The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20173736SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS (Hearing — 10/18/2017) EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT PURPOSE Exhibit W Timeline of Development Relevant to safety (subdivision approved with only one point of access) Exhibit X Deed from Weld County to Peckham Development Relevant to timeline Exhibit Y Access Permit for County Roads 33 and 34 Demonstrates that there were no restrictions on access at either location Exhibit Z Traffic Study for Lot 1 Relevant to traffic issues Exhibit AA Traffic Study for Lots 2 and 3 Relevant to traffic issues Exhibit BB Public Works comments regarding Lot 3 SPR Relevant to issue that County does not approve or deny Access Permits onto a privately maintained road (Access is CR 33) Exhibit CC Public Works Comments Lot 4 and Traffic Analysis Relevant to issue that County does not approve or deny Access Permits onto a privately maintained road (Access is CR 33) Exhibit DD Access Permit for Lot 2; Public works Comments, Plat, Application for Approval Relevant to issue that County does not approve or deny Access Permits onto a privately maintained road (permit is for inventory purposes only); also relevant to number of trips per day in application vs. current actual Exhibit EE Access Permit for Lot 5; Public Works comments, Plat, Application for Approval with traffic narrative Relevant to issue that County does not approve or deny Access Permits onto a privately maintained road (Permit is for inventory purposes only); also relevant to number of trips per day in application vs. current actual Exhibit FF Staff Comments for Lot 6, approval, and plat and Traffic Analysis Relevant to issue that County does not approve or deny Access Permits onto a privately maintained road 2017-3736 Exhibit GG Highway Patrol and Weld County Sheriff Accident Report — Niobrara and CR 33 (None) Relevant to the issue of safety Exhibit HH Email from Elizabeth Relford to Mark Goldstein regarding phased construction of County Road 44 Relevant to hardship caused by Excel delay Exhibit II Interim Road Maintenance Agreement Relevant to temporary solution Exhibit JJ Staff Comments; Traffic Narrative and Traffic Study for Lot A Relevant to issue that County does not approve or deny Access Permits onto a privately maintained road; also relevant to number of trips per day in application vs. current actual Exhibit KK Letter from Eugene G Coppola - RE: Daily Traffic on Area Streets Weld County Industrial Park Dated: 10/17/2017 Issue of safety EXHIBITW TIMELINE Subdivision Approved by Resolution 12/12/2012 Subdivision Plat Recorded 1/16/2014 Interim Road Maintenance Agreement 3/06/2014 Resolution Approving Improvement Agreement 3/28/2014 Deed Transferring Grader Shed 3/19/2015 EXHIBIT X 3 • 03/19/2015 02:56 PM . iges: 4 Rec Fee: $26.00 Doc Fee: $23.10 Carly Koppes - Clerk and Recorder, Weld County, CO GENERAL WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made to be effective the 18th day of March, 2015, between the County of Weld, a body politic and corporate of the State of Colorado, and of the County of Weld, State of Colorado (the "Grantor") and Peckham Development ✓Corporation, a Colorado corporation, whose legal address is 2850 McClelland Drive, Suite 2400, Fort Collins, CO 80525 of the County of Larinrer, State of Colorado, (the "Grantee"): WITNESSETH, That Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Two Hundred Thirty -One Thousand and No/100ths U.S. DOLLARS (U.S. 8231,00.00), the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold, and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey, and confirm, unto Grantee, its successors and assigns forever, all the real property, together with improvements, if any, situate, lying, and being in the County of Weld, State of Colorado, described as follows: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. also Imown by street and number as: 16460 WCR 44, Weld County, CO TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues, and profits thereo$ and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim, and demand whatsoever of Grantor, either in law or equity, of; in, and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described with the appurtenances, unto Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. And Grantor, for itself; its successors and assigns, does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with Grantee, its successors and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents, Grantor is well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, absolute, and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and has good right, full power, and authority to grant, bargain, sell, and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances, and restrictions of whatever kind or nature whatsoever, except those matters set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and real estate taxes and assessments for current and subsequent years, a lien for which is not yet dire and payable. Grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above -bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of Grantee, its successors and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. above. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this General Warranty Deed to be effective on the date set forth STATE OF COLORADO ) }ss. County of WELD ) The County of Weld, a body politic and corporate of the $*ate of Colorado Barbara Kirlmatyer, Chair o the Board of the Weld County Commissioners The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ tb day of March, 2015, by the County of Weld, a body politic and corporate of the State of Colorado, by Barbara Kirkmeyer, as Chair of the Board of the Weld County Commissioners. Witness my hand and o1 My commission expires, MIC I b • . „ ttT :a E OF COr,4,FkA.DO NOTARY ID 1 991M£}tieati ,return my COMMISSION %X}t9ifareg ivi_8201ens, LC 11D E. Oak Street, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 4091728 03/19/2015 02:56 PM • • Page 2 of 4 1 Exhibit A ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot "A" of Recorded Exemption No. 1057 -23 -2 -RE 1177 recorded July 18, 1989, in Book 1238 as Reception No. 2183517, being a part of the following described property: Lot "A" of Recorded Exemption NO. 1057 -23 -2 -RE 600 recorded June 9, 1983, in Book 999 as Reception No. 1929764, being more particularly described as follows: A parcel of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 4 North, Range 66 West of the 6`" P.M., Weld County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northeast corner of said Northwest Quarter and considering the North line as bearing South 90°00'00" West with all other bearings contained herein relative thereto; Thence South 90°00'00" West, along said North line 204 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 00°00'21" East, 149.53 feet; Thence South 80°52'45" West, 487.29 feet; Thence South 84°17'4T' West, 28434 feet? Thence South 87°15'49" West, 288.51 feet; Thence South 70°45'51" West, 49234 feet to a point on the East right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railroad; Thence North 41°08'20" West, along said right-of-way, 572.30 feet to a point on the said North line; Thence North 90°00'00" East 1140.59 feet, along said North line to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, County of Weld, State of Colorado. Also Known as: 16460 WCR 44, „ CO 459 -A0392161 -082.1a6 4091728 03/19/2015 02:56 PM Page 3 of 4 Exhibit B Exceptions 1. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof, (c) water rights, claims of title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records. 2. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 3. All taxes and assessments, now or heretofore assessed, due or payable. 4. Any existing leases or tenancies, and any and all parties claiming by, through or under said lessees. 5. Right of Way and rights incidental thereto for County Roads 30 feet on either side of Section and Township lines as established by the Board of County Commissioners for Weld County, as set forth in a document: Recording Date: October 14, 1889 Recording No: Book 86 at Page 273. 6. Reservations made by the Union Pacific Railroad Company in the deed set forth below, providing substantially as follows: Reserving unto the company and its assigns right of way for railroad and all coal that may be found underneath surface of the Land and the exclusive right to prospect and mine for same, also such right of way and other grounds as may appear necessary for proper working of any coal mines that may be developed upon the Land, and for transportation of coal from same, and any and all assignments thereof or interests therein: Recording Date: February 12, 1903 Recording No.: Book 201 at Page 430. 7. Water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not disclosed by the public records. 8. An oil and gas lease for the term therein provided with certain covenants, conditions and provisions, together with easements, if any, as set forth therein, and any and all assignments thereof or interests therein. Recording Date: January 16, 1973 Recording No: 1605493. 9. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto, as granted in a document: Granted to: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company Purpose: Pipe lines Recording Date: September 16, 1975 Recording No: 1669973. 10. Undivided all of grantors' interest in all oil, gas and other mineral rights, if any, reserved in the instrument set forth below, and any and all assignments thereof or interests therein: Reserved by: Paul C. Lorenz and Ivan L. Lorenz as Co -Personal Representatives of the Estate of Bertha C. Lorenz, deceased Recording Date: December 27, 1979 Recording No.: 1812867. 11. All matters shown on the map of Recorded Exemption No. 1057 -23 -2 -RE -600 recorded June 9, 1983 at Reception Number 1929764. 12. Any taxes or assessments by reason of the inclusion of the Land in the Central Weld County Water District as disclosed by Order recorded January 8, 1986 at Reception Number 2038366. 4091728 03/19/2015 02:56 PM Page 4 of 4 13. All matters shown on the map of Recorded Exemption No. 1057 -23 -2 -RE 1177 recorded July 18, 1989 at Reception Number 2185517. 14. Any taxes or assessments by reason of the inclusion of the Land in the Central Weld County Water District as disclosed by Order recorded January 4, 1990 at Reception Number 2201872. 15. Notice of Oil and Gas Interests and Surface Use recorded January 23, 2001 at Reception Number 2820945. 16. Request for Notification of Surface Development recorded May 28, 2002 at Reception Number 2955111. 17. Request for Notification (Mineral Estate Owner) recorded December 21, 2007 at Reception Number 3525268. 18. Any rights, interests, or claims which may exist or arise by reason of the following matters disclosed by survey recorded February 21, 2014 at Reception Number 3997371, Job No.: 2013758 Dated: January 7, 2014, Prepared by: King Surveyors, Matters shown: a. Propane tank is on property line b. 20' Future right of way c. Fence lines do not coincide with property lines. d. Overhead power lines. e. Central Weld County Water District water line. 19. Terms, conditions, provisions, agreements and obligations contained in the First Amendment to Agreement for the Exchange of Certain Real Property Between Big Thompson Investments, LLC and Weld County, Colorado as set forth below: Recording Date: May 7, 2014 Recording No.: 4014543. Note: Item(s) above refers to recorded evidence EXHIBIT Y WELD COUNTY ACCESS PERMIT Weld County Public Works Dept. 1111 H Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Phone: (970) 304-6496 After Hours: (970) 356-4000 Emergency Services: (970) 304-6500 x 2700 Inspection: (970) 304-6480 Permit Number: AP12-00008 Issuance of this permit binds applicant and its contractors to all requirements, provisions, and ordinances of Weld County, Colorado. Project Name: Applicant Information: Name: Mark Goldstein Company: Big Thompson Investment Holdings LLC Phone: 970-797-2187 Email: markgoldstein@goldsteinenterprisesinc.com Location: Access is on WCR: Nearest Intersection WCR: Distance From Intersection: Number of Existing Accesses: 44 44 1385 1 Planning Process: Other Change of Zone Road Surface Type & Construction Information: Road Surface: Gravel Culvert Size & Type: Start Date: 02/01/2012 Finish Date: 03/01/2013 Materials to Construct Access: Gravel & WCR: Hwy 85 Expiration date: 12/31/2012 Property Owner Information: Name: Company: Phone: Email: Proposed Use: Temporary: Single Residential: Industrial: RI Small Commercial: Oil & Gas: Large Commercial: Subdivision: Field (Agricultural Only)/Exempt: Required Attached Documents Submitted: Access Pictures: Traffic Control Plan: Yes Certificate of Insurance: Yes A copy of this permit must be on site at all times during construction hours Daily work hours are Monday through Friday DAYLIGHT to 1/2 HOUR BEFORE DARK (applies to weekends if approved) Approved MUTCD traffic control/warning devices are required before work begins and must remain until completion of work Special Requirements or Comments The access on CR 44 is condittionally approved based upon the approved aggreement between the BOCC and the applicant for the land swap for the Peckham grader station. The access points on CR 33 are existing. Approved by:/1,44,4_ (.4 Janet Carter, Weld County Public Works Date: 6/15/2012 Print Date -Time: 6/15/2012 9:42:57AM Report ID: PW00008v002 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT Z AGPROr fes sionals DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULTURE Preliminary Traffic Study Weld County SPR Application Prepared for Triton Water Disposal Services, LLC Tel: 303-792-2450 P.O. Box 630027 Fax: 303-792-5990 Littleton, CO 80163-0027 EUGENE G. COPPOLA P.E., PTOE June 23, 2014 Tim Naylor AGPROfessionals 3050 67th Avenue. Suite 200 Greeley, CO 80634 RE: Traffic Impacts of Lots 2 & 3 Weld County Industrial Park Weld County, CO Tim: I have evaluated the traffic impacts of the current development proposal for Lots 2 and 3 of Weld County Industrial Park which is located east of US 85 between CR 44 and CR 33. This effort involved reviewing the traffic impact study initially prepared for Weld County Industrial Park (WCIP) dated May 24, 2012 and previously referred to as the Hickman Development. Uses assumed on Lots 2 and 3 and evaluated in the traffic impact study were compared to the currently proposed uses from a traffic standpoint and short term and long term traffic estimates were revised to reflect the current plan. Operating conditions were assessed for both time frames with needed improvements, if any, noted for each time frame. Key findings are documented in the following sections of this letter. PROJECT OVERVIEW Lots 2 and 3 total 20.7 acres and are currently planned to accommodate an injection well, a water disposal well, a water recycling facility, an industrial truck wash out, a 1 mud processing facility, and support structures. This project will be built in two phases, one in 2014 and the second in 2015. This study investigates 2015 conditions with phase two fully operational. The indicated uses will supplement the existing water service operation. In combination, the proposed site uses will provide "one stop ser- vice" thereby reducing the need for vehicles to make multiple trips to multiple locations. SITE TRAFFIC In 2015, site traffic generated by the planned development on Lots 2 and 3 is estimat- ed by the owner at 160 - 210 vehicles per day. This traffic will consist of about 12 employee vehicles representing about 5% of the expected site traffic with the balance being trucks ranging in size from pickups to large trucks. An estimated 90% of the trucks will be large trucks. Given 24 hour site operation with three work shifts, peak hour site traffic is estimated at about 8% of daily traffic. This equates to about 17 peak hour vehicles in both the inbound and outbound directions. Daily traffic for Lots 2 and 3 is estimated at up to 420 trips. Short term site traffic representing completion of the current plan for Lots 2 and 3 was assigned to nearby streets using the distributions used in the earlier TIS and is shown on Figure 1. Long-term site traffic estimates contained in the Hickman/WCIP TIS were reviewed. These estimates represent site build out and assumed light industrial development on the areas within the site that were not used for the water service facility. Traffic esti- mates in the TIS for Lots 2 and 3 were calculated based on acreage and are shown below. Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out In Out 1,072 129 26 33 117 2 With the current proposal, the change in site traffic generated' by development on Lots 2 and 3 is as follows: Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out In Out Traffic Impact Study 1,072 129 26 33 117 Current Proposal 420 17 17 17 17 Change -652 -112 -9 -16 -100 As indicated, the current proposal for Lots 2 and 3 will result in 121 fewer morning peak hour trips, 116 fewer afternoon peak hour trips and 652 fewer daily trips compared to previous site traffic estimates for these lots. The impacts of site generated truck trips were evaluated as part of the capacity analysis procedure. Daily site traffic generated by Lots 2 and 3 will be reduced by about 61% with daily traffic generated by the entire Weld County Industrial Park being reduced from 5,026 daily trips to 4,374 daily trips. Long term site traffic was estimated as shown on Figure 2 for build out of Weld County Industrial Park with the current development plan for Lots 2 and 3. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Background traffic representing the year 2015 and the 20 year long term planning horizon were estimated using updated traffic counts conducted as part of this study. Count times were determined based on input from the County. Count tabulations are attached. Current traffic is shown on Figure 3 and includes traffic related to the existing water service facility on the site. Traffic growth rates obtained from the County and used in the earlier Traffic Impact Study (11S) were used in this effort. Background traffic was developed for the year 2015 and the 20 year long term planning horizon. Short term background traffic is shown on Figure 4 with long term background traffic shown on Figure 5. 3 TOTAL TRAFFIC Site traffic currently expected from Lots 2 and 3 was added to short term and long term background traffic to reflect total traffic, This reflects traffic with Lots 2 and 3 fully operational in the short and long term time frames. Short term total traffic is shown on Figure 6 with long term total traffic shown on Figure 7. CURRENT AND FUTURE OPERATING CONDITIONS Peak hour operating conditions were assessed using current traffic, short term total traffic and the existing roadway geometry shown on Figure 8. Current operating levels of service were calculated to define baseline conditions. Long term conditions were evaluated using long term total traffic and the long term roadway geometry shown on Figure 9. The long term roadway geometry reflects future conditions with turn re- strictions at the CR 33 intersection and relocation, improvements and traffic signal installation at the CR 44 intersection. Resultant operating levels of service (LOS) are shown on the following tables. For definition purposes, overall level of service 'D' is considered acceptable with critical side street left turns allowed to operate at LOS `E/F' during peak hours. At non -peak hour times, improved operations are expected. 4 CURRENT OPERATING CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT Intersection Control Movement/ Direction Level of Service AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. CR 33 - US 85 Stop NB L A A SBL B B WB LTR B C EB LTR B C CR44-US85 Stop NBL A A SBL B B WB LT D E WBR B B EB LT E D EBR B B SHORT TERM OPERATING CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Intersection Control Movement/ Direction Level of Service AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. CR 33 - US 85 Stop NBL A A SBL B B WBLTR C C EB LTR C C CR 44 - US 85 Stop NB L B A SBL B B WB LT E E WBR B B EB LT F D EBR B B 5 LONG TERM OPERATING CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Intersection Control Movement/ Direction Level of Service AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. CR 33 - US 85 Stop WB R B C EB R B B CR 44 - US 85 Stop EB C C WB C C NB B C WB B A Overall B C As indicated above, acceptable operating conditions are expected through the long term with full development of Lots 2 and 3. The indicated levels of service fully consider truck traffic. Capacity worksheets are attached. Site driveways are expected to oper- ate acceptably based on the findings of the earlier TIS. CONCLUSIONS Based on the above comparisons, analyses, investigations, and findings, the following can be concluded: • The current proposal for development on Lots 2 and 3 of Weld County Industrial Park is expected to generate up to 34 morning and afternoon peak hour trips and 420 trips per day. • Site traffic will be comprised of mostly large trucks with these vehicles account- ing for about 85% of site generated traffic. • When compared to the site traffic estimated and analyzed in the Weld County Industrial Park traffic impact study, the current plan for Lots 2 and 3 will result in 121 fewer morning peak hour trips and 116 fewer afternoon peak hour trips from Lots 2 and 3. This represents site traffic reductions in the range of 77% during both peak hours. 6 • On a daily basis, the current plan will reduce estimated daily traffic from Lots 2 and 3 by 652 trips. This results in the estimated daily traffic for the entire Weld County Industrial Park being reduced to 4,374 vehicles per day from the earlier analyzed and approved estimate of 5,026 vehicles per day. • In the short term, operational analyses determined that the existing roadway geometry can adequately serve short term traffic demands including full devel- opment on Lots 2 and 3. This is verified by all traffic movements operating at acceptable levels of service at all locations. • In the long term, very acceptable operating levels of service are expected with future planned modifications along US 85. These include turn restrictions at the CR 33 intersection, relocation of the CR 44 intersection, and traffic signal instal- lation and related improvements at CR 44. All traffic movements will operate at LOS 'C' or better at all intersections during both peak hours. • The proposed development on Lots 2 and 3 of Weld County Industrial Park is vi- able from a traffic engineering perspective. I trust this letter will meet your current needs. Please give me a call if you have any questions or need any further assistance. Sincerely, Eugne G. Coppola, P, E., PTOE Attachments ~,`\\Vk.