It
iii
w
i
a
4
q
al
it
fl
li
In
C
8
tl`
Y
0
17
R
12
LI
11
I
X
43
a
21
n
2I
t
71
1
13
aC
!a1
1
.4
t
13
r
i
I
X
- ryl
t
C
v
M
12
C
S)
:>\
:
:l
r
:1
:�
•
a
J.
4)
!✓
o
:1
1:
:a
..'
' I.
:
1lt
:
:1
.
14
e
II‘
1 /
11
IC
1
. 1
1
• 4•_
J
:I
1
la
4 µ
•..•
11
a
1_
11
:.
,
Ts
71
cal
••••r1
..rj
:'.•{
. "I
•II •ll
:
a
nets
.1
.nj
. n,i
MAW
u14j
u/Il
o.:T•j
CYrj ..JI
CR 24 and
CR 19
Msnocttoe Posit PM
1S Minute
Mnwnary
it ix
t
ii
1•
I
4
11
1
"
r
:4
4
fl
1
44
•.•
I•.:-.
c
4
a
1
11
14
•.:
•.•
11
1-.
b
i'
1
C
2
r,
:!
lacic
I
3J
J
it
II
U.
l
Si
x
X
II
1.1
.0
JI
Al
1
41
41
1.6.43
0
It
1
U
it
II
*
44
e:
I
1t.
11
•'1
LC
b
1
1t
X
1? -ii
0
Ia
I
2.`
Si
)D
♦
41
tl
It
IS
IO
la
sl
2
10
a
1' 1:
1
1.
1
..
lr
:a
4.7
•..
11
s
..
♦
µ
µ
1'4•.
1
.
1
1:
1:
1
'$
n
1
11
11
U
I
1J
1
11
1i
4 4'.• I.
1:
1
+1
4
41
11
11
'.
It
11.1
4•
14.3.G
•ll
s -r
.:1r.
...
.•.I
:Jr
..
.'t
u.j
:1r
:4:
_h
ir
az
G7
aL
. t.4 cII
CT.
• .\f Ind
•1444 : N"u'♦.
, .».- ,.......
CR 24
and CR
19 intersection Pedestrians
and
Rawtla
Pedcstnsns
on Crmsls&
PM
15 Mutts
Sumniry
1YetlMane
ale
tai
tie smi a
24
1401404 4044 Ca
49
eoraeetear
t4
a
T.n4 mem
rte.
Muth
*444•1
yM
Lila
•ef•1
tact
etr
eat/
tact
e.l
leer
-it
_
1
1'.
1
-
!".
.
11-.
_
r •_
..
n
-
rA-.
n
.
•,•.
I
i.
❑
c
C
Bicycles on Crosswalk
PM
15 Minute
Surnnw
TM*
elerea,I.e
.7
Si
b+ew
a
:I
SawlIbound
Cl
I/
%salaam
s- Ca
IS
Owen
%IMP
142.44
'lltr
news.
Lee
'et*
tan
nil
/all
for
Vial
tatty
Ix
I'
X
n
.
r tr
:.1".
J
:- J'
.
U
e e'.
J
-
...
-
L
Ptdestnans
on Crosswalk
PM
15 Matte
Sumnnary
r a.. swine
tlwaDar.d
Cl
U
botibeele
al
U
SWIMa.ad Cl
i1
inwt4/eus
re
it
rlae,
South
ieW
.t1Me.
L.M
Tats
tat/
eon
reel
tan
Worst
Iota,
:4 a'
-
lt 1'.
C
d
-
:e l•
,
l
:1 1•.
K
.
-
.1
&eycles on Crosswalk PM
15 Minute
Summary
ley ~^•
watewne
<1 ra
twelosit a
a
leeeea.al a
II
ee.ae
.f Cl
IS
fie,
South
Total
!nn
Lee,
ietr
tat
Moot
Taft
tar
e.d
tot.
:t -c
ci
:t. 1'.
C
:4 I.
C
•
1'.4
C
.
: 1 l.'
..
n
'a.
C 1 -
..
..
c
c
n
r
i
1
..