• •Q. S •REgF •per • k• i Iry * 31 15945jbirj G• OQ�� lif OFCo�y: 7 x co to 5/5 4— N/N 5/5 210 N/N N/N —► 0 i lit-- 5/5 4— N/N vr- 5/5 210 10/10 --� o z o z > ii, N/N N/N —► Ul tn LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour Daily NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 10/10 CR 44 CR 33 Figure 1 SHORT-TERM SITE TRAFFIC x U) M 40/105 4- N/N 55/205 N/N N/N ---► u) 0 15/100 335/95 0 0 w2 Z 4) L a, O N/N 135/40 LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. CR 44 CR 33 Figure 2 LONG TERM SITE TRAFFIC 2/20 —ill 9/7 ---► 3/6 —� aco x N 7/26 4— 8/12 or— 34/29 1625 O O O O 306 1/2 0/1 -► 6/2 LEGEND. AM/PM Peak Hour Daily CR 44 CR 33 Figure 3 CURRENT TRAFFIC to co Co U) 141 CO LI) ca CV O M to r Q) N 44) 5/25 4— 10/15 D-- 35/30 N/20 -� 10/5 --* 5/5--,, X14 10/5 4— N/N Dr— 5/5 N/N —� N/N —► 5/5 -� LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. CR44 CR 33 Figure 4 SHORT TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC In co x V) 0 0 N It-- 10/40 4- 10/25 r- 50/45 5/30 -dit 15/10 ---► 5/10 —4 0 M 0 �r- 10.15/10 10/5 ---sir LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 1140/1370 --10. CR44 CR 33 Figure 5 LONG TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC as cn 0 r` LO CO 0 CV 0 0 00 0 T fn M 10/30 4- 10/10 40/35 4- 50/70 N/N N/20 10/5 --b. 5/5 N/N - N/N —► 5/5 i � 0� 0nt Ln N- 15/10 4- N/N /- 10/10 105/60 -► 10/10- it 0 0 Z a) 0Z oZ N/N 4- 15/10 z LEGEND. AM/PM Peak Hour in LO LO CO n NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles 65/15 -ill 20/15 —0 CR44 CR 33 Figure 6 SHORT TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC U, co x 0 Co try 25 a, U, M P- r r N '— 50/145 4— 10/25 105/250 4--- 70/120 Dr— N/N 5/30 —' 15/10 5/10 jt-- 30/110 105/95 --► 335/95 0 a Z r Z 4 d d 0 N/N 4— 15/10 10/5 --y LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour il NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 135/40 15/5 —+ CR 44 CR 33 Figure 7 LONG TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC co U) STOP {TOP *Tar C, a d a STOP V 4 CR 44 CR 33 Figure 8 EXISTING ROADWAY GEOMETRY TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS U.S. 85 & CR 44 Intersection: Observer: Laura er E; N U 1 CO EUGENE G. COPPOLA, P.E. P.O. Box 630027 Littleton, CO 80163 Phone: (303) 792-2450 0 U O O U V CC H F a N M M M ettrt) M Total east/west � ti r O to N N r to r Westbound: RI G CO M 0 in Q) r er-- I.- or r c) et r r O M M CO e- O O O O LO r N J e- CO U7 et co " ti t - Eastbound: gr •t N r t0 et r M I -- or c) 01 CD CD C, e- y- <- U)r r- re- U)MO— -.1 O O e- CD e- C) O e - Total northlsouth )n N Q) O r co N CD N Cre) CC., CC., i Nf M N') cc e- CD O M r t.... t... F ems- N OO 0�- e NNO N N N e~- iii ce r er r c, r O et CO C t toN000 rON[� N N N 15 (n J r CD r et OD r Y NT I Northbound: I I Total I Q) 1+ O r t[) IO 0 !.....32N CMN) N N tn CC M Ch CO CTS C7O CJ) O) cn C1) ,_ N a00 OW et JrOOOr0TtN 0) C O N O 05:45 O to O to E 75, r- m O 0 r 0 M 0 'F.? O r O c.1 CO er O CO CO Q CV O h CC! et M et U, O M Q) N er 5 r tea. Of r CO C O O) N ti r` A M r- U- 0. 4.0. M 478 Q) et t.... Ul et M 1O) et et Clu O) et [D et N M CO to CD r O) N N N N N N N r e- 41 t` O et If) 00 to O r r N r r r r r O r <- O C00tLOet CD N et to M O1 r N CV M N CD CO T r- et r` ID co r- el er Cl O r N .- Cl O N r N NT N N M O N e- U1 e- et 00 In M O O O) In - Cl PS M CO et M et etet tOt) V V r O) Y.- N O) N- CC CO C) N N N N r N N It) CD CO 070 CO c) et IS)CO ' CO O CO CV et n 0 .-- e- N r e- N r N N O) O1 N CD of O O 00 CO r to et M CO ms N cOD N N N Inn N 0) M 00 r -t Ce) M (0 et to .P- O t[ CO CO 00 N N N N N N N "It NO0CDNN O In O IC O CO O 05:45 yyOt� 0 r 0 en 0 et 0 O 0 r 0 M 0 M 0) O O CO N N r) O IO t• O N E cc M ��p ✓ b CO ✓ I1 OD OD 00 0 OD r 0 CO CO CO N C/) Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC 'Intersection 44-85 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 6/20/2014 Analysis Year KT LT TOT Analysis Time Period M Project Description East/West Street: CR 44 North/South Street: SH 85 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 7 735 37 24 910 11 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 7 735 37 24 910 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 25 -- — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 - Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 I T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 2 9 3 34 8 7 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 2 9 3 34 8 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 25 0 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 Configuration LT R LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R LT R v(veh/h) 7 24 42 7 11 3 C (m) (veh/h) 750 704 164 610 93 609 v/c 0,01 0.03 0.26 0.01 0.12 0.00 95% queue length 0.03 0.11 0,97 0.03 0.39 0.01 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.8 10.3 34.3 11.0 48.8 10.9 LOS A B D B E B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 31.0 40,7 Approach LOS -- -- _ D E Copyright Ct 2010 University of Florida. At Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated 6/20'2014 6 02 PM file:///C:/Users/TrafficPB,!AppData/Local/Temp/u2kB7B.tmp 6/20/2014 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed GC 6/20 1 14 Analysis Time Period Project Description EastNVest Street: CR 44 Intersection Orientation: North -South a Intersection 44-85 Jurisdiction Analysis Year ST LT TOT North/South Street: SH 85 Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement Northbound Southbound 1 2 3 R 4 5 6 L T L T R Volume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type RT Channelized 2 886 40 15 847 1.00 23 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2 0 886 40 15 20 847 23 Two Way Left Turn Lane 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R (Volume (veh/h) 20 7 6 29 12 26 tPeak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 20 7 6 29 12 26 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 20 0 20 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 [Configuration LT R _ LT R 'Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R LT R v (veh/h) C (m) (veh/h) v/c 2 783 15 632 41 136 26 562 27 147 6 634 0.00 0.02 0.30 0.05 0.18 0.01 95% queue length 0.01 0.07 1.18 0.15 0.65 0.03 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.6 10.8 42.5 11.7 34.9 10.7 LOS A B E B O B Approach Delay (s/veh) Approach LOS Copyright ff) 2010 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 30.6 30.5 0 0 Generated 6/21/2014 5 51 AM file :///C:/Users/TrafficPE!AppData/Lacal/Temp/u2k 1336.trnp 6/21/2014 Tyco -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed 6/20/2014 nalysis Time Period (A�N PM Site Information Project Description EastNVest Street: CR 33 Intersection 33-85 Jurisdiction Analysis Year ►� ST LT TOT North/South Street: SH 85 Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ion: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1 767 9 10 934 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 1 767 9 10 934 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 25 — — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 1 1.00 0 1.00 6 1.00 4 1.00 0 1.00 11 1.00 1 0 6 4 0 11 0 0 0 25 0 25 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage RT Channelized 0 0 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR (veh/h) 1 10 15 7 (m) (veh/h) 739 702 406 477 /c 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.01 95% queue length 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.04 ontrol Delay (s/veh) 9.9 10.2 14.2 12.7 LOS A B B B pproach Delay (s/veh) 14.2 12.7 pproach LOS B B Copyright O 2010 University of Florida Al! Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated 6,2012014 6 40 PM file:///ClUsersrfrafficPE/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kB7B.tmp 6/20/2014 'Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information 'Analyst GC t4gency/Co. Date Performed 6/2rytl►' 014 Analysis Time Period !Intersection Jurisdiction }Analysis Year 33-85 pSTLTTOT Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 Intersection Orientation: North -South North/South Street: SH 85 Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement 1 Northbound 2 3 4 Southbound 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type RT Channelized 5 920 3 11 868 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 920 3 11 868 3 0 25 Two Way Left Turn Lane 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration Upstream Signal L T R L T R 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement . 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 2 1 2 5 1 6 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 2 1 2 5 1 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 25 0 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR _ LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR v (veh/h) 5 11 12 5 C (m) (veh/h) 783 608 230 196 v/c 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.03 95% queue length 0.02 0.06 0.16 0.08 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.6 11.0 21.5 23.8 LOS A 8 C C Approach Delay (s/veh) 21.5 23.8 Approach LOS C C Copyr,ght C 2010 University or Florida. Al Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5 6 Generated 6/2012014 6.40 PM file:///C:/Users./TrafficPE/AppDatalLocal/Temp/u2kB7B.tmp 6/20/2014 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection 44-85 Jurisdiction Agency/Co. Analysis Year EX 1 L • Date Performed 2014 Analysis Time Period M M Project Description EastNVest Street CR 44 North/South Street. SH 85 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 750 45 30 960 10 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 5 750 45 30 960 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — -- 25 — — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane _ RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1 10 5 40 10 10 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate. HFR (veh/h) 1 10 5 40 10 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 _ 0 25 0 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 Configuration LT R LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 ` 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R LT R v (veh/h) 5 30 50 10 11 5 C (m) (veh/h) 719 689 151 604 78 590 v/c 0.01 0.04 , 0.33 0.02 0.14 0.01 95% queue length 0.02 0.14 1.34 0.05 0.47 0.03 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.0 10.5 40.2 11.1 58.6 11.2 LOS B B E B F B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 35.4 43.8 Approach LOS -- -- _ E E Copyright O2010 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated 6/20/2014 6 37 PM file:///C:/Users!TrafficPE/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kB 7B.tmp 6/20/2014 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst 'lAgency/Co. pate Performed Analysis Time Period GC 6/20,2014 A Intersection 44-85 Jurisdiction Analysis Year EX1tSST/LT OT Project Description EastNVest Street: CR 44 North/South Street: SH 85 Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Intersection Orientation: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement Northbound Southbound 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type RT Channelized 1 910 45 20 870 25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 910 45 20 870 25 0 25 Two Way Left Tum Lane 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration stream Signal L T R L T 0 R Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 20 5 5 35 10 30 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 20 5 5 35 10 30 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 25 0 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 Configuration LT R LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R LT R v (veh/h) 1 20 45 30 25 5 C (m) (veh/h) 767 590 135 540 147 625 v/c 0.00 0.03 0.33 0.06 0.17 0.01 95% queue length 0.00 0.11 1.34 0.18 0.59 0.02 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.7 11.3 44.5 12.1 34.4 10.8 LOS A B E B D B Approach Delay (s/veh) 31.5 30.5 Approach LOS 0 D Copyright O 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 file:///C:/Users:/TrafficPE!AppData/Local[I'emp!u2k1336.tmp Generated 6121/2014 5 48 AM 6/21/2014 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Vtnalyst gency/Co, pate Performed (Analysis Time Period GC 60/2014 Intersection Jurisdiction 33-85 Analysis Year EX S7 LT 3 Project Description EastNVest Street: CR 33 North/South Street: SH 85 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement Northbound Southbound 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type RT Channelized 1 785 15 35 960 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 0 785 15 35 25 960 5 Two Way Left Turn Lane 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration Upstream Signal L T R L T R 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 lo 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1 1 5 10 1 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 1 1 5 10 1 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 25 0 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR (veh/h) 1 35 26 7 (m) (veh/h) 722 686 290 254 /c 0.00 0.05 0.09 0.03 5% queue length Control Delay (s/veh) 0.00 10.0 0.16 10.5 0.29 18.6 0.08 19.6 LOS A B C C pproach Delay (s/veh) 18.6 19.6 pproach LOS C C Copyngh! C 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Versior 5 6 file:///C: /Users' TrafficPE/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kB 7B.tmp Generated 6120%2014 6 41 PM 6/20/2014 •Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 GC 6/2012Q14 AM Intersection 33-85 Jurisdiction Analysis Year EX6 LT 0 North/South Street: SH 85 Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Intersection Orientation: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement Northbound Southbound 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type RT Channelized 5 1.00 945 1.00 10 1.00 10 1.00 890 1.00 5 1.00 5 945 10 10 890 5 0 25 Two Way Left Turn Lane 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration Uostream Sional L T R L T R 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1 1 5 10 1 10 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 1 1 5 10 1 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 25 0 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR v (veh/h) 5 10 21 7 C (m) (veh/h) 767 590 230 260 v/c 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.03 95% queue length 0.02 0.05 0.30 0.08 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.7 11.2 22.2 19.2 LOS A C C Approach Delay (s/veh) 22.2 19.2 Approach LOS C C Copyright O 2010 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 file://IC:fUsers/Traffic PE/AppData/ vocal/Temp/u2kB7B.tmp Generated 6.20(2014 6.41 PM 6/20/2014 HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary le General Information Agency Analyst Jurisdiction Intersection 85 - 44 File Name cr44-85 AM.xus Project Description GC Demand Information Approach Movement Demand (v), veh/h Signal Information Cycle, s 100.0 Reference Phase Offset, s 0 Reference Point Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap EM/ Force Mode ; Fixed Simult Gap N/S Timer Results Assigned Phase Case Number Phase Duration, s Change Period, (Y+Rc), s Max Allow Headway (MAN), s Queue Clearance Time (gs), s Green Extension Time (ge), s Phase Call Probability Max Out Probability Movement Group Results Approach Movement Assigned Movement Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/In Queue Service Time (gs), s Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s Green Ratio (g/C) Capacity (c), veh/h Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) Available Capacity (Ca), veh/h Back of Queue (Q), vehlln (50th percentile) Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) Uniform Delay (d?) s/veh Incremental Delay (dz), s/veh Initial Queue Delay (d.?), s/veh Control Delay (d), s/veh Level of Service (LOS) Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS Multimodal Results Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS Bicycle LOS Score I LOS Analysis Date :J n 20, 2014 Time Period PM Analysis Year 2034 4 act, EB WB NB T R L T R L T R L 5 15 5 105 10 50 10 1105 155 270 Intersection Information Duration, h 0.25 Area Type Other PHF 0.92 Analysis Period 1> 7:00 SB T R 1350 15 2 End ° Green 10.0 45.0 On Yellow 4.0 4.0 On 1 Red ;1.0 1.0 EBL EBT 4 7.0 35.0 5.0 2.8 2.8 0.2 1.00 0.00 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 ; 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WBL WBT 8 5.0 35.0 5.0 2.8 9.0 0.2 1 00 0.00 NBL NBT 2 SBL 1 1.0 SBT 6 5.3 50.0 5.0 2.8 25.8 7.6 1.00 0.19 15.0 50 2.9 10.3 0.0 100 1.00 EB WB NB t SB T R L T R L T 7 4 14 3 8 18 ,. 5 2 12 1 I 6 16 22 5 114 11 22 11 1201 136 f 293 11467 1 16 1783 1610 1419 1900 1610 ' 367 1809 1610 1810 s 1809 } 1610 0.0 0.2 6.2 0.4 0.8 1.8 23 8 5.1 8.3 ! 17.7 0.4 0.8 0.2 7.0 0.4 0.8 4.4 23.8 5.1 8.3 17.7 " 0.4 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.40 045 0.45 0.45 ' 0 57 0.60 0.60 580 483 486 570 644 227 1628 725 " 353 2171 966 0.037 0.011 0.235' 0.019 0.034 0.048 0.738 0.188 j 0.831 • 0.676 0.017 580 483 486 570 644 227 1628 725 353 2171 966 0.3 0.1 1.9 0.2 0.3 0.1 6.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' 0.00 ' 0.00 ?, 0.00 0.00 24.8 24.6. 27.3 24.6 ' 18.-2 '; 17.1 15.8 0 0 ' 0.0 j 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 3 0.0 0.0 24.8 24.6 27.4 24.6 18.3 17.2 17.4 CC CCB BB 24.8 C 25.8 C 17.3 3.0 65.0 5.0 2.8 19.7 8.8 1.00 0.04 1.6 4.0 ! 3.3 ; 0.1 0.00 ; 0.00 ` 0.00 ' 0.00 16.5 18. 5 5.8 8.1 0.0 g 14.5 ' 0.7 ' 0.0 0.0 $ 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 33.0 6.5 , 8.1 B C A A B . 10.9 B HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Agency Analyst Jurisdiction Intersection 85 - 44 File Name cr44-85.xus Project Description Demand Information Approach Movement Demand (v), veh/h Signal Information Cycle, s 100.0 Offset, s 0 Uncoordinated Yes Force Mode Fixed Timer Results Assigned Phase Case Number Phase Duration, s Change Period, (Y+Rc), s Max Allow Headway (MAH), s Queue Clearance Time (g:), s Green Extension Time (ge), s Phase Call Probability Max Out Probability .GC Reference Phase Reference Point Simult. Gap ENV Simult. Gap N/S Movement Group Results Approach Movement Assigned Movement Adjusted Flow Rate(v), veh/h Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/ln Queue Service Time (g5), s Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s Green Ratio (gIC) Capacity (c), veh/h Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) Available Capacity (ca), veh/h Back of Queue (O), veh/in (50th percentile) Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) Uniform Delay (di), s/veh Incremental Delay (ds), s/veh Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh Control Delay (d), s/veh Level of Service (LOS) Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS Multimodal Results Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 2 End On On Analysis Date Jun 20, 2014 Time Period AM Analysis Year 2034 EB L T R L 30 10 10 250 25 Intersection Information i Duration, h 0.25 Area Type Other • PHF 0.92 Analysis Period 1> 7:00 Green Yellow I Red 10.0 45.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 10 EBT 4 7.0 35.0 5.0 2.9 4.3 0.7 1.00 0.00 EB L T R 7 4 14 43 11 1494 1610 1.2 0.5 2.3 ': 0.5 !0.30;0.30 511 483 0.085 0.023 511 483 0.7 0.2 0.00 0.00 25.3 24.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.3 24.7 C C C 25.2 30.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 R 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 5.0 35.0 5.0 2.9 21.3 0.6 1.00 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.0 NB NBT 2 5.3 50.0 5.0 2.8 41.3 2.8 1.00 0.92 SB T R 95 1260 35 SBL 1 1.0 15.0 5.0 2.9 4.6 0.1 1.00 0.03 SBT 6 3.0 65.0 5.0 2.8 17.3 9.9 1.00 0.05 WB NB SB L T R L T R L T R 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 272 27 125 5 1538 60 103 1370 38 1426 1900 1610 403 1809 ` 1610 t 1810 : 1809 1610 17.0 1.0 5.0 0.8 39 .3, 2.1 2.6 ' 15.3 1.0 19.3 1.0 5.0 1.1 39.3 2.1 2.6 ' 15.3 1.0 0.30 0.30 0.40 0.45 ' 0.45 0.45 0.57 0.60 0.60 467 ' 570 644 t, 252 1628 725 273 2171 966 0.582 0.048 ' 0.194 =0.022 0.945 0.083 0.379 , 0.631 0.039 467 570 644 252 1628 725 273 2171 : 966 5.4 0.4 1.7 , 0.1 11.7 0 7 i 0.9 2.9 0.3 0.00 , 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 32.3 ' 24.9. 19.5 15.5 18.9 15.7 20.3 5.5 8.2 1.2 ' 0.0 0.1 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.3 ' 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.5 24.9 19 6 15.5 30.4 15.7 20.6 6.0 8.2 CCBBCBC A A 28.8 C 20.1 29.8 C 7.0 A SB Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Intersection 33-85 Jurisdiction Analysis Year EX S79. o (Analyst IGC Agency/Co. Date Performed I6 0/2014 Analysis Time Period PM Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 Intersection Orientation: North -South North/South Street: SH 85 Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement Northbound Southbound 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type RT Channelized 1240 150 1455 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 1240 150 0 1455 5 0 25 Two Way Left Turn Lane 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 0 2 1 Configuration Uastream Signal T 0 R T R Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (vehlh) 10 30 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 •1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 10 0 0 30 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 25 0 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 Configuration R _ R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R R v (veh/h) 30 10 C (m) (veh/h) 428 427 vlc 0.07 0.02 95% queue length 0.23 0.07 Control Delay (s/veh) 14.0 13.6 LOS B B Approach Delay (s/veh) 14.0 136 Approach LOS B B Copyright O2010 University of F orida. All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5 6 file:///C:/Users/TrafficPE/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kB7B.tmp Generated 620/2014 6 43 PM 6/20./2014 ,Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information ;Analyst GAC Agency/Co, Date Performed 6/20/2014 Analysis Time Period MPID► Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 Intersection Orientation: North -South lIntersection 33-85 Jurisdiction ;Analysis Year EX ST'T1 OT North/South Street: SH 85 Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement Northbound Southbound 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type RT Channelized 1.00 1395 1.00 45 1.00 1.00 1515 1.00 5 1.00 0 1395 45 0 1515 5 0 25 Two Way Left Turn Lane 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 0 2 1 Configuration Upstream Signal T R T R 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 110 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 5 0 0 110 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 25 0 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 Configuration R R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R R v (veh/h) 110 5 C (m) (veh/h) 383 410 vlc 0.29 0.01 95% queue length 1.17 0.04 Control Delay (s/veh) 18.1 13.9 LOS C 8 Approach Delay (s/veh) 18,1 13.9 Approach LOS C 8 Copynght ® 2010 University of Florida, Al:Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 file:///C:/Users!Traf icPE/AppData/Locallfemp/u2kB7B.trnp Generated 6/20/2014 6:44 PM 6/20/2014 EXHIBIT AA Traffic Impact Study HICKMAN DEVELOPMENT Weld County, Colorado Eugene G. Coppola, P.E. P.O. Box 630027 Littleton, CO 80163 303-792-2450 Traffic Impact Study HICKMAN DEVELOPMENT Weld County, Colorado Prepared For: AGPROfessionals 4350 Highway 66 Longmont, CO 80504 Prepared By: Eugene G. Coppola, P.E. P. O. Box 630027 Littleton, CO 80163 303-792-2450 May 24, 2012 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 A. Existing Road Network 3 B. Existing Traffic Conditions 3 C. Surrounding Land Uses 7 HI. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 7 A. Site Assumptions 7 B. Site Traffic 9 C. Trip Distribution 10 D. Background Traffic 10 E. Future Total Traffic 10 F. Future Roadway System 18 IV. TRAFFIC IMPACTS 18 A. Auxiliary Lanes and Traffic Controls 21 B. Future Operating Conditions (with Hickman) 21 V. DESIGN ISSUES 23 VI. CONCLUSIONS 24 List of Figures Figure 1 Vicinity Map 2 Figure 2 Current Traffic 5 Figure 3 Current Roadway Geometry 6 Figure 4 Concept Plan 8 Figure 5 Site Traffic Distribution 11 Figure 6 Site Traffic 12 Figure 7 Build Out Site Traffic 13 Figure 8 Short -Term Background Traffic 14 Figure 9 Long -Term Background Traffic 15 Figure 10 Short -Term Total Traffic 16 Figure 11 Long -Term Total Traffic 17 Figure 12 Short -Term Roadway Geometry 19 Figure 13 Long -Term Roadway Geometry 20 I. INTRODUCTION The Hickman Development (Hickman) is a proposed light industrial development in Weld County, Colorado. The site is generally located east of U.S. 85 between County Road 33 (CR 33) and Weld County Road 44 (CR 44). The initial phase of develop- ment will be a water service company with follow-on development expected to be other light industry. A vicinity map is presented in Figure 1. This study contains the investigations and analyses typically contained in a full traffic study. Key steps undertaken as part of this study are defined below. • Obtain current traffic and roadway data in the immediate area of the site. • Evaluate current traffic operations to establish baseline conditions. • Determine site generated traffic and distribute this traffic to the nearby street system. • Estimate roadway traffic for future roadway conditions. • Evaluate traffic operations with the proposed operation fully functional un- der future conditions. • Identify areas of potential deficiencies. • Recommend measures to mitigate the impact of site generated traffic as appropriate. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Existing Road Network The Hickman site is bordered on the west by U.S. 85, on the north by CR 44 and on the south by CR 33. These roadways are either under Weld County or Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) control. CR 33 is an east -west two-lane roadway serving the local area on both sides of U.S. 85. It is skewed in the southwest to northeast directions. CR 33 is currently paved between U.S. 85 and the railroad tracks and oiled to the east of the tracks. There is no posted speed limit on CR 33, east of U.S. 85. CR 44 is a paved two lane east -west roadway with one lane in each direction serving the area east and west of U.S. 85. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour. U.S. 85 is the major north -south roadway serving this area. It provides regional service and essentially abuts the site on the west. U.S. 85 has two lanes in each direction with auxiliary lanes at intersections and a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour. The U.S. 85 intersections with CR 33 and CR 44 are under stop sign control. There are railroad tracks paralleling U.S. 85 on the east side with railroad gates controlling traffic on CR 44 and stop signs controlling CR 33 traffic at the railroad crossing. B. Existing Traffic Conditions Traffic counts were collected as part of this study and extracted from other sources and agency publications. The CR 33 and CR 44 intersections were counted during the morning highway peak hour (6:00 - 9:00 A.M.), and the afternoon highway peak hour (3:00 - 6:00 P.M.). Daily traffic was provided by the County and by CDOT. 3 Recent traffic is shown on Figure 2 with current roadway geometry and controls shown on Figure 3. Count sheets are provided in Appendix A. Critical intersections were evaluated using highway capacity procedures during the highway morning and afternoon peak hours. Resultant levels of service are shown below. CURRENT OPERATING CONDITIONS Intersection Control Movement/ Direction Level of Service AM Pk Hr, PM Pk Hr. CR 33 — U.S. 85 Stop NB L A A SBL A A WBLTR B C EB LTR B B CR 44 - U.S. 85 Stop NB L A A SBL A A WB LT C C WB R B B EBLT D D EB R A B For definition purposes, overall level of service 'D' is considered acceptable at stop sign controlled intersections during peak hours with critical minor street traffic move- ments allowed to operate at LOS 'E/F'. At signalized intersections, overall level of service 'D' or better is considered acceptable during peak hours. It should be noted that capacity analyses were conducted only to the level necessary to meet acceptable operations. Additional tweaking is expected to result in improved operations for individual traffic movements, approaches and/or overall operations at signalized intersections. As indicated above, acceptable operations are currently being experienced at all intersections. Capacity work sheets are provided in Appendix B. 4 co co Y co rn r w N Co r I.O .- It— 15/16 4— 2/6 s-28/18 1420 5/7 -J 14/8 —► 5/6 --)i O O O Co e- 260 2/2 ---'' 1/0--. 5/4 --4 LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour Daily 'I1('' CR 44 CR 33 Figure 2 CURRENT TRAFFIC 5 C. Surrounding Land Uses The Gilcrest and LaSalle areas are located to the south and north of the site, respec- tively with Milliken located to the west. In the immediate area of the site, land uses are generally devoted to industrial and agricultural uses. III. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS A. Site Assumptions The Hickman site will initiate development in 2013 with a water service company catering to the oil industry. It will be located along CR 33 south of the proposed driveway on some 8 acres. For evaluation purposes, the short- and long-term hori- zons were investigated. The short-term time frame represents the year 2013 con- sistent with the initial phase of development with the long-term representing the widely accepted planning horizon of some 20 years in the future. Development after the water service company is uncertain; however, the balance of the site, some 92 acres, is assumed developed as light industrial uses by 2032, the long-term horizon. With the initial phase of development all site traffic will enter and exit the site using CR 33. All departing truck trips will turn either left or right onto U.S. 85 with the reverse traffic movements expected for trips arriving at the site. Virtually all departing trucks will be loaded with arriving trucks being empty. Employee trips are expected to use the same arrival and departure routes. Site activity for the water service company will be up to 24 hours per day, seven days per week. A concept plan is provided on Figure 4. 7 4S86-SES (016) :it • fl I E6-SES (0L6) 40508 OJ 'Now:ool'99 kg/ATOM OS£4 Jr] eaoissoio'ii m� �V O2I� .�� B. Site Traffic Site traffic for the initial phase of development was estimated using the operating strategies planned by the water service company. The site will generally operate up to 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Based on operator estimates, 124 trucks will enter and exit the site each day. There will be up to two employees per shift and two shifts per day. Site traffic is expected to arrive at and depart the site equally to and from the north and south on U.S. 85. No significant site traffic is expected to use the County street system. The balance of the site (92 acres) is expected to develop sometime after the water service company but before the long-term (2032) planning horizon. Uncertainties abound regarding future development; however, it is anticipated that light industrial uses will find this site attractive. Development activity will occur in concert with de- mand. - Site traffic for Phase I and build out of the Hickman development is shown below: Use Size Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In I Out Rate I In Out Phase I Water Service - * 260 6 4 4 6 Future Phases Light Industrial 92 AC 51.8 4,766 7.51 573 117 7.26 147 521 TOTAL 5,026 579 121 151 527 * Based on water service operator estimates On a representative day, Phase I, the water service company, will generate 10 morn- ing highway peak hour trips, 10 afternoon highway peak hour trips and 260 daily trips. This reflects 248 truck trips, 8 employee trips and 4 miscellaneous trips per day. At build out, the Hickman development will generate 700 morning peak hour trips, 678 afternoon peak hour trips, and 5,026 trips per day. 9 C. Trip Distribution Trip distribution is a function of the origin and destination of site users and the availa- ble roadway system. In this case, virtually all traffic will use U.S. 85 to access either CR 33 or CR 44. Local trips will use the shortest access route; however, the number of local trips is expected to be negligible. The distribution of water from this site is based on operator estimates and anticipated market areas. Site traffic distribution is shown on Figure 5 with Phase 1 site traffic shown on Figure 6 and build out site traffic shown on Figure 7. Build out site traffic reflects future roadway changes planned as part of the U.S. 85 Access Control Plan. D. Background Traffic Background traffic was developed for the years 2013 and 2032. These represent the short- and long-term horizons. CDOT publications indicate a growth rate in the range of about 2% annually on U.S. 85. Growth on other streets was estimated using County provided annual growth rates of 2% for both CR 33 and CR 44. Short- and long-term background traffic is shown on Figures 8 and 9. E. Future Total Traffic Total traffic is the combination of site traffic and background traffic. It represents conditions with the Hickman site fully operational. Peak hours were evaluated since these times represent the most severe traffic conditions. Site traffic was added to background traffic resulting in the short- and long-term total traffic shown on Figures 10 and 11, respectively. 10 U, co z N 0 U, Nominal Nominal 0 Un 11 CR 44 CR 33 Figure 5 SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION I op z U, N r7 N C.) 2/3 4— N/N 2/3 N/N N/N —► LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour ry 12 6/4 —� CR 44 CR 33 Figure 6 SHORT-TERM SITE TRAFFIC to co s rn to Z N lc 50/175 4— N/N Ig-- 25/200 lc— N/N N/N —► t- 25/200 I-- 75/155 290/75 --)i tv > a d > .` 0 It— N/N LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 190/50 CR 44 CR 33 N Figure 7 BUILD OUT SITE TRAFFIC 13 0 o) o co 0 O n;l' O � U) N 15/15 4— N/5 30/20 5/5 15/10—► 5/5 —� I Z tQN Nr co --10/5 �— N/N N/N N/N N/N —► 5/5 LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 14 to o z Z0in co CR 44 CR 33 Figure 8 SHORT-TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC a co x N U)O) O O) 0 N1`.- 4) OA k-- 25/25 4--- 5/10 40/25 15/15 --11 20/10 -4 10/10 -.4 O .�1 10/5 10/5 --4 LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 15 CR 44 CR 33 Figure 9 LONG-TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC co I 07 15/15 t— N/5 30/20 5/5 15/10 —► 5/5 —4 Z LO co o`r CD 5/10 4— N/N lc-- N/5 CR 44 d 0 N/N 4— N/10 N/N —� N/N —► 5/5 LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 16 5/5 —II 20/10 —► CR 33 Figure 10 SHORT-TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC In 03 U) A)1C it- 75/120 4--- 5/10 tr-= 65/225 4-- 70/60 N/N I I 85/160 115/90 -► 390/100 --)4 �-- N/N 4- 10/5 10/5 LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour ii NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 190/50 ---"1 10/N -► 17 CR 44 CR 33 Figure 11 LONG-TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC F. Future Roadway System No improvements are planned at the U.S. 85 intersections with CR 33 and CR 44 in the short-term. Consequently, the existing roadway system will remain constant through 2013. The U.S. 85 intersections with CR 33 and CR 44 have been identified in the U.S. 85 Access Control Plan as needing reconstruction in the future due to skewed approach- es and safety concerns. This improvement is rated as a high priority which is ex- pected by 2032 or earlier. The long-term roadway system is expected to include a traffic signal at CR 44 and improvements on the CR 44 approaches to U.S. 85. In conjunction with the CR 44 intersection improvements, CR 33 will be restricted to right -turn in and out movements and perhaps the left turn movement from U.S. 85 to CR 33. As part of this study, these changes were discussed with and determined reasonable by CDOT. For evaluation purposes only right turns were assumed al- lowed at the CR 33 intersection in the long term time frame. Short- and long-term roadway geometry is shown on Figures 12 and 13, respectively. IV. TRAFFIC IMPACTS To assess operating conditions with the site fully functional, capacity analysis proce- dures were utilized at key intersections. These include the U.S. 85 — CR 33 and the U.S. 85 — CR 44, and the site access intersections. Site access will only be available from CR 33 in the short-term, with CR 44 providing additional site access when needed to serve future development on this site. At the onset of these undertakings, future traffic volumes were reviewed at each location to determine if any new auxiliary lanes will be needed. Findings are indicated below. r U) co U) STOP CR 44 4)UC 4Ax STOP 19 STOP CR 33 Figure 12 SHORT-TERM ROADWAY GEOMETRY r I 0, STOP STOP 20 CR 44 CR 33 Figure 13 LONG-TERM ROADWAY GEOMETRY A. Auxiliary Lanes and Traffic Controls All warranted turn lanes currently exist at the U.S. 85 intersections with CR 33 and CR 44; however, these lanes were built to earlier design standards. Given that access restrictions will be imposed at the CR 33 — U.S. 85 intersection in the future, only 2 — 3 vehicles pei- hour will be added to impacted traffic movements, turning traffic is not high enough to meet warrants, and spacing is limited between intersections, no auxiliary lane improvements are needed in the short-term. Since turning traffic at CR 44 will not be impacted in the short-term, the geometry at that intersection will remain unchanged. Additionally, traffic at the CR 33 site driveway will be negligible in the short-term and will not warrant any turn lanes on CR 33. In the long-term, the CR 44 — U.S. 85 intersection will be relocated, improved, and signalized. When this intersection is improved, it is expected that CDOT will improve the approach geometry at that time. A review of traffic at the CR 44 — site driveway and the CR 33 — site driveway intersections determined that an eastbound right turn lane will be warranted on CR 44 at the driveway intersection and that an eastbound left turn lane on CR 33 at the site driveway intersection will not be needed since eastbound left turns into the site are opposed by only 10 vehicles per hour which is well below the 100 vehicles per hour threshold when the left turn lane can be waived. This threshold assesses the likelihood of conflict between left turning vehicles and opposing traffic. B. Future Operating Conditions (with Hickman) Capacity analyses were conducted using short- and long-term total traffic and the short -and long-term roadway geometry. Acceptable conditions are defined as overall level of service `D' with critical, stop sign controlled side street traffic movements allowed to operate at level of service `E/F. Resultant levels -of -service are indicated in the following tables. 21 SHORT-TERM OPERATING CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Intersection Control Movement/ Direction Level of Service AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. CR 33 — U.S. 85 Stop NB L A A SBL A A WB LTR C C EB LTR C C CR 33 — Drive Stop EB LT A A SB LR A A CR 44 - U.S. 85 . Stop NB L A A SBL A A WB LT C C WB R B B EB LT D D EBR A B LONG-TERM OPERATING CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Intersection Control Movement/ Direction Level of Service AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. CR 33 — U.S. 85 Stop WB R B C EBR' B B CR 33 — Drive Stop EB LT A A SB1..R A A CR 44 - U.S. 85 Signal EB C C WB C C NB C C SB A A Overall B B CR 44 — Drive Stop WB LT A A NB LR B B 22 As indicated, all intersections will operate acceptably in both the short- and long-term with development on the Hickman site. The capacity analyses do not consider the availability of right turn acceleration lanes and therefore better than indicated operat- ing conditions are expected. Accordingly, level -of -service 'C' or better is expected for all traffic movements at all intersections. Tweaking future traffic signal timings at the U.S. 85 — CR 44 intersection will also result in improved operations. For purposes of this study, however, analyses were only conducted to the point of demonstrating acceptable operations. Capacity worksheets are presented in Appendix C for short- term conditions and Appendix D for long-term conditions. V. DESIGN ISSUES Given that the CR 33 and CR 44 intersections are closely spaced along U.S. 85, that CR 44 will be relocated and connect to U.S. 85 at a signalized location and future turn restrictions will be imposed at CR 33, the practicality and cost-effectiveness of auxilia- ry lane improvements were considered when determining which improvements can be reasonably made. It was determined that the northbound right turn lane on U.S. 85 at CR 33 and the eastbound right turn lane on CR 44 at the site driveway can be in- stalled in the long-term. Preliminary auxiliary lane designs were developed for northbound to eastbound right turns at the U.S. 85 — CR 33 intersection and for eastbound right turns at the CR 44 driveway. Based upon current CDOT design criteria, truck usage, and the posted speed limits, the northbound right turn lane should have a deceleration length of 800 feet plus 300 feet of transition taper. On CR 44, an eastbound right -turn deceleration lane at the site driveway should be built with 435 feet of deceleration lane including a 160 foot transition taper. Large radii capable of accommodating trucks should be provided at both locations. The indicated improvements are not needed with Phase I, but will be warranted sometime thereafter. 23 The feasibility of building the above indicated auxiliary lanes should be investigated as part of the preliminary design phase. At that time, adjustments to the indicated design parameters may be appropriate or construction of any given lane may be determined impractical. The need for these lanes should be confirmed as development proceeds. VI. CONCLUSIONS Based on the above documented analyses and investigations, the following can be concluded: • Current operating conditions are acceptable in the area of the Hickman site. • Phase I of this development will generate 10 morning and afternoon peak hour trips and 260 trips per day. These trips will use CR 33 to access the site and can be accommodated by the existing roadway system. No new auxiliary lane improvements are needed with Phase I. • The existing roadway system can adequately serve Phase I traffic as evi- denced by very acceptable levels of service at all intersections. • At build out, the Hickman site will generate 700 morning highway peak hour trips, 678 afternoon highway peak hour trips and 5,026 trips per day. These trips can be served by CDOT planned improvements at the U.S. 85 — CR 44 and U.S. 85 — CR 33 intersections. • The existing northbound right turn lane on U.S. 85 at CR 33 should be im- proved sometime after Phase I. This lane should be improved to CDOT stand- ards when the lane is warranted by the combination of background traffic and site traffic resulting from future phases of development on the Hickman site. • On CR 44, an eastbound right -turn lane will be warranted at the site access when traffic volumes warrant this improvement. Preliminary design parameters for this lane are provided in this report for site build out conditions. 24 • Acceptable operating conditions will be achieved and maintained through the long-term at all intersections. • The Hickman development is viable from a traffic engineering standpoint. In summary, with the identified improvements the Hickman Development will not adversely impact the area street system. This is verified by the determination that acceptable operating conditions can be anticipated at all intersections for the foresee- able future. 