AM
IY
1,,1..
-ian :'tu
Cal
• 11,::11
Del. I
.1
'11b:
' ,e- II
,'w n►
1n tae.. k a... teM1 .r Sr
1L 'or�r
••r . •J1e1seMJ4rwRnr 1 -:.,-
.
•.v. • 714 l';.• •••1•41
-
-
•11.-':C
.r„
4,T-sti.
-.Ca :1s
+set
. wf♦a�•♦
\4i -.. Mt..
b.el1..
•a. •v.s.
Pet Ranch T1S
Page 19
Appendix B: Level of Service (LOS) Table
Level of Service Definitions
Level of Service
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
(LOS)
Average Total Delay
Average Total Delay
(sec/veh)
(sec/veh)
A
≤ 10
≤ 10
B
>10and ≤20
>l0and ≤15
C
> 20 and ≤ 35
> 15 and ≤ 25
D
> 35 and ≤ 55
> 25 and ≤ 35
E
> SS and ≤ 80
> 35 and ≤ 50
F
> 80
> 50
Pet Ranch TIS
Page 20
L
CR 19 and CR 24 Looking South
Pet Ranch TIS
Page 23
Appendix D. Weld County Functional Classification Map
3
3
2
2
2
22
2
1
1
1
1
CR 3
orn
LONGMONT I
Li II
FIRESTONE
CR 2
rLPN I I CVILLC), s
U
WCR 301
WCR 28Ea MS OM ni
•
WCR 26
a age a
2 3 5 79 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
= am an
WCR 18
�-'
LUPTON
■
Legend
=Err High ay
Paved Local
Gravel Local
eimmi 4 -Lane Controlled -Access County Highway
Arterial
Collector
Arterials Not Constructed
® Future Alignment To Be Determined
Note The minimum nght-of-way for WCR 29 between Ski 392
and WCR 100 will be 100' except at the foibwmg intersections
it will be 140' SH 392. WCR 74, S-i 14. WCR 90. WCR 100.
Pet Ranch TIS Page 24
I€
Appendix E: HCM Calculations (Synchro)
Pet Ranch TES
Page 25
IE
Recent AM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC
3: CR 19&CR24
08/06/2019
Intersection
Int Delay. slveni
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
r
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 38
Future Vol. veh/h 38
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0
Sign Control Stop
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 10
Mvmt Flow 45
4+
35
35
0
Stop
0
0
85
10
41
26 2
26 2
0 0
Stop Stop
None -
85
10
31
85
10
2
4
70 6 19 47 1 3 113 47
70 6 19 47 1 3 113 47
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
- None - - None - - None
0
0
85
10
82
85
10
7
0
0
85 85
10 10
22 55
85
10
1
85
10
4
0
0
85 85
10 10
133 55
Major/Minor Minor2
Minor1
Major1
Major2
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap -1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked. %
Mov Cap -1 Maneuver
Mov Cap -2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
169
144
7.2
6.2
6.2
3.59
624
814
840
269 161
169
100
6.6 6.3
5.6
5.6
4.09 3.39
624 863
744
797
305 296
100 100
205 196
7.2 6.6 6.3 4.2
6.2 5.6
6.2 5.6
3.59 4.09 3.39 2.29
632 602 988 1339
887 797
779 724
4
545 612 863 569 590 988 1339
545 612 - 569 590
800 742 - 872 783
734 783 - 708 722
0 56 0 0
- 4.2
- 2.29
- 1499
- 1499
Approach
EB
WB
NB
SB
HCM Control Delay. s 12
HCM LOS B
12
B
2.2
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
1339 - 630 608 1499
0.017 - - 0.185 0.151 0.002
7.7 0 - 12 12 7.4 0
A A - B B A A
0.1 - - 0.7 0.5 0 -
HCM 2010 TWSC
Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
Recent PM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC
08/06/2019
3:CR19&CR24
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 8.2
Movement EBL
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
Future Vol. veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
4 4 4 4
86 81 29 3 47 9 47 152 5 5 82 46
86 81 29 3 47 9 47 152 5 5 82 46
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
None - - None - None - - None
0 0
0 - 0
85 85 85 85 85
10 10 10 10 10
101 95 34 4 55
Major/Minor Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 460 430
Stage 1 135 135
Stage 2 325 295
Critical Hdwy 7.2 6.6
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.2 5.6
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.2 5.6
Follow-up Hdwy 3.59 4.09
Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 498 506
Stage 1 849 770
Stage 2 671 655
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 431 481
Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 431 481
Stage 1 812 766
Stage 2 578 626
Approach EB
HCM Control Delay. s 18.7
HCM LOS C
Minor1
123 492
292
200
6.3 7.2
6.2
• 6.2
3.39 3.59
907 474
699
784
907 373
373
668
657
WB
13.5
454
292
162
6.6 6.3 4.2
5.6
5.6
4.09 3.39 2.29
490 840 1384
657
749
85
10
11
85
10
55
Major1
Q
466 840 1384
466
628
745
NB
1.8
0
0
85
10
179
0
85
10
6
85
10
6
Major2
Sim
- 4.2
- 2.29
- 1343
- 1343
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
1384 - - 490 493 1343
0.04 0.471 0.141 0.004
7.7 0 - 18.7 13.5 7.7 0
A A - CB A A
0.1 2.5 0.5 0
SB
0.3
0
0
85 85
10 10
96 54
0
HCM 2010 TWSC
Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
2021 Background AM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC
3: CR 19 & CR 24 08'06/2019
Intersection
int Delay s/veh
Movement
._ane Configurations c+ 4 4 44
Traffic Vol. veh/h 40 37 28 2 74 6 20 50 1 3 120 50
Future Vol. veh;h 40 37 28 2 74 6 20 50 1 3 120 50
Conflicting Peds. #ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - - None - None - - None
Storage Length - - -
Veh in Median Storage. # 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
Grade % - 0 - 0 - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles. % 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Mvmt Flow 47 44 33 2 87 7 24 59 1 4 141 59
5.8
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Major'1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 331 287 171 325 316 60 200 0 0 60 0 0
Stage 1 179 179 - 108 108 - -
Stage 2 155 108 - 217 208 - -
Critical Hdwy 7.2 6.6 6.3 7.2 6.6 6.3 4.2 - - 4.2
Cntical Hdwy Stg 1 6.2 5.6 - 6.2 5.6 - - - -
Cntical Hdwy Stg 2 6.2 5.6 - 6.2 5.6 - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.59 4.09 3.39 3.59 4.09 3.39 2.29. - 2.29
Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 605 609 852 613 587 983 1326 - - 1494
Stage 1 804 736 - 878 791 -
Stage 2 829 791 - 767 715 - - - -
Platoon blocked. go
Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 522 596 852 547 574 983 1326 - 1494
Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 522 596 - 547 574 - -
Stage 1 789 734 - 861 776 - - - -
Stage 2 717 776 - 692 713
Approach EB
HCM Control Delay. s 12.4
HCM LOS B
WB
NB SB
12.3 2.2 0 1
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (vet, h j 1326 - 612 591 1494
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.018 - 0.202 0163 0.002
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 - 12.4 12.3 7.4 0
HCM Lane LOS AA - B B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.7 0.6 0
HCM 2010 TWSC
Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
2021 Background PM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC
08/06/2019
3:CR19&CR24
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, vehlh
Future Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles, %
Mvmt Flow
4*
91 86 31 3 50
91 86 31 3 50
0 0 0 0 0
Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
- None - -
0
- 0 -
85 85 85
10 10 10
107 101 36
85
10
4
0
0
85
10
59
4+
10 50 161 5 5 87 49
10 50 161 5 5 87 49
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
None - - None - - None
85
10
12
0
- 0
85 85
10 10
59 189
85
10
6
0
- 0
85 85
10 10
6 102
85
10
58
Major/Minor
Minor2
Minor1
Major1
Major2
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap -1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap -1 Maneuver
Mov Cap -2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
489
143
346
7.2
6.2
6.2
3.59
477
841
653
406
406
801
554
456 131 522 482 192 163
143 - 310 310
313 212 172
6.6 6.3 7.2 6.6 6.3 4.2
5.6 - 6.2 5.6
5.6 - 6.2 5.6
4.09 3.39 3.59 4.09 3.39 2.29
489 898 453 472 830 1372
763 - 684 645
643 772 742
463 898
463
759
612
347 447 830 1372
347 447
651 614
639 738
CA
- 4.2
- 2.29
- 1331
- 1331
Approach
EB
WB
NB
SB
HCM Control Delay s 20.8
HCM LOS
M
14
1.8
0.3
inor Lane/Major Mvmt
NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/n)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
1372
0.043
7.7
A
0.1
- 468 475 1331
- 0.523 0.156 0.004
0 - 20.8 14 7.7 0
A - C B A A
3 0.5 0
HCM 2010 TWSC
Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE
Synchro 9 Report
Page 1
2021 Short Range Total AM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC
3: CR 19 & CR 24 08/06/2019
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4 4 4+ 4
Traffic Vol, veh/h 40 37 28 2 74 6 20 50 1 3 120 50
Future Vol, veh/h 40 37 28 2 74 6 20 50 1 3 120 50
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 0
Grade, % - 0 - 0 - - 0 - 0
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles. % 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Mvmt Flow 47 44 33 2 87 7 24 59 1 4 141 59
Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Major! Major2
Conflicting Flow All 334 287 171 325 316 60 200 0
Stage 1 179 179 108 108
Stage 2 155 108 217 208
Critical Hdwy 7.2 6.6 6.3 7.2 6.6 6.3 4.2 - 4.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.2 5.6 - 6.2 5.6 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.2 5.6 - 6.2 5.6
Follow-up Hdwy 3.59 4.09 3.39 3.59 4.09 3.39 2.29 - 2.29
Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 605 609 852 613 587 983 1326 - 1494
Stage 1 804 736 - 878 791
Stage 2 829 791 - 767 715 - -
Platoon blocked, % -
Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 522 596 852 547 574 983 1326 - 1494
Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 522 596 - 547 574 -
Stage 1 789 734 - 861 776
Stage 2 717 776 - 692 713
Approach EB
WB
NB SB
C 0
HCM Control Delay s 12.4 12.3
HCM LOS 5
2.2 0.1
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (vell/h) 1326 - - 612 591 1494
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.018 - 0.202 0.163 0.002
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.8 0 - 12.4 12.3 7.4 0
HCM Lane LOS AA - B B AA
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.7 0.6 0
HCM 2010 TWSC Synchro 9 Report
Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE
2021 Short Range Total AM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC
6: CR 19 & Site Access #1 08/06/2019
Intersection
Int Delay. siveh
Movement U1BL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations V '+ 4
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 59 9 9 150
Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 59 9 9 150
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None None
Storage Length 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 10 2 2 10
Mvmt Flow 0 1 69 11 11 176
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 273 7g 0 80 0
Stage 1 75
Stage 2 198 -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - 4.12
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - 2.218
Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 716 986 - 1518
Stage 1 948 - - - - -
Stage 2 835
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 710 986 - - 1518
Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 710 -
Stage 1 948 -
Stage 2 828 - -
Approach
WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay. s 8.7 0.4
HCM LOS
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh,h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
- 986 1518 -
- 0.001 0.007
- 8.7 7.4 0
A A A
- 0 0 -
HCM 2010 TWSC Synchro 9 Report
Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE
2021 Short Range Total AM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC
8: CR 19 & Site Access #2 08/06/2019
Intersection
Int Delay s/veh 0.8
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations V St St
Traffic Vol. vehlh 9 9 50 0 0 150
Future Vol. veh/h 9 9 50 0 0 150
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0
Veh in Median Storage. # 0 0 - - 0
Grade % 0 - 0 - 0
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles. % 2 2 10 2 2 10
Mvmt Flow 11 11 59 0 0 176
Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2
Conflicting Flow All 235 -
Stage 1 59
Stage 2 176 -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - -
Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 753 1007 - 0 0
Stage 1 964 - 0 0
Stage 2 855 - - 0 0
Platoon blocked.
Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 753 1007 -
Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 753 -
Stage 1 964 -
Stage 2 855 -
Approach
WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay. s 9.3
HCM LOS
0 0
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBTWBLn1 SBT
Capacity (vehih)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile O(veh)
- 862
- 0.025
- 9.3
- A
- 0.1
HCM 2010 TWSC Synchro 9 Report
Sean Kellar, PE. PTOE
2021 Short Range Total PM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC
3: CR 19&CR24
:;8 Ile 91'49
Intersection
Int Delay. s/veh 9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4 4 4 4
Traffic Vol, veh/h 91 86 31 3 50 10 50 161 5 5 87 49
Future Vol, veh/h 91 86 31 3 50 10 50 161 5 5 87 49
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 0
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - 0
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles. % 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Mvmt Flow 107 101 36 4 59 12 59 189 r, 6 102 58
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Majorl Major2
Ccnflicting Flog: Ait 489 456 131 522 482 192 160 0
Stage 1 143 143 310 310 - -
Stage 2 346 313 212 172 -
Critical Hdwy 7.2 6.6 6.3 7.2 6.6 6.3 4.2 - 4.2
Critical Hdvry Stg 1 6.2 5.6 - 6.2 5.6 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.2 5.6 - 6.2 5.6
Follow-up Hdwy 3.59 4.09 3.39 3.59 4.09 3.39 2.29 - 2.29
Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 477 489 898 453 472 830 1372 - 1331
Stage 1 841 763 - 684 645 - -
Stage 2 653 643 - 772 742
Platoon blocked. % -
Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 406 463 898 347 447 830 1372 - 1331
Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 406 463 - 347 447
Stage 1 801 759 - 651 614
Stage 2 554 612 - 639 738
Approach
EB WB
NB SB
HCM Control Delay. s 20.8 14
HCM LOS C B
1 8 0.3
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (vehih) 1372 - 468 475 1331 -
HCM Lane V/C Rate 0.043 - - 0.523 0.156 0.004
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 0 - 20.8 14 7.7 0
HCM Lane LOS A A - C B A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 3 0.5 0
HCM 2010 TWSC Synchro 9 Report
Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE
2021 Short Range Total PM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC
6: CR 19 & Site Access #1
08/06/2019
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations V 1' 4
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1 171 9 9 121
Future Vol, veh/h 0 1 171 9 9 121
Conflicting Peds, #Ihr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - 0
Peak Hour Factor 85 85 85 85 85 85
Heavy Vehicles, 13/0 2 2 10 2 2 10
Mvmt Flow 0 1 201 11 11 142
Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2
Conflicting Flow All 371 207 0 0 212 0
Stage 1 207 - -
Stage 2 164 -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - 2.218
Pot Cap -1 Maneuver 630 833 - 1358
Stage 1 828
Stage 2 865
Platoon blocked, % -
Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 624 833 - 1358
Mov Cap -2 Maneuver 624 - - -
Stage 1 828 Stage 2 857
Approach WB N
B SB
HCM Control Delay, s 9.3 0 0.5
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h)
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
- 833 1358
- 0.001 0.008
- 9.3 7.7 0
A A A
0 0
HCM 2010 TWSC Synchro 9 Report
Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE
2021 Short Range Total PM Peak Hour Kellar Engineering LLC
8: CR 19 & Site Access #2
2.'C
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh
Movement
WBL
WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, vehlh
Future Vol, veh/h
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
Sign Control
RT Channelized
Storage Length
Veh in Median Storage, #
Grade, %
Peak Hour Factor
Heavy Vehicles. %
Mvmt Flow
Major/Minor
Conflicting Flow All
Stage 1
Stage 2
Critical Hdwy
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
Follow-up Hdwy
Pot Cap -1 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, `1/0
Mov Cap -1 Maneuver
Mov Cap -2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
V
10
10
0
Stop
0
0
0
85
2
12
10
10
0
Stop
None
Sf
161
161
0
Free
0
- 0
85 85
2 10
12 189
0 0
0 0
0 0
Free Free
None -
121
121
0
Free
None
0
0
85 85 85
2 2 10
0 0 142
Minor1 Major1 Major2
331 189
189
142
6.42 6.22
5.42 -
5.42 -
3.518 3.318
664 853
843
885
664
664
843
885
Approach WB
853
NB