25 APPENDIX A TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS CR 33 & Highway 85 C O N 3/27/2012 & 5J1 12012 EUGENE G. COPP A 0 a Y'1. +FhdL1UUU 1f) M e- CO .- .- CO el e- d gi F- g .- 1n OD _.i ry 3. D. 44 c O- N N N O.- CS O. - e - O 3 0 00 O O O.- 0 0.- 0 0 0 0 0 3:J OO.-C)000r.--ONC) Eastbound: L I S 1 R I Total iufltlls4 a xs CC.-OOOCDaa - CD CD e--. CD e- CD .- N O O N CD n— Total northlsouth ntt Is. N- '.t 1+) e- N 17 .- et N e- ;0 Total trae-e7.-CD00 -o.-' CD CD C O 0 g 00 yJ N s- e— .— O O N O e— O O lluiffDJU ii C cc e- c•) NO NOe- O CD N. - O Northbou co J N .- M Q.- . O epp- O . .- ill d C O in M tt�... st S in M U O in M� P: m 0 0 0 0 0 P. 0 0 a a 0 a Vve N m in 0 CD CD t N CD R O r. .o, ,rr 0 N 1%) CD to C LL S a m '..i�, nr;} yy it •'.-1 i O� "Y1 7k '.b bOC fel- n) i rtil Qr rte t4 V'.en., f tom+, r flY . t. x 1 - , t• a3 si (p av et • r: et CO el N N N CO Y st ' N N e- N .- O CD N.- O M O .- CD O CD e- O O O.- O O N CO O O .- O 0.- O 0 o O O O o t y;71'• Y rl�y y ,rte ,;tF .- N O e- e- O r- O O a- N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.- 0 0 N O V .- CD O N O- .- CD O et N CD CD et- N sr er 1O .- N N e- CD N e- .- O CD CD N CD CD .-- N N Rl c+) co N N V N .- .-0 'L! . ' of .- O O .--- CD O .- CD .- CD c+) 1- O .-<- CD O e- 0 0 0 e-47 pp0 O r C', - O.- 04:30 43. "" F, O O O O O O O O O in p M N 1D ;M 1O G N 00 N x VI O LL 0. a E 1V J CR 44 & Highway 85 Observer: Linda 3/27/2012 & 5/16/2012 City: Weld County, CO Tuesday & Wednesday a o O o w O x<.) U e e •co W Q Ui CY W W Phone: (303) 792.2450 Total east/west COC'wgaga) 23 l'-coL�a .4 0 11 A" C CTr1. P $ O: O CV C7 N CO O C. N .e- OD CA h CO CD we O O C70 .—.-000N,- J M e- d et CO U) CO 0) N CO CV N Eastbound: Total ad CV .- e- O CV .— ••'• — O CI CV CV O) 01 d .-- e- CO C7 00 CV O CSI CV s- -J O. 0 .•- O O C'7 CV CV N C) 19 c°F118%1 FOE O C N N N N 5.) Ch�i` R el pp N I 247 I p N N N ,C` C O 42 pi Cq Total I a . xrywY . ply �,{,,tt r •4 {ir rp Ftt yr4 ,• 4 . , O: CV C7 CV .- 'Cr or a- 0.-y- M Ch N CO O-- -.1. e- � r.rte-..-T7.-,- U) CON CC) O N U) g3 0) n J Cam) in in C e Cn CC) Pe C7 W CO to N. 4 C ii 0 Z A - rd I- p r..,, ' o VI + f S.♦- n' 4 K �lyyi� r C� t- 4C f Rt., YC t, rM1, A 7 $Jv ce CO C4 co N- 0) 'C- 0) N N C'7 'C CO - - NNitNCV se. Y On C7 o,- CV .J r- O .- CD 0 0 .- O e- .- .- — ° CO I... m O 0 U) r CO CD O C) OD 0 N V CD 0 O O 0 U) 0 O M C. CC) `CT N. O O 0 CC) r- 0 O e�7 0 Cn Q 0 cc 0 in N U) 0 v'r CD O Ar M CO .�r 0 00 O ti LL a r 1 f ♦. lot C fk .� J�y i• � Y F 0 '�ji) Carr {f i 7,�t } 'a r }Sr 1.4 X _ 1 s' ' � .,et :1;14 cc- or cn etc- c— aW— c- CI 01 OC c-- cc co r c- N z xt xrf . A • C) C'7 CO C) CC) et d' N C) O CV Cl, .- O N CU C) .-e CD C'') -J O I CO U) C) CO CC) CO CV N. N C7 CD r' sr #� .0 :c'`` t �}}� 'ice` O .- CV CV s- CV s- O O O N C) e- 01 CV O O U) O V) C') 307 N C) N C7 CI M A C) N co C07 C') 0OD N ~ C in .Ct M C) M I 270 °$ ;FM 8.4r nor ' v,tfi raG CSI O CV — r a— CO CV 01 CV CU CV d r if,U 4' U) CU) CCO U) 72 CV CC) N CO N N et CV s- y- O Huilufl- 71'F` 4 f ,S "ei r -Y r". SST' ..lb .J' T fit.,.' x ... , =+:3"�+• C) CO Cn CO OD to Co) N CO 01 N U) 12-2 CD ID .0-- O r CD 01 a~- N. — CD v 1- r r- O O O se O O O ee O2 C3 WI CD CC.- C7 MI CD I 04:45 C2 ID C7C7 1 P9 in M 4 a er in U) V) U) O O O O O O O O O O O (.0 v I N CO, CD CCD 0 CO 0 CV O APPENDIX B Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection CR 33 - US 85 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 5 3/2012 Analysis Year E&ST LT TOTAL Time Period PM Analysis Project Description EastNVest Street: CR 33 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 2 623 7 8 550 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - - • 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 2 623 7 8 550 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 10 -- -- 10 - - __ Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 _ 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound 7 8 9 10 11 12 Movement L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 2 1 5 1 1 7 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 2 1 5 1 1 7 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 25 25 25 25 25 0 0 Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound pproach 1 4 7 . 8 9 10 11 12 ovement Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR (veh/h) 2 8 9 8 C (m) (veh/h) 958 896 437 396 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 lc 95% queue length 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.06 ontrol Delay (s/veh) 8.8 9.1 13.4 14.3 A A B B LOS pproach Delay (s/veh) — — 13.4 14.3 -- B B pproach LOS .._____ _ eMnlnnn 11.7A SAI Copyright O 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+' "^ Version 5.6 5/23/2012 rage 1011 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed 5/212 nalysis Time Period AM Intersection CR 33 - US 85 Jurisdiction Analysis Year ()ST LT TOTAL Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement Northbound Southbound 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type 6 661 1 14 625 4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6 661 1 14 625 4 10 10 Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration Upstream Signal L T R L T R 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 2 0 4 2 1 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 2 0 _ 4 2 . 1 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 25 25 25 25 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized • 0 0 Lanes 0 1- 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR _ LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 • 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR v (veh/h) 6 14 6 6 C (m) (veh/h) 897 871 296 447 v/c 95% queue length 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.04 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.0 9.2 17.4 13.2 LOS A A C B Approach Delay (s/veh) 17.4 13.2 Approach LOS C B Copyright ® 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 11:24 AM 5/23/2012 Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection 44 - 85 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 5/26/2012 Analysis Year 1ST TOTAL Analysis Time Period 7 PM Prlect Description East/West Street: CR 44 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 1 594 37 18 530 12 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) / 594 37 18 530 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 — -- 15 — — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized _ 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 5 14 5 28 2 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 5 14 5 28 2 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 _ 15 15 15 15 15 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 _ 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 Configuration LT R LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound _ Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 _ 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R LT R (veh/h) 1 18 30 15 19 5 C (m) (veh/h) 938 864 295 701 187 732 /c 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.01 95% queue length 0.00 0.06 0.34 0.07 0.33 0.02 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.8 9.3 18.6 10.2 26.4 10.0 LOS A A C _ B D A pproach Delay (sNeh) -- -- 15.8 23.0 pproach LOS -- -- C C Copyright © 2010 Universty of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/26/2012 8:55 AM 5/26/2012 Page 1otl TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed 5/226 2Q12 Analysis Time Period A q99 Site Information Intersection 44 - 85 Jurisdiction Analysis Year ST TOTAL Project Description East/West Street: CR 44 Intersection Orientation: North -South North/South Street: US 85 Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement 1 Northbound 2 3 4 Southbound 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 2 638 26 12 619 9 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2 638 26 12 619 9 15 15 Median Type RT Channelized Two Way Left Turn Lane 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R ignal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 7 8 6 18 6 16 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 7 8 6 18 6 16 Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 15 15 15 15 15 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N _ N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized - 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 Configuration LT _ R LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R LT R v (veh/h) 2 12 24 16 15 6 C (m) (veh/h) 867 839 232 681 184 689 v/c 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.08 0.01 95% queue length 0.01 0.04 0.34 0.07 0.26 0.03 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.2 9.4 22.3 10.4 26.3 10.3 LOS A A C B D B Approach Delay (s/veh) 17.5 21.7 Approach LOS C C Copyright ® 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/26/2012 8:57 AM 5/26/2012 APPENDIX C agt. 1 VL 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed 5 3/2012 Analysis Time Period VIPM Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year Westbound CR 33 - DRIVE Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 North/South Street: DRIVE Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement Eastbound 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type RT Channelized 5 20 5 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5 20 0 0 5 5 100 0 Undivided 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration Upstream Signal LT TR 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L. T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 • 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 0 5 0 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 100 0 100 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 5 10 C (m) (veh/h) 1150 807 v/c 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.01 0.04 Control Delay (s/veh) Tos 8.1 9.5 • A A Approach Delay (s/veh) 9.5 Approach LOS A Copyright@ 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+rM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 11:36 AM 5/23/2012 rage 1 O1 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information GC Intersection CR 33 - DRIVE Analyst Jurisdiction IOTA Agency/Co. Performed 5/23 012 Analysis Year S LT Date ��✓✓ Period A PM Analysis Time Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 North/South Street: DRIVE Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound 2 3 4 5 6 Movement 1 L T. R L T R olume (veh/h) 5 10 ' 10 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 5 10 0 0 10 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 100 - - 0 -- __ Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 5 0 5 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 _ 0 _ 0 100 0 100 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound pproach Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 LT LR Lane Configuration 5 10 (veh/h) C (m) (veh/h) 1144 809 0.00 0.01 vie 0.01 0.04 95% queue length 8.2 9.5 Control Delay (s/veh) LOS A _ A -- -- 9.5 pproach Delay (s/veh) pproach LOS - - A Copyright ® 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+"" Version 5.6 5/23/2012 rage 1 OI 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection CR 33 - US 85 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 3/2012 Analysis Year E LT • TA Analysis Time Period PM Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 5 640 10 15 560 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 5 640 10 15 560 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 10 -- -- 10 -- — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 5 5 5 5 5 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 25 25 25 ` 25 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR _ LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR (veh/h) 5 15 15 15 C (m) (veh/h) 950 880 246 250 /c 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.06 95% queue length 0.02 0.05 0.19 0.19 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.8 9.2 20.6 20.3 LOS A A C C pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 20.6 20.3 pproach LOS - -- C C Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 11:21 AM 5/23/2012 rage i or t TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CC Intersection CR 33 - US 85 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 5/23/2012 Analysis Year EXtJLT 44) Analysis Time Period Me Project Description EastNVest Street: CR 33 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R ofume (veh/h) 5 670 , 5 15 640 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 5 670 5 15 640 - 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 10 _ -- — 10 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 _ Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 5 5 5 5 5 10 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 5 5 5 5 5 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 25 25 25 25 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0, Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration _ LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound pproach Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR (veh/h) 5 15 20 15 C (m) (veh/h) 884 860 260 218 lc 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.07 95% queue length 0.02 0.05 0.25 0.22 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.1 9.3 20.0 22.7 LOS A ,A C C pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 20.0 22.7 pproach LOS -- -- _ C C _ .. _._ 44.nq AR) Copyright ® 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+' M Version 5,6 5/23/2012 rage i or r TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection 44 - 85 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 6/2012 Analysis Year ' EX ST OTA Analysis Time Period M M Project Description EastNVest Street: CR 44 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 2 605 40 20 545 10 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 2 605 40 20 545 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 — — 15 — — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 5 15 5 30 2 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 5 15 5 30 2 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 _ 15 15 15 15 15 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 / 1 0 1 1 Configuration LT R LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R 'LT R (veh/h) 2 20 32 15 20 5 C (m) (veh/h) 927 853 287 697 177 725 /c 0.00 0.02 0.11 0.02 0.11 0.01 95% queue length 0.01 0.07 0.37 0.07 0.38 0.02 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.9 9.3 19.1 10.3 27.9 10.0 LOS A A _ C B . D A pproach Delay (s/veh) -- — 16.3 24.3 pproach LOS - -- _ C C Copyright ® 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/26/2012 8:59 AM 5/26/2012 Page 1 of I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed 5/264,012 Analysis Time Period AM M) Intersection 44 - 85 Jurisdiction Analysis Year EX T OTA Project Description East/West Street: CR 44 Intersection Orientation: North -South North/South Street: US 85 Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement 1 Northbound 2 3 4 Southbound 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 2 655 25 10 630 10 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type RT Channelized 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2 655 25 10 630 10 15 15 Two Way Left Turn Lane 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R stream Signal 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 10 5 30 5 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 5 10 5 30 5 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 15 _ 15 15 15 15 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach _ N N Storage _ 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 Configuration LT R LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Movement Northbound 1 Southbound 4 7 Westbound 8 9 10 Eastbound 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R LT R v (veh/h) 2 10 35 15 15 5 C (m) (veh/h) 857 826 247 673 164 685 v/c 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.02 0.09 0.01 95% queue length Control Delay (s/veh) 0.01 9.2 0.04 9.4 0.49 22.0 0.07 10.5 0.30 29.1 0.02 10.3 LOS A A C B D B Approach Delay (s/veh) 18.5 24.4 Approach LOS C C Copyright ® 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/26/2012 9:01 AM 5/26/2012 APPENDIX D HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary i r ' w r r } rr,Pdr�tx t k_i H<4 1 'e xs i F'., t}�Y � ri ir 47 V. m,x<. a -', ir. t' `' t ' ' c .y ' 3 '...r, i .. ., , Y, . a. h:5 rl.....ji tr x'ti.. ; v} �� c,.. a Yr r .,tc a. General Information Intersection Information 74 'rill` PA: Agency I ..� _� ___* _ _ Duration, h 0.25 Analyst GC y Vy Analysis Date 5/23/2012 Area Type Other 7 Jurisdiction Time Period 'AM PM PHF 0.92 is Intersection File Name 85 :21-4— Streets1 xus Analysis Year 32 Analysis Period 1> 7:00 " ti Project Description i 11�s�r S(, JYS -, ,..o ,,,,„.1 . r .Yi $?:4 .e-'� ,�•.�' «k ,4 f;ix 1� f"})f t ; ;14:-A.',:.:,,?:.. �s�1M:'�.�i�k'.'ts'��N'*��`4�J �?"� � �° Ara' ri�:• `��s�'Ci`�'j�r, Y. �'?s> =+!�'ru9:r.�� 1 �'r},t .° A �.: Hf,�.. i.t».` fly.` `7 •_��,i `v, < "tr'q+ r ,�.�e. Vi!,;": j . t. :: t iii Demand Information E: WB NB ........ _ SB proach Movement L Ap� T ' L 1 L T R; L T R Demand (v), veh/h 15 _ 2 1 1 i 65 f 8651 330 795 ' 1 20 ti S 4 'k , .,:.1 ., ft, P—ti+1'1i ; t writ. {''j'{k 1. x,NJ s✓ . . +niyw ,.. Signal Information Y� -. , t {R,}•.rc! r - j .r4'. ; ..EA Ti., _ ' df".�u3�. rte: lit ,�,1, .., �t xs YvF`�.1.13 ..e�xt r-- )' r''jr.''):::t F (> '. .F r !r 1Y� . , r {' ' < iy Cycle, 100'0 Reference Phase _ 2 , •./ ,fir ..s_ _ Offset, s 0 Reference Point - End -• • Green 20.0 35.0 30'0 0.0 0.0 0'0 r ,- Uncoordinated - . Yes Simult. Gap ENV On Yellow 4.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0'0 0.0 Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 1.0 x 1.0 1.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 ssff {. -l1,4 ' :: •�T zj,,,:,, rte. i F 1,. ,5,z !} '..t J.t . 4 Y 'C.. f, % i ' y.'� i'1Jx P'.'. a .. �..! 6 S t • l.. ., f.` �•"J .N Timer Results EBL EBT WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 4_ 8 2 1 6 _.. _ Case Number 5.0 5.0 5.3 1.0 3,0 _ W Phase Duration, s 35.0 35.0 40.0 25.0 65.0 Change Period, (Y+Rc),ss 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 _ �� Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.8 Queue Clearance Time (gs), s �TM _w__ 3.0 6.5 12.6 9.0 _.. Green Extension Time (ge)mss 0.2 0.2 0.4 4.7 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Max Out Probability t-'1:::`,:,;':' ¢.�l _. s, f� d. rf !.:,::1 4. 0.00 yT I 0.00 �..r i 0.16 0.02 0.00 Movement Group Results EB _ WB _ SB ; Approach Movement T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 7 4 14 8 2 12 1 6 16 �^ El Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 16 22 11 5 49 940 136 359 864 22 _ i4 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/In 1433 1900 1610 1412 1900 1610 650 1809 1610 1810 1809 161( Queue Service Time (gs), s 0.8 0.8 0.5 3.7 0.2 1.6 0.5 21.2 6.0 10.6 7.0 0.5 Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s 1.0 0.8 0.5 4.5 0.2 1.6 0.5 21.2 6.0 10.6 7.0 0.5 Capacity (a), veh/h 499 570 483 484 570 805 300 1266 564 517 2171 966 — Volume -to -Capacity Ratio ( 0.033 0.038 0.023 0.146 0'010 0.061 0.018 0.743 0.241 0.693 0.398 0.02: Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 499 570 483 484 570 805 300 1266 564 517 2171 966 Back of Queue (Q), veh/ln 50th percentile) 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 7.0 2.0 3.8 1.6 0.1 Overflow Queue (Q3), veh/ln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (di), s/veh ~ 24.9 24.8 24.7 26.4 24.6 12.9 21.3 23.0 23.1 16.8 4.7 8.1 Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0'0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.1 3.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0'0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (d), s/veh 24.9 24.8 24.7 26.4 24.6 12.9 21.3 25.1 23.2 20.1 4.7 8.1 Level of Service (LOS) C C C CB CCC C A A Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 24.8 C 21.1 C 24.8 C 9.2 A Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS { IMultimodal'Results 16.9 ,". ., r vt ' • r B ... EB WB SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 3.0 C 3.0 C = 2.4 B Bicycle LOS Score / LOS _ 0.6 A 0.7 A 1.4 A A Copyright (f) 2012 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010'1" Streets Version 6.3 Generated: 5/2312012 12:16:59 Pi t-tt..b Lulu aignaiiceu in uibeI.uvu 11UILO. VuulsuIIc Iy General Information Intersection Information <4 `,r•:ri.J4 Agency r Duration, h 0.25 • Analyst GC Analysis Date 5/23/2012 Area Type Other Jurisdiction Time Period AM PM PHF 0.92 Intersection 85 - 44 Analysis Year X20 ToTA L Analysis Period 1> 7:00 File Name Streets1 xus - Project Description ._-M- - •. r tyrrr r Y `. Demand Information L�F� p�yntafy �yy. .+ �l+w ,t tci' g� Y''X t''t44..dmay. J� .J s. w�i I- .• Alli t'¢.'1`,, 1�� S'f �i�' *G �7J�31t '.. i. iJs •xr 4-.f f: .. �, S•1{l,.! {,,; a. t,J Cr.�l. E: WB NB ti. t '.., •yi `. ^i. Si'-;i 1, j� •y SB Approach Movement L T ' ' L T R L T R LTR Demand (v), veh/h t M' �. .. :� , ��s � ,a`4�`rT� Signal information __ 15 nJ t9- r� �:�;.�. 1 . y 'k r_n� :,. J ; 1 I .sue'• �, 3��S.:.� • ` . 225 iy .+L s_ 10 ,J 7 i{ :. Jyy:: a. < :tc3�Z:� 120 -' ,_ . 10 #•e .ti> t` 1110 65 .t r ! 115 k { ..� 930 ? t .� ''° 15 dS q,L Cycle, s Y 100.0 _ Reference Phase 2 e". , : > Y:.. { rt. - - J Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Green 15.0 40.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On . Yellow 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red .4,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 r Force k, � s r4 f. ,.r#-iy`{s fie{ Jef �Iry rx�y�+ �,��,y.��4� �� 4 fc t e d�.�r ��.—�t 5 P° t?}�#1(*e. "';. 4'�r�`... 'r•.N. rt�•4't+'..�.rs t4. .� i-.,. #'a _,• e y ..i -.. ,.. s ;tl �t '-.. P. .J.�i�;,5 Timer Results ,f'!::M; EBL EBT WBL WBT 4 NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 4 8 2 1 6 �. , ._. � _ . »..,..».� -----.- Case Number 5.0 . 5.0 5.3 1.0 3.0 _. .._ r------ Phase Duration, s 35.0 35.0 45.0 20.0 65.0 Change Period, (Y+Rc), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Max Allow Headway (MAH), s 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.8 w Queue Clearance Time (gs), s 3.2 � 17.0 30.0 5.2 10.9 Green Extension Time (ge), s 0.6 0.5 4.3 0.1 6.1 Phase Call Probability 1.00 , 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 y_. Max Out Probability y �.v'}}. s .