0
0
0
0
0
0
SE
HCM Control Delay. s
HCM LOS
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt
Capacity (veh/h )
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
HCM Control Delay (s)
HCM Lane LOS
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)
NBTWBLn 1 SBT
- 747
- 0.031
- 10
- B
- 0.1
C
HCM 2010 TWSC
Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE
Synchro 9 Report
SEAN KELLAR, PE, PTOE
OWNER - KELLAR ENGINEERING, LLC
IE
KELLAR ENGINEERING
Kellar Engineering LLC is a Transportation/Traffic Engineering consulting firm founded by Sean Kellar, PE, PTOE. Sean has
over 19 years of work experience in transportation/traffic engineering in both the private and public sectors working for:
Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) as District Traffic Engineer; City of Loveland, Colorado; Kirkham
Michael Consulting Engineers; and Dibble and Associates Consulting Engineers. Kellar Engineering LLC is dedicated to
offering quality transportation and traffic engineering consulting services through great customer service to its clients.
Each project presents a new opportunity to add value and for strengthening relationships with clients. Sean has
completed over 200 traffic impact studies, including traffic studies provided for CDOT, City of Loveland, and Colorado
State University.
EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATION
• Registered Professional Engineer, State of Colorado (License #38650)
• Registered Professional Engineer, State of Wyoming (License #15954)
• Registered Professional Engineer, State of Arizona (License #45781)
• Registered Professional Engineer, State of Missouri (License #2015027449)
• Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (PTOE) (Certificate #2647)
• Bachelor of Science in Engineering, Emphasis in Civil Engineering
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ
SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS
• Over 19 years of transportation engineering experience
• Designed, reviewed, and managed several traffic engineering projects for municipalities, government agencies, and clients
in the private sector
• Presented several projects to City Council and Planning Commission in public hearings
• Managed the April 1, 2007 revisions to the City of Loveland's street design standards (Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards) and represented the City at the public meetings and public hearings associated with receiving City Council
approval of the changes
• Experience in the design of: traffic signals, roundabouts, arterial roadways; and traffic impact analysis utilizing multiple
modeling packages
• Construction inspection and field coordination experience
• Proficient in the following software applications: Synchro, SimTraffic, HCS 2000, AutoCAD, AutoDesk Land Desktop,
Microstation, Autoturn, InRoads, ArcMap GIS, and Microsoft Office
PROFESSIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE
Kellar Engineering LLC, Overland Park, KS - January 2016 — Present
Owner/President
Key components include:
• Roundabout Design
• Intersection re -design
• Traffic Modeling
• Bike/Pedestrian Facilities
• Traffic Impact Studies
• Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
• Parking Studies
• Corridor Planning
Kellar Engineering LLC I PO Box 8198, Prairie Village, KS 66208 I 970-219-1602 I skellar@kellarengineering.com
Key Projects include:
• US 34 and Boyd Lake Avenue Ultimate Intersection Improvements, Loveland, CO
Sean Kellar (Kellar Engineering) was the traffic engineer for the US 34/Boyd Lake Avenue ultimate intersection
improvements project. This design involved ultimate intersection widening of US 34 to a 6 -lane major arterial cross-
section and Boyd Lake Avenue to a 4 -lane major arterial cross-section. The project also included design of a multi -lane
roundabout to the south at the intersection of Boyd Lake Avenue and Mountain Lion Drive.
• Traffic Signal Design, Loveland, CO
Kellar Engineering provided the traffic signal warrant analysis and traffic signal construction drawing design at the
intersection of 29° Street/Beech Drive — the main entrance/exit to Loveland High School. The new traffic signal
addressed safety concerns with the traffic at Loveland High School and created a safe pedestrian crossing for the high
school and pedestrians accessing the sculpture parks on both sides of 29t" Street.
• 37th Street Connector and Monroe Avenue Roundabout, Loveland, CO
Sean Kellar (Kellar Engineering) was the traffic engineer for the 37th Street Connector and Monroe Avenue roundabout
project. The project included horizontal design for a new roadway connection between Hwy 287 and Monroe Avenue
along the 37t^ Street alignment. The project also included the design of a modern roundabout at the intersection of
37th Street and Monroe Avenue.
Missouri Department of Transportation, Lee's Summit, MO — June 2015 — January 2016
District Traffic Engineer, Kansas City District
Key components include:
• Supervised and managed the Traffic Department at MoDOT's Kansas City District
• Department Director for 38 full-time employees within three divisions of the Traffic Department: Traffic
Engineering, Right -of -Way Permits, and Electricians
• Managed over 600 traffic signals, over 7,000 street lights, right-of-way permits, traffic control, and traffic
engineering studies
• Represented MoDOT with the media, law enforcement coordination, and legal proceedings pertaining to traffic
litigation.
Additional key project includes:
• 2015 World Series Parade Traffic Control
Traffic control, freeway management, and arterial management for the 2015 World Series and the 2015 World Series
Celebration Parade
City of Loveland Transportation Development Review, Loveland, CO — February 2005 - June 2015
Senior Civil Engineer & Civil Engineer, Public Works Department
Key components include:
• Supervise and manage the Transportation Development Review Division at the City of Loveland
• Presented the traffic and transportation impacts associated with proposed developments to the City Council and
Planning Commission at public hearings
• Negotiate development agreements and resolve issues involving City staff, street standards, and developers
• Plan review and technical input on construction drawings for the design and construction of proposed roadways
and roadway improvements
• Review of Traffic Impact Studies for proposed commercial developments
• Coordination, design, and review of traffic signal plans to ensure consistency with City standards
• Responsible for the maintenance of the City's street design standards (Larimer County Urban Area Street
Standards)
• Considered and took action upon variance requests to the City's street design standards
• Conducted field inspections to verify compliance with the approved construction plans
Kellar Engineering LLC I PO Box 8198, Prairie Village, KS 66208 1970-219-1602 I skellar@kellarengineering.com
Kirkham Michael Consulting Engineers, Greeley, CO - February 2004 - February 2005
Project Manager, coordinated and designed projects involving:
• Roadway Design
■ Traffic Impact Studies
• Traffic Signal Design
■ Land Development
■ Construction Coordination
Key Projects include:
• 20th Street Road Widening From 65th Avenue to 715L Avenue, Greeley, CO
Consultant project manager for a capital improvement project consisting of widening an existing two-lane roadway to a
four -lane arterial roadway section for a project length of over 3,000 feet. Project included: roadway widening, raised
medians, change of vertical alignment, storm drain design, traffic signal design, construction coordination, field
construction inspection, and extensive utility coordination
• East 96" Avenue Improvements, Commerce City, CO
Over 4,900 feet of arterial roadway widening and storm drain improvements at the intersection of 96th Avenue and
State Highway 2.
• Westview Commercial Development, Greeley, CO
Traffic Impact Study for a proposed commercial development at the intersection of US Hwy 34 and 6Sth Street.
Dibble and Associates Consulting Engineers, Phoenix, AZ - August 1999 — February 2004
Project Engineer, designed and managed projects in the areas of:
• Transportation Engineering and Roadway Design
• Site Infrastructure and Land Development
• Utility Design
• Grading and Drainage
• Construction Inspection
• Construction Field Coordination
• Surveying (Topographic and Construction Staking)
Key Projects include:
• Scottsdale Road Project, Scottsdale, AZ
Project involved design for two miles of a six -lane major arterial roadway with landscaped medians, turn lanes, bike
lanes, detached sidewalks, curb and gutter, and storm drain.
• 7th Street Bottleneck, Phoenix, AZ
Modifying the existing traffic islands at a major signalized intersection to improve the overall flow of traffic at the
intersection of 7th Street & McDowell Road.
Kellar Engineering LLC I PO Box 8198, Prairie Village, KS 66208 1970-219-1602 I skellar@kellarengineering.com
Hello