% L 1 .-a�Rs�t aYn J#h# IfY 4 i{ yA�t yfze V' Movement Group Results - �°S, f(.. EB 0.00 � t h• , WB 0.00 ... »__ ., ...� NB 0.32 0.00 SB 0.00 _�.� Approach Movement _ L T ,� R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 ? 1 6 16 Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 16 11 11 245 11 98 11 1207 38 125 1011 16 Flow Rate (s), veh/h/In 1426 1900 1610 1426 1900 1610 566 1809 1610 1810 1809 161( Adjusted Saturation Queue Service Time (gs), s 0.8 0.4 0.5 14.6 0.4 3.6 1.2 28.0 1.5 3.2 8.9 0.4 Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s 1.2 0.4 0.5 15.0 0.4 3.6 1.2 28.0 1.5 3.2 8.9 0.4 494 570 483 494 570 725 299 1447 644 400 2171 966 Capacity (c),vveh/h _ � Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) 0.033 _ 0.019 0.023 0.495 0.019 0.135 0.036 0.834 0.059 ` 0.313 0.466 0.01: Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 494 570 483 494 570 725 299 1447 644 400 2171 966 Back of Queue (Q), veh/In (50th percentile) 0.3 0.2 0.2 4.5 0.2 1.1 0.1 8.5 0.5 1.0 2.0 0.1 Overflow Queue (Q3), vehlln 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 'Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (di), s/veh 25.1 24.6 24.7 29.9 24.6 16.1 18.4 20.5 18.4 16.1 4.9 8.1 Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 Initial Queue Delay (6), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - � Control Delay (d), s/veh 25.1 24.6 24.7 30.2 24.6 16.1 18.4 24.6 18.5 16.2 4.9 8.1 Level of Service (LOS) C C C C C B B C B B A A Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 24.8 C 26.1 C 24.4 I C 6.2 A Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS Multimodal Results 17.1 EB WB NB B SB Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 3.0 C 3.0 C 2.5 B 2.4 B M LOS Score / LOS 0.6 A 1.1 A 1.5 A 1.4 A Bicycle Copyright'=s 2012 Uni-iersity M Florida, Ail Rights Re erved. 61C a 2010'' Streets Version 6.3 Generated: 5/23/2012 12:13:38 Pt L 46v 1 MI. 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information • Site Information Analyst GC Intersection CR 33 - DRIVE Jurisdiction Agency/Co. Analysis Year S LT TA Date Performed 5/23/2012 Analysis Time Period PM Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 North/South Street: DRIVE Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (firs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 190 10 10 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 190 10 0 0 10 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 0 -- — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound _ Southbound Movement 7 - 8 9 10 11 12 L _ T R L T R olume (veh/h) 5 75 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/ J . 0 0 0 5 0 75 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT_Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 190 80 C (m) (veh/h) 1616 1011 /c 0.12 0.08 95% queue length 0.40 0.26 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 8.9 LOS A A pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 8.9 pproach LOS -- _ -- A Copyright O 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+7M Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 11:34 AM 5/23/2012 ragc 1 ul 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed 5/23/,,012 Analysis Time Period M Site Information Intersection CR 33 - DRIVE Jurisdiction Analysis Year S LT T e TA Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 Intersection Orientation: East-West North/South Street: DRIVE Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement 1 Eastbound 2 3 4 Westbound 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 50 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 . 1.00 1.00 Median Type RT Channelized 50 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 Undivided 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration Upstream Signal Minor Street Movement LT 0 Northbound 0 Southbound TR 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 5 155 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flared Approach Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 155 0 N N 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Movement Lane Configuration v (veh/h) C (m) (veh/h) vlc Eastbound 1 LT 50 Westbound 4 7 Northbound 8 9 LR 10 Southbound 11 LR 160 12 1623 1071 0.03 0.15 95% queue length 0.10 0.52 Control Delay (s/veh) LOS 7.3 A 9.0 A pproach Delay (s/veh) pproach LOS 9.0 A Copyright ® 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 11:32 AM 5/23/2012 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed 2 ;312012 Analysis Time Period i PM Project Description EastNVest Street: CR 33 ntersection Orientation: North -South Site Information Intersection CR 33 - US 85 Jurisdiction Analysis Year EX S73 OTA North/South Street: US 85 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement Study Period (hrs): 0.25 1 Northbound 2 3 4 Southbound 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type RT Channelized 1.00 1030 1.00 200 1.00 1.00 865 1.00 10 1.00 0 1030 200 0 865 10 10 10 0 Raised curb 0 Lanes 0 2 1 0 2 1 Configuration Upstream Signal T R T R Minor Street 0 Eastbound 0 Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) 1.00 1.00 10 1.00 1.00 1.00 85 1.00 0 25 0 25 0 10 25 0 25 0 25 0 85 25 Flared Approach Storage N N 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 onfiguration Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound R Westbound Eastbound R Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R R (veh/h) 85 10 C (m) (veh/h) 496 557 v/c 0.17 0.02 95% queue length 0.61 0.05 Control Delay (s/veh) 13.8 11.6 LOS B B pproach Delay (s/veh) pproach LOS 13.8 B 11.6 B Copyright O 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+rM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 11:28 AM 5/23/2012 rd.ge 1 Vl 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection CR 33 - US 85 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 5/23/2012 Analysis Year EX S7r OTA Analysis Time Period AM l5 ll�� Project Description ast/West Street: CR 33 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments M1or Street Movement 1 Northbound 2 Study Period (hrs): 0.25 3 4 Southbound 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type 1.00 1010 1.00 50 1.00 1.00 1140 1.00 5 1.00 0 1010 50 0 1140 5 10 10 Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 0 2 1 Configuration Upstream Signal T R T R 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/hj _ 5 160 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 5 0 0 160 Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 25 _ 25 25 _ 25 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N + N Storage 0 _ 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 Configuration R _ R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R R v (veh/h) 160 5 C (m) (veh/h) 503 459 v/c 0.32 0.01 95% queue length 1.36 0.03 Control Delay (s/veh) 15.5 12.9 LOS C B Approach Delay (s/veh) 15.5 12.9 Approach LOS C B Copyright ® 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 11:28 AM 5/23/2012 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed 3/2012 Analysis Time Period M Project Description East/VVest Street: CR 44 Site Information Intersection CR 44 - DRIVE Jurisdiction Analysis Year LT TOTAL North/South Street: DRIVE Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement Eastbound Westbound 1 2 3 4 5 6 Volume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type L T R L T R 1.00 115 1.00 390 1.00 5 1.00 70 1.00 1.00 0 0 115 390 5 0 70 0 Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration Upstream Signal T 0 R LT 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 75 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 75 10 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 5 80 C (m) (veh/h) 1070 780 v/c 95% queue length Control Delay (s/veh) LOS 0.00 0.01 8.4 A 0.10 0.34 10.1 B pproach Delay (s/veh) 10.1 pproach LOS B Copyright© 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 1:55 PM 5/23/2012 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed 5/23/ 012 Analysis Time Period AM( ll Project Description East/West Street: CR 44 Intersection Orientation: East-West Site Information Intersection CR 44 - DRIVE Jurisdiction Analysis Year LT TOTAL North/South Street: DRIVE Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement 1 Eastbound 2 3 4 Westbound 5 6 Volume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type RT Channelized L 1.00 T 90 1.00 R 100 1.00 L 5 1.00 T 60 1.00 R 1.00 0 90 100 5 60 0 0 0 0 Undivided 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration Upstream Sional T R LT 0 t Minor Street . Northbound . . I Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 375 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 375 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 10 0 10 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 . RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Movement Eastbound 1 Westbound 4 7 Northbound 8 9 10 Southbound 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 5 380 C (m) (veh/h) 1396 812 v/c 0.00 0.47 95% queue length 0.01 2.52 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 13.3 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh) 13.3 Approach LOS B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 1:55 PM 5/23/2012 EXHIBIT BB MEMORANDUM TO: Michael Hall, Planning Services DATE: 2/1/16 FROM: Wayne Howard, P.E., Development Engineer SUBJECT: SPR15-0021, Expedition The Weld County Department of Planning Services -Engineering has reviewed this proposal. Staff comments made during this phase of the application process may not be all-inclusive, as other issues may arise during the remaining application process. COMMENTS: General Project Information/Location: Add water wash out to existing facility This project is inside Weld County Industrial Park. Access is from CR 33 and internal roadway Access: An access permit has been approved by the Public Works department for the access to the site AP12-0008 at CR 33. Roads: Project access onto an internal private roadway DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS: No changes to approved drainage design. Historic Flows: The applicants will be required to maintain the historic drainage flows and run-off amounts that exist from the property. Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement: No improvements agreement will be required as the anticipated traffic is less than 21 round truck trips/day or 50 round passenger vehicle trips/day. A development standard will be applied to the recorded plan indicating any impacts to the road must be mitigated by the owner. There shall be no tracking from the site onto publically maintained roads. The applicant is responsible for mitigation of any damage or offsite tracking and upgrading and/or maintaining onsite tracking control. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. The plan shall be amended to delineate the following: 1. The applicant shall show and label the accepted drainage features and drainage flow arrows. Water quality features or stormwater ponds should be labeled as "Water Quality Feature/Stormwater Detention, No -Build or Storage Area" and shall include the calculated volume. (Department of Planning Services -Engineer) DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS: No changes to approved drainage design. Historic Flows: The applicants will be required to maintain the historic drainage flows and run-off amounts that exist from the property. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (NOTES ON THE SITE PLAN) 1. Should noxious weeds exist on the property or become established as a result of the proposed development, the applicant/landowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds, pursuant to Chapter 15, Articles I and II, of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services -Engineer) 2. The access on the site shall be maintained to mitigate any impacts to the public road including damages and/or offsite tracking. (Planning and Engineering) 3. There shall be no parking or staging of vehicles on public roads. On -site parking shall be utilized. (Department of Public Works) 4. The historical flow patterns and runoff amounts on the site will be maintained. (Department of Planning Services -Engineer) 5. Weld County is not responsible for the maintenance of onsite drainage related features. (Department of Planning Services -Engineer) 5255 Ronald Reagan Blvd. Suite 210 Johnstown, CO 80534 Wayne Howard, P.E. Development Engineer Development Review Division 1555 N 17t1i Ave. Greeley, CO 80632 T. 303.322.6480 WWW.PACLAND.COM RE: MRC LaSalle Project at Lot 4 of Weld County Industrial Park Traffic Impact Memo Dear Mr. Howard; This project is proposing a 18,000 SF building of which 3,000 SF is Office and 15,000 SF is warehouse. Using the ITE 8`h Edition Trip Generation Report to estimate the Average Daily Trips (ADT) we found several similar uses like the proposed MRC facility. We used the formulas below based on square footage of the building measured in 1,000 square feet (KSF) as a basis for calculations. • Trip Generation o General Office (CODE 710) uses 11.03 Trips per day per KSF, which equates to 33 ADT o Warehousing (CODE 150) uses 3.56 Trips per day per KSF, which equates to 54 ADT • Existing Traffic Existing Traffic counts were not conducted. • Traffic Routes Based on the agreement between Weld County and Weld County Industrial Park, we understand that haul vehicles shall enter or exit the Property at the approved access points onto CR's 33 & 44. Haul vehicles will travel on CR 33 north to US -85 for further dispersal and on CR 44 east of west to disperse further. And, until Niobrara Boulevard is completed, with access onto Weld County Road 44, all traffic entering or exiting Weld County Industrial must use the access point on Weld County Road 33, traveling only on the portion of WCR 33 north of the intersection with Niobrara Boulevard. • Conclusion Above methods estimate the ADT to be less than 100 ADT, a common threshold for a Traffic Study. Therefore we respectfully submit the Traffic Impacts of the proposed project are de minimus and no further Traffic Study should be warranted. Respectfully, Mike Beach, PE Owner/Manager f F LIINLI u Vl')ION15INTU REALITY EXHIBIT CC MEMORANDUM TO: Diana Aungst, Planning Services DATE: 2//3/16 FROM: Wayne Howard, P.E., Development Engineer SUBJECT: SPR16-0002, DND Properties The Weld County Department of Planning Services -Engineering has reviewed this proposal. Staff comments made during this phase of the application process may not be all-inclusive, as other issues may arise during the remaining application process. COMMENTS: General Project Information/Location: New building for oil and gas support in Weld County Ind. Park This project is inside Weld County Industrial Park. Access is from CR 33 and internal roadway Access: An access permit has been approved by the Public Works department for the access to the site AP12- 0008 at CR 33. Roads: Project access onto an internal private roadway DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS: The applicant has submitted a drainage narrative stating the site is in compliance with the master drainage plan. Historic Flows: The applicants will be required to maintain the historic drainage flows and run-off amounts that exist from the property. Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement: No improvements agreement will be required as the anticipated traffic is less than 21 round truck trips/day or 50 round passenger vehicle trips/day. A development standard will be applied to the recorded plan indicating any impacts to the road must be mitigated by the owner. There shall be no tracking from the site onto publically maintained roads. The applicant is responsible for mitigation of any damage or offsite tracking and upgrading and/or maintaining onsite tracking control. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. The plan shall be amended to delineate the following: 1. The applicant shall show and label the accepted drainage features and drainage flow arrows. (Department of Planning Services -Engineer) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (NOTES ON THE SITE PLAN) 1. Should noxious weeds exist on the property or become established as a result of the proposed development, the applicant/landowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds, pursuant to Chapter 15, Articles I and II, of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services - Engineer) 2. The access on the site shall be maintained to mitigate any impacts to the public road including damages and/or offsite tracking. (Planning and Engineering) 3. There shall be no parking or staging of vehicles on public roads. On -site parking shall be utilized. (Department of Public Works) 4. The historical flow patterns and runoff amounts on the site will be maintained. (Department of Planning Services -Engineer) 5. Weld County is not responsible for the maintenance of onsite drainage related features. (Department of Planning Services -Engineer) EXHIBIT DD Lot z tiocAP WELD COUNTY ACCESS PERMIT Weld County Public Works Dept. 1111 H Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Phone: (970) 304-6496 After Hours: (970) 356-4000 Emergency Services: (970) 304-6500 x 2700 Inspection: (970) 304-6480 Permit Number: AP16-00268 Issuance of this permit binds applicant and its contractors to all requirements, provisions, and ordinances of Weld County, Colorado. Project Name: smug -0008 Expiration date: Applicant Information: Name: Company: Phone: Email: Mark Goldstein Peckham Development Corporation 970-797-2187 kathyherder@goldsteinenterprlsesinc.com Location: Access Is on WCR: Nearest Intersection WCR: Distance From Intersection: Number of Existing Accesses: 33 33 870 1 Planning Process: Other SPR16-0008 Road Surface Type & Construction Information: Road Surface: Asphalt Culvert Size & Type: 151` CMP/RCP min. If req. Start Date: Finish Date: Materials to Construct Access: roadbase & WCR: Hwy 85 Property Owner information: Name: Company: Phone: Email: same as applicant Proposed Use: Temporary: Single Residential: Industrial: Small Commercial: Oil & Gas: large Commercial: Subdivision: Field (Agricultural Oniy)/Exempt: CJ Required Attached Documents Submitted: Traffic Control Plan: No Certificate of Insurance: No Access Pictures: Yes A copy of this permit must be on site at all times during construction hours Daily work hours are Monday through Friday DAYLIGHT to Y3 HOUR BEFORE DARK (applies to weekends if approved) Approved MUTCD traffic control/warning devices are required before work begins and must remain until completion of work Special Requirements or Comments Parcel 105723201002. Utilize existing access point on CR 33 (1 -Industrial) located approx. 870 ft. South of Hwy 85. Approved by: ° 0,409nedwi4"91- Weld County Public Works 6 ork a.Mois to 6,h tort a ou. gabhert8wsidgw<an '-us c -US D, it 1011.Ob.111650:10.0r00' Date: 6/22/2016 Print Date -Time: 6/22/2016 4:49:50PM Access Permit PW008 Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Diana Aungst, Planning Services DATE: June 17, 2016 FROM: Janet Lundquist, Public Works SUBJECT: SPR16-0008 Peckham Development Corporation The Weld County Department of Public Works has reviewed this proposal. Staff comments made during this phase of the application process may not be all-inclusive, as other issues may arise during the remaining application process. COMMENTS: General Project Information/Location: Project description: A Site Plan Review application for outdoor storage of equipment including oilfiled equipment, agricultural equipment, utility and heavy construction equipment in the 1-3 (Industrial) Zone District. This project is east of and adjacent to CR 33 and is south of State Highway 85. Parcel number 105723201002. Access is from CR 33. Access: In the future Niobrara Blvd could be upgraded to a public roadway. For that reason Public Works requests an access permit application for the purposes of inventory. The fee and requirement of pictures, traffic control plan, certificates on insurance are waived. For shared accesses, Public Works strongly recommends that the property owner establish an access road maintenance agreement so future owners of the properties will be aware of their requirements for shared maintenance of the access road. This is not a requirement for the recorded exemption but is recommended to avoid property owner conflicts in the future. Entrance gates (if applicable) must be set back a minimum of 100 feet from edge of shoulder to allow a truck with trailer or RV to pull completely off of the roadway and open the gate. In no case shall any vehicle(s) stopped to open a gate be allowed to create a safety issue for roadway users. Roads: County Road 33 is a paved road and is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a local road, which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall delineate on the site plan the future and existing right-of-way. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of future right-of-way. This road is maintained by Weld County. County Road 44 is a paved road and is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a arterial road, which requires 140 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall delineate on the site plan the future and existing right-of-way. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of future right- of-way. This road is maintained by Weld County. Traffic: Latest ADT on CR 33 was taken on 1/21/2014 which counted 442 vpd with 62% trucks. A traffic narrative was submitted with the application materials and indicated that there will be approximately 2 daily roundtrips after equipment is dropped off at the facility. The expected traffic routes are CR 33 to Highway 85 and CR 44 to Highway 85 (After the access is built) and distribution of traffic is estimated to be 50/50. The site will have no employees working on the site beside occasional equipment drop off and pickup. TRACKING CONTROL: The Weld County Industrial Park Subdivision has tracking control in place to prevent tracking from the site onto public roadways. Temporary Tracking Control from the project site onto Niobrara Blvd is suggested to be used during construction unless permanent tracking control is installed ahead of construction activities. A development standard will be included on the recorded site plan. "The access shall be maintained to mitigate any impacts to the public road including damages and/or offsite tracking." Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement: The Weld County Industrial Park Subdivision has an existing improvements agreement in place to address future roadway improvements to CR 33 and CR 44. A development standard will be applied to the recorded map indicating any impacts to the road must be mitigated by the owner. The access on the site shall be maintained to mitigate any impacts to the public road including damages and/or offsite tracking. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. The plan shall be amended to delineate the following: 1. County Road 33 is a paved road and is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a local road which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall delineate on the site plan the existing right-of-way. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of right-of- way. This road is maintained by Weld County. (Department of Public Works) 2. County Road 44 is a paved road and is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as an arterial road which requires 140 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall delineate on the site plan the future and existing right-of-way. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of future right-of-way. This road is maintained by Weld County. (Department of Public Works) 3. Show and label the approved access(es) (APXX-XXXXX), and the appropriate turning radii on the site plan. (Department of Public Works) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (NOTES ON THE SITE PLAN) 1. The property owner shall control noxious weeds on the site. (Department of Public Works) 2. The access on the site shall be maintained to mitigate any impacts to the public road including damages and/or offsite tracking. (Department of Public Works) 3. There shall be no parking or staging of vehicles on public roads. On -site parking shall be utilized. (Department of Public Works) b;r4.&44..YG4Fw uI.W.f WELD COUNTY INDUSTRIAL PARK LOT 2 SPR16-0008 BEING A PART OF THE 11 1/2 OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANCE 88 WEST, OF THE 8TH P.H., COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO. SHEET I OF 2 .r 1,00. ....., WI New,.„ X..,a. nt :e.rrUN KM ba..runw+0s:.r.73 003Z04041,....0101.04 4002. 4000 000:640,1 0444 .,110 MORT .00 000 00, 030030... MS Re 04000 Erles 00.1 00.0. wr 002 0001 00 00. PM..* gea -. de....61 Tryt r[ 0413.1.' ri00300 .wa_1 II. 20,2 Ille6_110.1.101:312. f,ti— u a040. iff 040 440. I .r....7-„;% I Vw'.i4R• y.P " . 2Cr.C' 00000.4100 • TR 00 44340 10000 0 03000, 0.0 70000444 000.41, 0170 00,30* 040000 000 r, sr, 020700,0 0104•044 ler 1 Anrro¢rrurrvma. At a u.rloft 114 a• yClnvx.nntwrrONC.0.41.4 MM. Tr 400175,41.1 ▪ p , ROM .. o "" � %Mb T '".t 010330 00- 4000 Pt 0000 00,90 001 444 000. 101 010400 if 0- 4-463 COT .WI. Ns. a0010 000044 0.4 ft• w=aVonitiOnt vs' > + «« . 400 10..,, 010003 .01 0440 ..... 00031 00510 14 *TT 000 440 10 000336 40•01.r • W. rc 00«n 41.41.4s a 4141141411.a e ncael x -w 0000 a.....t 7,01, 003 n 410▪ 010 1.0f e10 .0.04 10.0t 03. 004R W013 00000 CLIENT: PECKHAM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION P.O. BOX 273180 FORT COLLINS, CO 80527 HAMMER LAND SURVEYINU, INC. 3050 II7,t Wit 200 'AnsiV.W 8083. P,t L'6 -'.JS -9318 SPR18-0008 LOT 2 WELD COUNTY INDUSTRIAL PARK 2 'f: 0,,,V/181444''''''''' r 2 2 4, b o• r zaZE a -z g2 W a IMitalONFIMMI D Lm 8 xC1 CA CS In CO C 47 9 Qz z CO" re zrZ zRtna r.` f 1,1 3s +� N i — z : Id ♦ 4 • ♦ • 4 • ♦ 4 I4 ♦ t O AJ 31 c SITE PLAN REVIEW (SPR) .APPLICATION FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE DATE RECEIVED: RECEIPT # /AMOUNT # 1$ CASE # ASSIGNED: APPLICATION RECEIVED BY PLANNER ASSIGNED: Parcel Number I 0 c7 - J - - O I - Q C7 (12 digit number - found on Tax I.D. Information, obtainable at the Weld County Assessor's Office, or www.co.we1d.co.us) Legal Description L. 2. LoELf) CUVt t NDU R IA I , Section , Township 4 North, Range (0 6 West Lot/BloclC: L 2 Zone District: , Total Acreage: FEE OWNERS) OF THE PROPERTY: 11.35 , Overlay District: Name: --PectsAAM VE UELurr; A)r CUiPor.ATtUN Work Phone #(Ct (0 -,2 �� Home Phone #010,231 -�C 3kf Email Address: S DEL W Address: T.0 • t(}k a 13 I El)t City/State/Zip Code: f D P J CV LLI t J S, Co S()5 2 7` 31 (.J MPRKboLosmtio e (Joi..rs 1t-1l`S7 't'_►ses k)e_ Ctim Name: OC . KATivit-t De t?. Gpi STEANCt TEt Qt5C5INt. CUwt Work Phone # Home Phone # Email Address: Address: City/State/Zip Code: Name: Work Phone # Home Rhone # Email Address: Address: �` City/State/Zip Code APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (See Below: Authorization must accompany applications signed by Authorized Agent) p�NALL'. t T i V+IVzPc> 60t - Psi -OMEN TEIQP?l5O/ABC . Name: Mfg -\C G0Ln5TCIN PINPIt;R KJ11 -0 0,au'. Q1V) 4&I-'1333 ct`v` Work Phone # i 1U . 1(11-.2 g1 Home Phone # 4 7 U -231- b334 Email Address: rctP RK6DL©5Th itu t 6Dt-pSTliiy EN tu Address: 7. D, 504. X73 nue, doii City/State/Zip Code: 1t)12T (`A) LL I tiS , ( ; D5% 7 - 310 PROPOSED USE: OUTS.I L)6 SiU1-A 66 o1' UI LF(GI_D, AGRtL PL, f,l�tl LIN 4 HEMP( CVU,151-P-VC TIOR) c 0-UtGiui 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. Signatures of all fee owners of property must sign this application. If an Authorized ent signs, a letter of authorization from all fee owners must b ded with the application. If a corporation is t e fee owner, notarized evidence must be included,showin he sign tory has to legal authority to sign for the cQ gration Signature: Owne d Agent Date Signature: Cwner or Authorized Agent 14 fit, Date Weld County Public Works Dept. 1111 H Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Phone: (970)304-6496 Fax: (970)304-6497 Applicant Name MASK Got,O5TI.+N Company NCfC A111 pc-,a,I,D ('t'V t- J i CORpoomo/ Address T. 0 • T)L'X '13 gD City FT • COL4-INS State Zip gI 3 7 -31 S1) Business Phone (QJ10) 'Mg -2)�i7 Fax (Cri �1 .` I - 5�( E-mail JIAt K(3Ql-' iThiN IKK ccfR'l l?c-v_ Got p sr l ri NIEN7g15 [s, tiC , CUHii Coi Parcel Location & Sketch The access is on WCR lUO3R \RA Li/n 03LvD Nearest Intersection: WCR NIDMP t' & WCR 33 Distance from Intersection rllg Ft. Parcel Number IG51-23 - 2 -pi -002 Section/Township/Range :-Z3 _4 -Lt) Is there an existing access to the property?OYES NO Number of Existing Accesses C)` Road Surface Type & Construction Information Asphalt 0 Gravel n Treated (I® Other P IRT Culvert Size & Type )," 1-Q 01 LWUft -. &` In 00 Materials used to construct Access VOA 0,0o)sq 0 gitNvF Construction Start Date If) V Finish Date 1>>t Proposed Use °Temporary (Tracking Pad Required)/ $75 ° Small Commercial or Oil & Gas/$75 ° Field (Agriculture Only)/Exempt ACCESS PERMIT APPLICATION FORM Property Owner (If different than Applicant) Name TEC t l rv1 1?"- 1TE LDPM OUT LG2F' Address TO, 3')( c2`131 &) City T1: CULLIi" JS State C' Zip Phone (R' 7 0) r1 q "JAI B'1 ('Qit)_,‘ ("co 342 Fax gVs2`7-318D E-mail rOPRI (J0i.OSTF Ik) 60Ln.STCiN E rt1 P215CSnve. cony A= Existing Access A= Proposed Access Industrial/$150 0 Subdivision/$150 ° Single Residential/$75 °Large Commercial/$150 Is this access associated with a Planning Process? ONo OUSR ORE OPUD Other Required Attached Documents - Traffic Control Plan -Certificate of Insurance l - Acce Pictures (From the Left, Right, & into the access) By accepting this permit, the undersigned Applicant, under penalty of perjury, verifies that they have received all pages of the permit application; they have read and understand all of the permit requirements and provisions set forth on all pages; that they have the authority to sign for and bind the Applicant, if the Applicant is a corporation or other entity; and that by virtue of their signature the Applicant is bound by and agrees omp with all said permit requirements and provisions, all Weld County ordinances, and state laws regarding facilities constructio Signature kiv4L. f�- t Printed Name 1\4[10 5 (:cl-psi/r) Date 4f 2ZII6 Approval or Denial will be issued in minimum of 5 days. Approved by Revised Date 6/29/10 SITE PLAN REVIEW (SPR) QUESTIONNAIRE Legal: Parcel Number: Section, Township, Range: Acreage: Owner: LOT 2, WELD COUNTY INDUSTRIAL PARK 1057-23-2-01-002 Section 23, Township 4 North, Range 66 West of 6=h P.M. (Weld County) 11.35 acres Peckham Development Corporation Mark Goldstein, President 1. Proposed Use: The proposed Lot 2 comprises 11.35 acres which will be used for Heavy Commercial/Industrial outdoor storage of equipment. The equipment will be a range of different types used in various industrial arenas including oilfield, agricultural, utility, heavy construction, etc. No fluids will be kept in any storage tanks on the site. 2. Employee's: None. 3. Setback/Offset Requirements: The proposed use of outside storage meets the criteria for Commercial Class 3 and Industrial 1-2 & 3 Zoning codes. Weld County Industrial Park is an approved site with the setback and offset requirements meeting Weld County's requirements. 4. Proposed Structures: There are no plans to erect or construct any building on said aforementioned Lot. 5. Signage: There are no plans to place signage on said property. 6. Landscape Requirements: Sub items a -e: There will be no grass, trees, shrubs or bushes on the site. The lot surface will have three (3) inches of compacted road base for the storage area and a six (6) foot chain link perimeter fence with a lock box gated access. There will be no parking lots, sidewalks, gutters or driveways for public parking. Landscape maintenance plan does not apply to our proposed use. 7. Storm Run Off: Said site already drains in accordance with the Master Drainage Design Plan incorporated within the Weld County Industrial Park. Any low spots drains to the master drainage and detention pond located in Weld County Industrial Park known as Outlot S or "Detention Pond" as shown on Aerial Map enclosed within this packet. 8. Off -Street Parking: There will be no designated areas for off-street parking. 2-4 people will travel through the site at sporadic times throughout the week to check on equipment only. 9. Loading/Service Areas: There will be very little truck traffic associated with the proposed storage use for this lot. Equipment will be dropped off and will sit idle for 6-12 months at a time before it is picked up again. a. Semi -truck: When equipment is being dropped off or picked up there will be 20- 30 trucks trips per day for a couple of day period. Loading will be within the designated lot and will not transverse onto or disturb neighboring property. b. Car/Trucks —1 or 2 per day is projected after drop off to check on equipment. 10. Access to Public or Private Street: Traffic will use the haul route approved for the Weld County Industrial Park. Traffic will be accessing the site from the East and West (50/50 distribution) coming off of Highway 85 onto the CR 33 haul route. Once CR 44 is open, 50% of the traffic will be using CR 44 when coming from the East on Highway 85 to CR 44. The access into the internal roadway (Niobrara Blvd) currently has six (6) inches of compacted road base. a. NO DIRT WILL BE GRADED. Three (3) inches of road base will be added to the existing grade. The existing road base is graded to the Master Drainage Retention Pond plan previously approved by Weld County. 11. Access to Public Rights of Way: (Items a -g). Access to Lot 2 of Weld County Road Industrial Park will be via County Road 33 onto Niobrara Blvd. a compacted dirt road base. The access to Lot 2 will comply with fifteen inch (15") diameter culvert at a length of twenty feet (20'). The drainage pipe will be covered to a depth of twelve inches (12") with an access width of twenty four feet (24') for two-way traffic and any extra -large truck load. The grade of the access will be fifteen percent (15%) or less. The flare radius will comply with the industrial zoning requirements of forty foot minimum (40') and the depth of surfacing will be an additional three inches (3") of road base. 12. Acceleration/Deceleration Lanes: North and southbound Highway 85 have acceleration and deceleration lanes in place at County Road 33 and CR 44. County Road 33 and County Road 44 is a two lane low trafficked roadway. 13. Trash Collection: Because this is a proposed storage site for heavy commercial, agricultural and oil and gas industry based equipment, we do not expect to have any trash collecting on the site by owners and/or their perspective tenants. Therefore, a dumpster is not needed in this case. 14. Compatible Usage By Existing Zoning: Weld County Industrial Park is Zoned for Industrial Use. The proposed Lot 2 is in accordance to the zoning rules and regulations set forth by Weld County Code and thus meets the requirements necessary to utilize Lot 2 as a heavy duty fenced storage facility. The neighboring uses are compatible with other neighboring sites already constructed and in operation within the Weld County Industrial Park. a. Noise: The proposed Lot 2 storage lot will create minimal to no noise. b. Air Quality: There will be no fluids stored in any tanks, rigs or equipment that would create an odor. c. Water Quality: There will be no water accessible on Lot 2 as it is deemed for storage purposes only. d. Radiation & Radioactive Materials: No radioactive materials will be allowed to be stored on said lot. e. Heat: The storage lot will be open air and no heat will be provided. f. Glare: Said Lot is not projected to have any lighting installed on said site, which would not cause any glare or illumination to create a traffic hazard or disturb neighboring property owners. g. Property Maintenance: The proposed Lot has been graded and free from weeds and no grasses shall be grown on said site. If any noxious weeds propagate onto the site, they will be exterminated by a professional/licensed applier from Weld County's Weed Control list of providers. h. Off -Site and On -Site Improvements Agreements: Any off -site or on -site improvements will be made in conformance with Weld County's policy and will be submitted to Weld County officials in advance. Upon approval we understand that collateral for said improvements may be required. 15. Proposed One -Site and Off -Site Improvements: Said lot will have six foot chain link fence around its perimeter. An ingress/egress chain link access gate will be installed with lock box and key. A portion of the chain link fence in view of the public eye/road will be screened. Weld County Sheriff, LaSalle Fire Department and other emergency personnel will have a key or a lock box code for entry. Lot 2's proposed access is approximately Thirty Feet (30') away from nearest Industrial strength fire hydrant as shown on the plat map to follow. A Porta-Potty (Country John's) a reputable company, will be engaged to place and upkeep a Porta- Potty for use on said site throughout its entirety. Access Construction will commence upon acceptance of said submitted SPR packet and Approval of an Access Permit enclosed within this packet. Access culvert can be completed in approximately two to three weeks (weather permitting) upon Weld County Building Department's approval and consent to proceed. It must be reiterated that: NO DIRT WILL BE GRADED. Three inches "3" of road base will be added to the existing grade. The existing road and lot is graded to the Master Drainage Retention Pond previously approved by Weld County officials. Therefore, we conclude our submittal of answers to your inquiries regarding the proposed use of said lot aforementioned. Should you have any other concerns or questions, please contact me. Peckham Development Corporation By: • Mark S. Goldstein, President 11614 -- PO Box 273180 Fort Collins, CO 80525-3180 Office: (970) 797-2187 or cell: (970) 231-6389 E -Mail: Mark Goldstein@goldsteinenterprisesinc.com CC: Kathy Herder, Assistant at: kathvherder@goldsteinenterprisesinc.com TRAFFIC NARRATIVE Legal: Parcel Number: Section, Township, Range: Acreage: Owner: Roads and Right of Way: LOT 2, WELD COUNTY INDUSTRIAL PARK 1057-23-2-01-002 Section 23, Township 4 North, Range 66 West of 6th P.M. (Weld County) 11.35 acres Peckham Development Corporation Mark Goldstein, President County Road 33 is a paved road which turns into compacted dirt road and is designated by Weld County as a local road. County Road 33 is dedicated to meet Weld County code for (sixty) 60 foot right of way. County Road 44 is a paved road and is designated by Weld County as an arterial road requiring 140 ft. at full buildout. Currently County Road 44 is maintained by Weld County and is currently not used as an access point into Weld County Industrial Park or onto Niobrara Blvd. Niobrara Blvd. is the main road into Weld County Industrial Park which has compacted road base and dedicated to meet Weld County's requirements of a sixty (60) foot set back. Niobrara Blvd. is maintained by Weld County Industrial Park. Niobrara Blvd. will be the main access into Lot 2. Traffic Requirements: 1. Round trips per day per vehicle type: We expect 1 trip in and 1 trip out of Lot 2 per day from a passenger car, truck, semi -truck or Trailer after initial storage lay down. 2. Describe expected travel/haul routes: All ingress into Lot 2 will be a right turn from Niobrara Blvd. Egress will be a left turn onto Niobrara Blvd. Upon reaching the intersection of Niobrara Blvd. and County 33 all vehicles, trucks, semi's and etc. must make a right turn lane and travel westerly to Highway 85 interchange. At County Road 33 and Highway 85, travelers can choose to go northerly (right) towards Greeley or southbound (left) towards Denver. 3. Travel Distribution along the Routes: Currently all traffic will travel southbound on Niobrara Blvd to County Road 33. No left turns are acceptable off of Niobrara Blvd onto County Road 33. Right turn only (west bound) which takes you directly to the Highway 85 interchange. 4. Expected Highest Traffic Volume: We project the highest traffic volume will be morning hours between 6:00 AM and 9:00 AM, lunch time 12:00 PM to 2:00 PM and near close of day 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. As stated in the application, once a tenant has laid down its storage items, traffic will diminish tremendously and would remain for months or up to a year. In this time we believe that the premises would then only be checked by the tenant once a week or twice a week, if even that. We expect minimal traffic impact for Lot 2 proposed storage usage. Shared Access Maintenance Agreement: Peckham Development together with Weld County Industrial Park Association has a road maintenance agreement in place throughout the park for current lot owners and future prospective tenants and lot owners. Entrance Gates: Lot 2 will have a lock box gated access which will be set back a minimum of one hundred (100) feet from the edge of the existing shoulder to allow a semi, trailer, RV, trucks, bobcat loaders and cars to access the Lot easily without obstructing the traffic flow on Niobrara Blvd. Turning Radi: The access to Lot 2 will allow for the required twenty-five (25) feet turning radius for cars and sixty (60) feet for trucks. This radius will also allow a vehicle/truck to pull over to traffic if two or more vehicles are following, complete a U -Turn, or get out and pull off to open the gate without impeding traffic flow on Niobrara Blvd. Drainage Flows and Grading Permit: Weld County Industrial Park and Peckham Development Corporation have already in place an approved drainage plan and grading permit with Weld County official and will remain in compliance for this Industrial Park. Geological Hazard: Weld County Industrial Park presents no geological hazard. Floodplain: Diana Aungst, Weld County official was contacted on March 29th, 2016 at (970) 353-6100 ext. 3524 (email: daungst@iweldgov.com) to determine if said Lot 2 was in a flood plain. Per Diana this lot is not within a flood zone. Also checking with FEMA Firm website this part of Weld County is not mapped. Therefore Lot 2 is conceded to have no potential flooding hazard Parking & Traffic Circulation on Lot: Lot 2 will not having a parking lot and traffic circulation will be an interior graded road. Mining Permits: Lot 2 of Weld County Industrial Park has not applied for any mining permits, nor is it currently operating any gravel pit or mining extraction processes. Lot 2 is currently vacant dormant land. EXHIBIT EE WELD COUNTY ACCESS PERMIT Weld County Public Works Dept. 1111 H Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 /C W Permit Number: AP16-00267 Phone: (970) 304-6496 After Hours: (970) 356-4000 Emergency Services: (970) 304-6500 x 2700 Inspection: (970) 304-6480 Issuance of this permit binds applicant and its contractors to all requirements, provisions, and ordinances of Weld County, Colorado. Project Name: SPR16-0007 Applicant Information: Name: Mark Goldstein Company: Peckham Development Corporation Phone: 970-797-2187 Email: kathyherder@goldsteinenterprisesinc.com Location: Access is on WCR: Nearest Intersection WCR: Distance From Intersection: Number of Existing Accesses: 33 33 870 1 Planning Process: Other SPR16-0007 Road Surface Type & Construction Information: Road Surface: Asphalt Culvert Size & Type: 15" CMP/RCP min. if req. Start Date: Finish Date: Materials to Construct Access: roadbase & WCR: Hwy 85 Required Attached Documents Submitted: Traffic Control Plan: No Certificate of Insurance: No Expiration date: Property Owner Information: Name: Company: Phone: Email: same as applicant Proposed Use: Temporary: Single Residential: Industrial: Small Commercial: Oil & Gas: Large Commercial: Subdivision: Field (Agricultural Only)/Exempt: Ev7 Access Pictures: Yes A copy of this permit must be on site at all times during construction hours Daily work hours are Monday through Friday DAYLIGHT to Y2 HOUR BEFORE DARK (applies to weekends if approved) Approved MUTCD traffic control/warning devices are required before work begins and must remain until completion of work Special Requirements or Comments Parcel 105723201005. Utilize existing access point on CR 33 (1 -Industrial) located approx. 870 ft. South of Hwy 85. Approved by: Digitally signed by Morgan ON: unMoagan Gabbed, o, au, emaf gabben6wddgov.cam cU6 Date: 1016.06.77 16:d917 -0600' Weld County Public Works Date: 6/22/2016 Print Date -Time: 6/22/2016 4:45:57PM Access Permit PW008 Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Diana Aungst, Planning Services DATE: June 13, 2016 FROM: Janet Lundquist, Public Works SUBJECT: SPR16-0007 Peckham Development Corporation The Weld County Department of Public Works has reviewed this proposal. Staff comments made during this phase of the application process may not be all-inclusive, as other issues may arise during the remaining application process. COMMENTS: General Project Information/Location: Project description: A Site Plan Review application for outdoor storage of equipment including oilfiled equipment, agricultural equipment, utility and heavy construction equipment in the 1-3 (Industrial) Zone District. This project is east of CR 33 and is south of CR 44. Parcel number 105723201005. Access is from CR 33. Access: In the future Niobrara Blvd could be upgraded to a public roadway. For that reason Public Works requests an access permit application for the purposes of inventory. The fee and requirement of pictures, traffic control plan, certificates on insurance are waived. For shared accesses, Public Works strongly recommends that the property owner establish an access road maintenance agreement so future owners of the properties will be aware of their requirements for shared maintenance of the access road. This Is not a requirement for the recorded exemption but is recommended to avoid property owner conflicts in the future. Entrance gates (if applicable) must be set back a minimum of 100 feet from edge of shoulder to allow a truck with trailer or RV to pull completely off of the roadway and open the gate. In no case shall any vehicles) stopped to open a gate be allowed to create a safety issue for roadway users. Roads: County Road 33 is a paved road and is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a local road, which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall delineate on the site plan the future and existing right-of-way. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of future right-of-way. This road is maintained by Weld County. County Road 44 is a paved road and is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a arterial road, which requires 140 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall delineate on the site plan the future and existing right-of-way. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of future right- of-way. This road is maintained by Weld County. Traffic: Latest ADT on CR 33 was taken on 1/24/2014 which counted 442 vpd with 62% trucks. A traffic narrative was submitted with the application materials and indicated that there will be approximately 20-30 truck trips per day during the truck drop off period (A few days every 6-12 months) as well as 2 passenger vehicle daily roundtrips. The expected traffic routes are CR 33 to Highway 85 and CR 44 to Highway 85 (After the access is built) and distribution of traffic is estimated to be 50/50. The site will have no employees working on the site beside occasional equipment drop off and pickup. The traffic information submitted with the application materials indicated that there will be approximately 2 daily roundtrips. TRACKING CONTROL: The Weld County Industrial Park Subdivision has tracking control in place to prevent tracking from the site onto public roadways. Temporary Tracking Control from the project site onto Niobrara Blvd is suggested to be used during construction unless permanent tracking control is installed ahead of construction activities. Improvements and Road Maintenance Agreement: The Weld County Industrial Park Subdivision has an existing improvements agreement in place to address future roadway improvements to CR 33 and CR 44. A development standard will be applied to the recorded map Indicating any impacts to the road must be mitigated by the owner. The access on the site shall be maintained to mitigate any impacts to the public road including damages and/or offsite tracking. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. The plan shall be amended to delineate the following: 1. County Road 33 is a gravel road and is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a local road which requires 60 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall delineate on the site plan the existing right-of-way. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of right-of- way. This road is maintained by Weld County. (Department of Public Works) 2. County Road 44 is a paved road and is designated on the Weld County Road Classification Plan as a arterial road which requires 140 feet of right-of-way at full buildout. The applicant shall delineate on the site plan the future and existing right-of-way. All setbacks shall be measured from the edge of future right-of-way. This road is maintained by Weld County. (Department of Public Works) 3. Show and label the approved access(es) (APXX-XXXXX), and the appropriate turning radii on the site plan. (Department of Public Works) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (NOTES ON THE SITE PLAN) 1. The property owner shall control noxious weeds on the site. (Department of Public Works) 2. The access on the site shall be maintained to mitigate any impacts to the public road including damages and/or offsite tracking. (Department of Public Works) 3. There shall be no parking or staging of vehicles on public roads. On -site parking shall be utilized. (Department of Public Works) wi gel z JE � it CN 35 aA e&�. 1. PG H 3: 8� E A h € € € IAA ,t� 0ili ax €i 01 ' I 14 Ai *$ 3 23 X it 5 %. t o 4 w e g 6 3 JO ALNf10J '0/210103 0 CO z ro CO H 0 •!7 0 H x Cn O CO C9 H O z CO H 0 ro x z co cn 0 CA ro O Nolo wegg 4t O „z3 .3 y .b nontWi OOY OCa tt z mz� o� Tr ro N z cn 7tl W zo dc yr 0 y [r rT 9 VI OC d C3 0 C •z 3 •C COUNTY ROAD NO. 33 SO' PRESCRIPTIVE COUNTY NNNTNIEO PIONT-OE-WAY EAST SIDE Sc SECTION UNE SO' RIGHT Of WRY WEST SEE Of SECTOR INE JULY I. IBM NOON PAGE 23.3 Z O Tn mm n m o NORTH zz or. am X ,It to z A' 0 z n ' a .< o Oz .1 rn era 91 -C7O PO •-3 CO '21i.1b N O '+1 En En .73 0 "+7 x Co NOr Cz7 n O z z EXHIBIT FF MEMORANDUM TO: Diana Aungst, Planning Services DATE: 2/26/15 FROM: Jen Petrik, P.E., Development Review Engineer SUBJECT: SPR15-0001, Peckham Development Oil and Gas Support Facility, trucking, maintenance and shop The Weld County Department of Planning Services -Engineering has reviewed this proposal. Staff comments made during this phase of the application process may not be all-inclusive, as other issues may arise during the remaining application process. COMMENTS: General Project Information/Location: This project is proposed to be a trucking operations site for oil and gas projects in the region. In addition to truck parking, the site will also include a shop and dispatch office. This project is located with the Weld County Industrial Park located south of CR44 and east of HWY85. Parcel #105723201006. Roads: The roadway accessing this parcel is an internal subdivision road maintained by the business owner association. This road is not maintained by Weld County. Per the traffic memo from Gene Cappola, PE, PTOE, the internal roadway currently provides access to CR33 and additional access is anticipated onto CR44 mid 2015. CR33 will be paved from HWY85 to the subdivision intersection. Traffic: Per the traffic memo from Gene Cappola, PE, PTOE, about 530 vehicles per day use CR33 and 1,625 vehicles per day use CR44 based on 2014 traffic counts. On a daily basis an estimated 30 trucks and 45 passenger vehicles will arrive and depart the site. Peak hour traffic is anticipated to be between 6am and 8am with 15 drivers arriving to the site and 15 trucks leaving the site. Per meeting with Janet Lundquist of Public Works, Marc Goldstein and the applicant on November 20, 2014, traffic from this site triggers offsite improvements. Access is being pursued off of CR44 by Big Thompson Investment Holdings, LLC. Access: An access permit has been approved for this subdivision onto CR33 and CR44 (AP12-00008). Other PW Permits: A Right -of -Way Use Permit is required for any work in the Weld County Right -of -Way. Contact Weld County Public Works at 970-304-6496 ext. 3764. A Transport Permit is required for any oversize and/or over weight vehicles. Contact Weld County Public Works at 970-304-6496 ext. 3764. General Site Plan Requirements: i.e (IA, RMA, City Town Agreement, etc..., offsite auxiliary lanes) Improvements Agreement: An improvements agreement (IA) is in place between Big Thompson Investment Holdings, LLC and the County for triggering offsite roadway improvements including turn lanes on CR44 and/or CR33. This improvements agreement was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March 26, 2014 and recorded the same day with reception number 4004604. Geologic hazard Area: This area IS NOT in a Geologic Hazard Area. Floodplain: This area IS NOT in a Floodplain. Drainage Study: A drainage narrative was prepared by and stamped and signed by Mark Skelskey PE#39396 of Samuel Engineering, dated 12-15-14. The engineer indicated the flows from the site were 20% below what was calculated for the master drainage report for this site and all runoff for this project is directed to the detention pond. The narrative is accepted by Weld County. This site is not within an MS4 area. Grading Permit A Weld County Grading Permit will be required if disturbing more than 1 acre. Contact the Planning Department for more information. A Construction Stormwater Permit is also required with the State for disturbing more than 1 acre. Contact: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, Rik Gay, 303- 692-3575. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The map shall be amended to delineate the following: A. Show the approved access(es) on the plat and label with the approved access permit number (AP12-00008). B. The applicant shall indicate specifically on the plat any right of way and/or easements and indicate whether they are dedicated, private, or deeded and label with recorded document, book and page and/or reception number. C. Show and label standard tracking control onto publically maintained roadways on the map. D. Show and label the drainage facilities, drainage flow arrows, and parking and circulation on the map. Prior to Construction: A. If more than 1 acre is to be disturbed, a Weld County grading permit will be required prior to the start of construction. Contact the Planning Department for application information. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (NOTES ON THE PLAT) 1. Should noxious weeds exist on the property, or become established as a result of the proposed development, the applicant/landowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds, pursuant to Chapter 15, Articles I and II, of the Weld County Code. 2. The historical flow patterns and runoff amounts will be maintained on the site. 3. Weld County is not responsible for the maintenance of onsite drainage related features. 4. There shall be no parking or staging of vehicles on County roads. On -site parking shall be utilized. 5. The applicant shall adhere to the existing Improvements Agreement reception number 4004604 recorded 3/26/14 is required. Case Number: Applicant: Legal Description: Zoning: Proposed Use: SITE PLAN REVIEW Administrative Review Site Plan Review SPR15-0001 Parcel Number: 1057-23-2-01-006 JLW Investment LLC c/o Jesse White Lot 6 of Weld County Industrial Park being part of the W2 of Section 23, T4N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. 1-3 (Industrial Zone District) A Site Plan Review application for an Oil and Gas Support and Service Facility (Water Hauling facility) with truck parking, shop, office, and outside storage Site Plan Review Standards Comments Meets the Intent of the Weld County Code Site Plan Certification Included in Application YES Retention Facilities Per Engineering referral dated February 26, 2015 YES Offstreet Parking Per Sections 23-3-350.B. and 23-4-10. thru 23-4-40. YES Loading Areas Per Sections 23-3-350.C. and 23-4-50.A. thru 23-4-50.E. YES Access Per Section 23-3-350 D. YES Setback Requirements Per Section 23-3-350 F.1. YES Offset Requirements Per Section 23-3-350 F.2. YES Landscaping Per Section 23-3-350.G. show and label the 10' landscape strip and add the percentage of landscaping on the site map NO Trash Collection and Storage Per Section 23-3-350.H. Show the detail of the screening YES Potable Water Central Weld County Water District YES Sewage Disposal Septic system and portable toilets for the drivers YES Environment Standards Per application YES Property Maintenance Per Section 23-2-160.U.7 YES SPR15-0001 Page 1 of 6 Narrative: This SPR is for a trucking facility including truck parking, service shop and office. The site is currently vacant land. There will be up to 15 office employees at the facility and up to 34 trucks at the facility. The applicant has indicated that this facility will be utilized for trucking services only and produced water and other exploration and production wastes will not be transported, managed, or stored at the facility. Additionally, the applicant indicated diesel storage will not occur at the facility. The applicant indicated that the property is served by the Central Weld County Water District and the applicant is proposing to install a septic system at the facility. Portable toilets can be utilized for drivers as it is the policy of the Department of Public Health and Environment that portable toilets are allowed when employees or contractors are on site for less than 2 consecutive hours a day. The application materials show 23 parking stalls including 2 ADA parking stalls. The landscaping needs to be shown and labeled on the site plan. Adequate screening is provided for the entire property. This site plan review is approved with the attached conditions: 1. The Site Plan Review Map shall be prepared in accordance with Section 23-2-160.W of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) 2. The applicant shall submit one (1) electronic (.pdf) copy or one (1) paper copy of the site plan review map for preliminary approval to the Department of Planning Services. Upon approval of the map, the applicant shall submit a Mylar, along with all other documentation required as conditions of approval. The Mylar shall be recorded in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder by the Department of Planning Services. The Mylar and additional requirements shall be recorded within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date the administrative review was signed. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the recording fee. If the Site Plan Review Map has not been recorded within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date the administrative review was signed, or if an applicant is unwilling or unable to meet any of the conditions within one hundred twenty (120) days of approval, the application will be forwarded to the Weld County Code Compliance for violation. The Director of Planning Services may grant an extension of time, for good cause shown, upon a written request by the applicant. (Department of Planning Services) 3. Prior to recording the Site Plan Review Map, the applicant shall address the following to the Department of Planning Services' satisfaction: A. The applicant shall submit a waste handling plan, for approval, to the Environmental Health Services Division of the Weld County Department of Public Health & Environment. (Department of Public Health & Environment) B. In the event washing of vehicles or equipment will occur on site the applicant shall ensure that any vehicle/equipment washing area(s) shall capture all effluent and prevent discharges. Vehicle/equipment washing areas should be designated on the plat. (Department of Public Health & Environment) C. The applicant shall submit documentation that floor drain wastes from any vehicle maintenance facility is captured in a watertight vault. (Department of Public Health & Environment) D. The map shall be amended to delineate the following: 1. All pages of the Site Plan Review Map shall be labeled Site Plan Review SPR15-0001. (Department of Planning Services) 2. The map shall be prepared in accordance with Section 23-2-160.W of the Weld County Code, specifically to scale and label all adjacent County Roads. (Department of Planning Services) SPR15-0001 Page 2 of 6 3. Section 23-3-350.G. states: No more than eighty-five percent (85%) of the total area of a lot in any Industrial Zone District shall be covered. Land shall not be deemed covered if it is used for growing grass, shrubs, trees, plants or flowers or if covered by decorative gravel or wood chips, or if it is otherwise suitably landscaped. The applicant shall ensure that 15% of the site is landscaped. Add the percentage of landscaping to the site plan map. (Department of Planning Services) 4. The applicant shall submit a Landscape Plan for review and approval by the Department of Planning Services. The applicant shall include in the Landscape Plan the following information: a. A landscape maintenance schedule which specifically states who will perform maintenance and that maintenance is on -going and shall not end upon final acceptance by the Department of Planning Services. b. Plant Material List specifying the Botanical and Common names of all plant material (including sizes of the plant material). Landscaping shall be installed per the approved plans. (Department of Planning Services) 5. Provide details of all signs. Only one freestanding sign is allowed per Appendix 23-C and 23-D of the Weld County Code. Show the distance from the future right-of-way to the sign and label the dimensions of the sign. (Department of Planning Services) 6. Outside storage of vehicles, equipment or materials utilized on this property, the materials shall be screened from public rights -of -way and all adjacent properties. (Department of Planning Services) 7. Show a detail section of the screening used for the trash collection area. Also add an arrow to specifically identify the Screened Trash Enclosure as it is not clear on most of the sheets. (Department of Planning Services) 8. Show and label the portable toilets on the site plan and show, label and detail the screening for these portable toilets. (Department of Planning Services) 9. Show the approved access(es) on the plat and label with the approved access permit number (AP12-00008). (Department of Planning Services - Engineer) 10. The applicant shall indicate specifically on the plat any right of way and/or easements and indicate whether they are dedicated, private, or deeded and label with recorded document, book and page and/or reception number. (Department of Planning Services - Engineer) 11. Show and label standard tracking control onto publically maintained roadways on the map. (Department of Planning Services - Engineer) 12. Show and label the drainage facilities, drainage flow arrows, and parking and circulation on the map. (Department of Planning Services - Engineer) E. The following notes shall be placed on the map: 1. All proposed or existing structures will or do meet the minimum setback and offset requirements for the zone district in which the property is located. Pursuant to the definition of setback in the Weld County Code, the required setback is measured from the future rights -of -way line. (Department of Planning Services) SPR15-0001 Page 3 of 6 2. In the event that a portion of the building or lot is proposed to be leased to another party in the future, the applicant shall submit a copy of the lease agreement and information regarding the proposed use of the leased portion to the Weld County Attorney's office, Weld County Building Inspection Department, La Salle Fire Protection District, and the Department of Planning Services for review. Based upon the proposed use and/or impacts of the leased portion, the Department of Planning Services may require a new Site Plan Review application. (Department of Planning Services) 3. In accordance with the Weld County Code, no land, building or structure shall be changed in use or type of occupancy, developed, erected, constructed, reconstructed, moved or structurally altered or operated in the Commercial/Industrial Zone District until a Site Plan Review has been approved by the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services) 4. Lighting shall comply with the requirements and standards for off-street parking spaces per Section 23-4-30.E, Section 23-2-250.D and Section 23-3-250.B.6 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) 5. All signs shall adhere to Chapter 23, Article IV, Division 2 and Appendices 23-C, 23-D and 23-E of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) 6. Building Permits issued on the proposed lots will be required to adhere to the fee structure of the Countywide Road Impact Programs. (Department of Planning Services) 7. Building Permits issued on the proposed lots, will be required to adhere to the fee structure of the County Facility Fee and Drainage Impact Fee Programs. (Department of Planning Services) 8. Landscaping materials as indicated in the approved Landscape/Screening Plan shall be maintained at all times. Dead or diseased plant materials shall be replaced with materials of similar quantity and quality at the earliest possible time. (Department of Planning Services) 9. Should noxious weeds exist on the property, or become established as a result of the proposed development, the applicant/landowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds, pursuant to Chapter 15, Articles I and II, of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services - Engineer) 10. The historical flow patterns and runoff amounts will be maintained on the site. (Department of Planning Services - Engineer) 11. Weld County is not responsible for the maintenance of onsite drainage related features. (Department of Planning Services - Engineer) 12. There shall be no parking or staging of vehicles on County roads. On -site parking shall be utilized. (Department of Planning Services - Engineer) 13. The applicant shall adhere to the existing Improvements Agreement reception number 4004604 recorded 3/26/14. (Department of Planning Services - Engineer) 13. All liquid and solid wastes (as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended) shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 14. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, 30-20-100.5, C.R.S., as amended. (Department of Public Health & Environment) SPR15-0001 Page 4 of 6 15. Exploration and production wastes, including produced water, will not be managed, treated, stored or disposed of at this facility. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 16. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust, fugitive particulate emissions, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. The applicant shall operate in accordance with the approved Waste Handling Plan, at all times. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 17. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site. The facility shall be operated in accordance with the approved Dust Abatement Plan, at all times. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 18. All potentially hazardous chemicals must be handled in a safe manner in accordance with product labeling. All chemicals must be stored securely, on an impervious surface, and in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 19. Any vehicle or equipment washing areas shall capture all effluent and prevent discharges in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Water Quality Control Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 20. Floor drain wastes from any vehicle maintenance facility shall be captured in a watertight vault and hauled off for proper disposal. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 21. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Industrial Zone as delineated in Section 14-9-30 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 22. Adequate drinking, hand washing and toilet facilities shall be provided for employees and patrons of the facility, at all times. For employees or contractors on site for less than 2 consecutive hours a day, portable toilets and bottled water are acceptable. Records of maintenance and proper disposal for portable toilets shall be retained on a quarterly basis and available for review by the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment. Portable toilets shall be serviced by a cleaner licensed in Weld County and shall contain hand sanitizers. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 23. Sewage disposal for the facility shall be by septic system. Any septic system located on the property must comply with all provisions of the Weld County Code, pertaining to On - site Wastewater Treatment Systems. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 24. A permanent, adequate water supply shall be provided for drinking and sanitary purposes. The facility shall utilize the existing public water supply. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 14. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of State and Federal agencies and the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 15. Sources of light shall be shielded so that light rays will not shine directly onto adjacent properties where such would cause a nuisance or interfere with the use on the adjacent properties in accordance with the plan. Neither the direct, nor reflected, light from any light source may create a traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles on public or private streets. No colored lights may be used which may be confused with, or construed as, traffic control devices. (Department of Planning Services) 16. All structures, including signs, on site must obtain the appropriate building permits. (Department of Building Inspection) SPR15-0001 Page 5of6 17. A building and electrical permit will be required, per Section 29-3-10 of the Weld County Code, for any new structures ,additions or renovation to any structures. A building permit application must be completed and two complete sets of engineered plans. MSDS sheets for all materials stored shall be submitted with building permit applications. (Department of Building Inspection) 18. Buildings and structures shall conform to the requirements of the various codes adopted at the time of permit application. Currently the following has been adopted by Weld County: 2012 International Building Code; 2012 International Mechanical Code; 2012 International Plumbing Code:; 2012 International Fuel Gas Code; 2006 International Energy Code; 2011 National Electrical Code; 2009 ANSI 117.1 Accessibility Code and Chapter 29 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Building Inspection) 4. Prior to the release of building permits: A. In the event washing of vehicles or equipment will occur on site the applicant shall ensure that any vehicle/equipment washing area(s) shall capture all effluent and prevent discharges. (Department of Public Health & Environment) B. The applicant shall submit documentation that floor drain wastes from any vehicle maintenance facility is captured in a watertight vault. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 5. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy: A. An onsite wastewater treatment system is required for the proposed facility and shall be installed according to the Weld County Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Regulations. The septic system is required to be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer according to the Weld County Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Regulations. (Department of Public Health & Environment) 6. Prior to Construction: A. If more than 1 acre is to be disturbed, a Weld County grading permit will be required prior to the start of construction. Contact the Planning Department for application information. (Department of Planning Services - Engineer) 7. Prior to Operation: A. The applicant shall ensure that all paving requirement of CR 33 have been addressed per the meeting held at the Weld County Department of Public Works Offices on March 11, 2015. (Department of Planning Services) Site Plan Review conditionally approved by: Diana Aungst, Plann II SPR15-0001 Page 6 of 6 Date: 3/20/15 g iz �eY $ g ?' �o 8 8 LLii' €' @' 8qE L $ f o ; ssi 3 n r c= ,gq E 8 �g. € � S� 6 a$ 0 k L� g�g 9 8 ,2 U ARE -. F ag - ry s 5 r kg s 's $ 2;s� a i _ I2 gg gg21 3c 4 W 2 § 1 2 E x 3 Y - $ 1 F 1 €t k F e` E1 �Y- ass I2 1 Sg iJ :2 e 8 s 2 2 FF Ba 2� g s o 2a s; g gys s 1; t 1 g a i E 1 88 Ag I1 3₹ aQ Ili $ jo8 -- e 1 u Ea l i asl '�_ 8 r; 8J P 8 X 1 F s 1a ag 28 = 8f El s v _ 8 S it F« &'i a §E h g 21 z 1 E 11 i I- 12 2 '! 1 1 g 3� S 8 s 8 38 gg3 c E' 2 e E I$ 4 x 2%R 1 €I 1 E 0 g Eat 8 s 1^ 2ss 15-gia-i 'I55 =g 3 I i!!t91 a i e l r2 u^g ili 2 ge i'l gFS• 2 r° g$e -12 lei sj a ,V2 Z- f ';It E„ 1 i i 4 „8 ES sn 8" Li P `l 1? m 2l gs; g Eg F 1 t � g> 1 TITLE OIL AND GAS SUPPORT MOLTTY CIVIL COVER SHEET SITE PLAN REVIEW SPRI5-0001 SHEET I Of 3 G I M O Z g' " 1 € 3EY e '11. 111 li axxit;Ps£:1x$h 1Egg - -- € p cS§paEl ,tn§i I s°as=ss= 2= 3 g 8 - _ e W 2f 2 gg gS j3� u 1 ggg 2„ al t S Cgs E E 227 x 3 1 g $w C'1 Ti IN ; � Eg sg �5 2 �" -- F-3 ,% 4, It a=3ig 5qY i A 83EE i3S g=; e iF ro fl 2g 2 5 g a. ;i gt E„ =n₹ P6 2 s $<„ a" It - qx lg2S 22 3M _$ s a =g €; - 3s 'g;d 2Plg$2 rg €2�.r2E"gm i d gd lip ;g' If 8 g� 22 2� I E ; %Ea 1 gi 22 l; e 9 22,%1 -I 3 8 125 �9q li f2F !al" ill6: e S II ;l 19 s g i oe v9 rz �! E2 I t "g m:s"] '� !$_ 3 2112 82 g Iis " i5ag H 2 t II 1 ilhIt � nIfljj ilxi3 a X•s@ Y=9 aaScarilig - $$ i £1 -�i" sags?fie ' a 22seE ! x $g I H :d i :2 3€03? <: I � Iia silflII'! 3_ ., m m m- r_ - _ r r r ry r r Ian ENT, L.L.C. PORT FACILITY NDUSTRIAL PARK COLORADO EW SPR15-000l Se a3 5 _,iI E 8 6 t ivninw rva31S � --"----n?" S 0 8' 8 Q s� i ` y i i i ' v \ o. i • I E B 6 8 y ySppS 5 e- s, �•� •s�>� • • i E 8 a I Ogg re - 2 i B 3 _ Site P '4664'"w64144414141.31 JLW INVESTM OIL AND GAS SUP LOT 6, WELD COUNTY I WELD COUNTY, SITE PLAN REW SITE STATISTICS ZONE DISTRICT u I r.PR 5 POINT OF CURVATURE NORTHING POINT OF CURVATURE POINT OF INTERSECTION POINT OF TANGENCY SPOT ELEVATION D.W. RIGHT-OF-WAY fRICAL ENGINEER Si ACCESS PERMIT NUMBER API 2-00C WESTERN MUTUAL DITCH CRN ACCESS PERMIT NUMBER API3 %/ S _ L m k; $ di ®®$ 9 E aaySSS§§ 8a n7 1 [ .1g1 i la. G3 !OE :a 1.16 jltm B. o p; EW s Ili • <� t I E ft o r2 ; p[' 52 We'll !:IflId-$ �. a W g�r �F g s R 8 F o '� Ai • J g �j i g $ ci W x gi �� og� ?!1 g.2 2 s- ₹5-E I m mE. ii � �� aigg ffiml ' 2 0�1ii R nisi � i 3 a �9 -;1 i 'y ..m '_ §g mss o2`. 5 g 5 00 ' es 2 ? 8 '-rd,iiog g8': Wig a 8 g I fp ° i ,v- 1. Y'og P260 < NO o 9i a 3"0 iig gya l8 T E2 $ e y 14 $ ' € ` i' 'g I /ill 4 (11I. y '� ? U m 23R 3 l m 83 8 8 gt =_ is oyi g Eog I foo; 'god m>- ? i d 2 ii E tzI it g; Ei�; 5 da ii I II f w Z a w �+ t� 63° @ E bl 3 C 2' 1 11 I gisig !PE < I g _fin um,t l!§!� Wn8 -i .iEl 9„gg E o o m `U W3 . r '°-g .y g'" _"6�a �3: C� g f; € i of <u� <tim J '�2 ili"" 3' ttl1 e �3 11::$�� p I y € EEP,{g �x d F p 2 I2 y. $g 5E€� ° 3 spa yiL! FF88 3 R T� i� i 9;' �rtl�i � �r� it y E �M',00-n,c:�n,000ssws.•n�+wuro�mrnmrs��+.'„I^ti-iiei„m.lan�s o ts wee ;₹ o b wg�E EE N !i T lam WO igg w 4§ 4o 3 'ii z L? 3Mt tliP € o s€ g am • I' tm 5i 41i C" 3 m a N !a a)LL I14111 I 14211 -CE -0101 r oi- 'o �i i II I I I i$ ‹fit mr I E S= `i • t pg g u. i2 Sig 3 ia'" G 3�§u rvi5 _ PIE e s$ G ;Ss CIE 1 G i�6 y 3-, f, ;1 8 ms( ws E•{1 f/1 3 `� 1 1 I I - \ I I J7-� �, a-a�Sle� _.. � , 3 g 5E i A t� ��! , 1 4 j 1 5 1 .•:. r..,, �gS 3130 y y I -) I ::�; jS j E i n > i • t " §i w �..s�l' L_J 9_ P. i _ W L_J U2 A..... .- •�g k 1• 11 Sw so iii •7\- • 1 .A dpi i I- 11 4, k' u a g 1 ; I I I I i4b i !A1l! -I ........,.• -- I REVISIONS I tl 1 I I ."� I ii I I �: I I is I I I ICI III II l I' III I' I: 1 ,.....w�� 0 b6 .il'. igESh ' I .t. Ia�� it t II ru. +�� ! 3 I I J I;/ I I : j j. '.t. I :I: I I I 1 I I ►• ...�... _t,-- •.•.•.' '4 b 1 3 a 4 9 M q 3 lid :i', 7 ,.r,' ter'•:•: • . /..,:e..."" ,t • 1 �' a o fit.. Rd 7 •'� a y� ti . .. M5000 117.,5 o-• 3h 12 I Idik 73{ 2 to 3: ;gi Og S o gigna) . w i.1 a th MAINTENANCE/OFFICE BUILDING CIVIL FENCE DETAILS SHEET 3 OF 3 (( gii , m_m di ` € GATE POST TOP RAIL 1.66.O.D PPE 3.37 OPEMTING, LLC n••41 _ es WELD COUNTY, CO �/''� '�••'e1 IO Samuel Engineering 301.0.1.1 37I„ 8;n3$ -It 5g w 3 i 0 V i tgu 6 guq° g 2E0 gS5o2 a3 L-7 T/ ,,IS =8 7, e zp F W wJ W LL qq yy Y p( i 3 A1d3O .9E O NMOH9 niroM.0-9V! .i[ GIlYOJ39).9'9 S15• N '- 1VN1NON .i 9]V99 Y 31N9 [ o 5 S b I c x{ 1§dCdst' a 39 1 I i i Gz oG u 9 u /I rr S "so z m i a go ! n° r• a� m_m 3 TOP BRACE RAIL 1.6V O.0.PIPE 2.27 I 1 + e O i uznim . e li f a radgt 3,Km LLya 5gi 28 iw § Loo 0.3 IAIr4ti 1 II / TOP .66.BRAO.O.CE MI 1PIPE .66 O.O .t no; c FINISHED 1. GRADE'•. MOF .TO ROUND 10•.0' 7,-N\ ELEVATION -GIN Xo dw limn gim r $' Sir 41 E: 3 W iii Hin IEFERENCE DRAWINGS I P ^a. !II g ya g� �8'� Ill ill Par LAIN LINK FABRIC I9 GA. M MESH, TOP & BOTTOM SEL 1 HAVE TWISTED FINISHED vJ � ! G� S Z �� W u6f€ hI I30 pt NNN W 0 i1S $ n .LS .O's Gunman) wO .. n 1 < :R:@ SURMA wnnwW bolown- tncr L[WS.M..aU.O\W,00u{- .9WY 1[i.[1wfW15 Tel: 303-792-2450 P.O. Box 630027 EUGENE G. COPPOLA P.E., PTOE Fax: 303-792-5990 Littleton, CO 80163-0027 December 8, 2014 Jesse White JLW Investment, LLC 1538 Wazee Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 RE: Traffic Narrative for Lot 6 in Weld County Industrial Park Weld County, CO Jesse: As requested, I have prepared a traffic narrative for your planned Oil & Gas support facility located in Weld County Industrial Park (WCIP). WCIP is located east of U.S. 85 between CR 33 and CR 44. Specific traffic items are identified and discussed in the following sections of this letter. PROJECT OVERVIEW An Oil & Gas support facility will be built on Lot 6 of WCIP. It will manage the trucking of produced, flowback, and fresh water from drilling and production sites to storage and disposal locations. Initially, this site will have 10 on -site workers, 20 truck drivers, 20 heavy trucks, and 5 site visitors per day. Truck drivers will arrive between 6:00 AM and 7:30 AM with trucks departing the site between 6:00 AM and 8:00 AM and returning between 5:00 PM - 7:30 PM. On -site administrative and support staff will typically work from 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. The operator hopes to grow by about 50% over time and therefore, this narrative addresses the JLW development after the anticipated growth. Site traffic will use the internal roadway which provides access to CR 33 with additional access to CR 44 anticipated in mid -2015. Additionally, CR 33 will be paved from U.S. 85 to the internal roadway intersection. EXISTING CONDITIONS CR 33 is a gravel two lane roadway south of the railroad tracks and runs south from U.S. 85 while CR 44 is a paved two lane roadway extending east of U.S. 85. U.S. 85 is a regional multi -lane roadway serving this area. At this time, WCIP has a gravel internal roadway providing access to the various lots. This internal roadway currently connects to CR 33 and is planned to connect to CR 44 in the near -term. About 530 vehicles per day use CR 33 and 1,625 vehicles per day use CR 44 in this area based on 2014 Weld County traffic counts. SITE TRAFFIC Site traffic was estimated by the operator of this facility. The estimate reflects 50% growth over current operations. After this growth, this development will generate the following site trips. On a daily basis, an estimated 30 trucks and 45 cars/pickups will arrive and depart the site. Morning site peak hour traffic is expected to occur when truck drivers arrive in the morning, get into their trucks and depart the site. This process will occur between 6:00 AM and 8:00 AM. During a one hour period, 15 drivers will arrive at the site and 15 trucks will depart the site. Truck return times will vary significantly depending on the proximity of the various work sites, the daily workload, and traffic conditions. Afternoon peak hour site traffic will be the highest since it will overlap to some extent the end of the workday for on -site employees. Daily traffic and site morning and afternoon peak hour traffic is shown below. Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out In Out Truck Drivers 60 15 -- -- 15 Trucks 60 -- 15 15 -- Employees 30 -- -- -- 10 Visitors 10 -- -- -- -- TOTAL 160 15 15 15 25 As indicated, JLW will add 30 morning peak hour trips, 40 afternoon peak hour trips, and 160 daily trips to the area street system at build out. Site traffic is expected to arrive and depart the site according to the traffic distributions shown below. 10% Nominal CR 44 50% 50% 40% • ► 50% LEGEND: Trucks Cars Nominal Nominal - CR 33 SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION Based on the above, the following peak hour and daily site traffic is expected. N/2 8/8 - a� Z 75 cn Z 5a +�._. N/N CR 44 7/5 LEGEND: AMIPM Peak Flour N = Nominal { roil CR 33 SITE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS No auxiliary lane improvements will be warranted by the JLW development. This was determined by comparing site traffic at the CR 33 and CR 44 access points and the County's numerical turn lane warrants. Turn lanes will not be needed with this development since site traffic will not impede through traffic and the number of peak hour turning vehicles will be below the following County triggers for higher speed roadways: 10 vph during peak hour turning left into the facility -left deceleration lane 25 vph during peak hour turning right into the facility -right deceleration lane 50 vph during peak hour turning right out of the facility -right acceleration lane In summary, the JLW development is not expected to adversely impact the area street system. It is considered viable from a traffic engineering perspective. I trust this traffic narrative will meet your current needs. Please give me a call if you have any questions or need further assistance. Sincerely, Eugene G. Coppola, P.E., PTOE EXHIBIT GG COLORADO State Patrol Defartrnent of Fuhttc Safety Strategic Analysis & Business Research Central Records Unit 700 Kipling Street Lakewood, CO 80215 October 17, 2017 James Martell Law Office of James Martell 145 N. College Ave., Suite #E Fort Collins, CO 80524 - Sent via email - RE: CORA Request — Weld County Accidents Dear Mr. Martell, The Colorado State Patrol (CSP) has received your request for accidents at the intersections of Weld County Road 33 and US Highway 85 in Greeley, Weld County and at the intersection of Weld County Road 33 and Niobrara Boulevard in Greeley, Weld County, Colorado. You have made your request for these records under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). The spreadsheet is attached below for Weld County Road 33 and US Highway 85. The CSP does not have records responsive to accidents at the intersection of Weld County Road 33 and Niobrara Boulevard in Greeley, CO. If you have additional questions or concerns, you may reach me at the telephone number listed below; otherwise I will consider this request closed. Sincerely, Hilary Schwindt Colorado State Patrol Central Records Unit 700 Kipling St. Lakewood, CO 80215 303-239-4176 700 Kipling Street Suite 1000, Lakewood, CO 80215 P 303.239.4477 F 303.239.4693 cdpsweb.state.co.us John W. Hickentooper, Governor I Stan Hickey, Executive Director CaseTrackingiD AccidentDate Year 3A-14=5224 3A-14-5324 3A-14-5730 3A-15-0247 Month 9/27/2014 0:00 2014 10/10/2014 0:00 11/24/2014 0:00 1/28/2015 0:00 2014 2014 2015 3A-15-2207 3A-15-2526 3A-16-0344 10/17/2015 0:00 DayOfWee AccidentTime Hour PrivatePro 9 7 5.45:00 AM 6 2:45:00 AM 7:39:00 PM 8:15:00 AM 2015 10 7 1:12:00 AM 12/1/2015 0:00 2015 2/26/2016 0:00 3/11/2016 0:00 2016 12 2 3 6:00:0OPM 6 3:16:00 PM 5 FALSE 2 FALSE 19 FALSE 8 FALSE 1 FALSE 18 FALSE 15 FALSE 3A-16-0458 3A-16-1383 3A-16-1615 3A-16-1854 3A-16-1985 3A-16-2119 7/18/2016 0:00 8/16/2016 0:00 2016 2016 2016 9/19/2016 0:00 2016 10/6/2016 0:00 2016 10/23/2016 0:00 3 7 8 9 10 2016 10 6 12:00:00 AM 2 12:01:00 AM 3 8:55:00 PM 2 8:30:00 PM 1:30:00 AM 2:30:00 AM 0 FALSE 0 FALSE 20 FALSE 20 FALSE 1 FALSE, FALSE AgencyCod NumberKil FIP M12 DistrictNur locationCo CountyCod HighwayCc HighwayN. 0 Property . `3 Weld 3 02 H85 M04 0 Property 3A Weld 3 M15 0 Property - 3A . Weld 3 M04 02 H85 03 R3A04 0 Property 3A M04 0 Property 3A M04 0 Property 3A Weld 0 Property 3A Weld 0Injury 3A Weld 3 02 H85 Weld 3 02 H85 M04 M06 Weld 3 02 H85 3 02 H85 3 02 H85 M04 0 Injury 3A Weld 3 02 H85 M12 0 Injury 3A Weld 3 02 H85 M12 0 Property 3A Weld M04 0 Injury 3A Weld M23 0 Injury 3A Weld 3 03 R3A04 02 H85 02 H85 HighwayMilePoint HighwayMilePointRound 258.3 ReferencePointName 258 Highway 85 ReferencePointAtName ilepost 258 258.6 259 COLORADO HIGHWAY 85 MILEPOST 258 258.6 WCR 33 259 COLORADO HIGHWAY 85 MILEPOST 258 of Highway 85 258.3 258 Highway 85 259 Colorado 85 WCR 33 258.6 Milepost 258 258.6 259 SOUTHBOUND HIGHWAY 85 MILEPOST 258 258.6 259 Highway 85 WCR 33 258.3 258 US 85 WCR 33 258.6 259 HIGHWAY 85 M.P. 258 • Northbound WCR 33 H85 Railroad Crossing Mile Marker 258 258.6 259 US Highway 85 259 Highway 85 258.6 Milepost 258 OfficerNan OfficerlBM TroopiD Sharp 7823 3A Tyndall 8752 3A Lewis 5221 3A Tyndall 8752 3A Sharp 7823 3A McNulty 5626 TK Siegfried 7898 3A Lewis 5221 3A Blankinshi f 0987 3A Brunson 1123 3A Pucket 7203 3A Burke 1193 3A Eldridge 2318 3A From: Christopher Ables[mailto:christopher.ables@@greelevpd.com] Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 11:16 AM To: Barb Reed Subject: Location Search Results Dear Barbara, As requested, I performed a search for all traffic accidents at the location of WCR 33 @ US Highway 85 and WCR 33 @ Niobrara Blvd that were reported in the last three years. The search using this criteria yielded no results. No traffic accidents have been reported. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Thank you, Christopher Ables Data Coordinator II Greeley/Weld Criminal Justice Records 1551 North 17th Avenue Suite 3 Greeley, CO 80631 (970) 350-9627 FAX (970) 304-6505 2 EXHIBIT HH James A. Martell From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mark, Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com> Monday, October 09, 2017 5:10 PM Mark Goldstein; Evan Pinkham; Frank Haug; Andy Reese; Don Dunker; James A. Martell; Cinde Wright; Jay McDonald; Curtis Hall; Tom Parko Jr.; Bob Choate; Jeff Donaldson; Barb Reed; Tiffane Johnson; Michelle Martin Cinde Wright; Michelle Martin; Stephen Goldstein; Tisa Juanicorena; Esther Gesick; Larry Clark; Kathy Herder; Stephen Goldstein RE: SPRS- Lots 5&8 WCIP- Public Works referral to planning department site plan review Your interior subdivision road (Niobrara Blvd) has only one access for the entire subdivision. Every lot must use CR 33 for access, which is a safety issue. It does not make sense for Public Works to continue to exacerbate an existing safety issue by allowing more uses to generate additional traffic at a single access point. Again, you are welcome to appeal my decision to the Commissioners. They have the ultimate authority to grant you an access permit. Elizabeth Relford Deputy Director Weld County Public Works 1111 H Street PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632-0758 Email: erelford@co.weld.co.us Office: (970) 400- 3748 Mobile: (970) 673-5836 Web: http://www.co.weld.co.us 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. From: Mark Goldstein [mailto:mark@geiresources.com] Sent: Monday, October 9, 2017 3:48 PM To: Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com>; Evan Pinkham <epinkham@weldgov.com>; Frank Haug <fhaug@weldgov.com>; Andy Reese <andy@northernengineering.com>; Don Dunker <ddunker@weldgov.com>; James A. Martell <jamartell@martelllawoffice.com>; Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald <jmcdonald@weldgov.com>; Curtis Hall <chall@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; Jeff Donaldson <jeffdonaldson42@aol.com>; Barb Reed <breed@martelllawoffice.com>; Tiffane Johnson <tvjohnson@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com> Cc: Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com>; Tisa Juanicorena <tjuanicorena@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; 1 Larry Clark <larry@geiresources.com>; Kathy Herder <kathy@geiresources.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com> Subject: RE: SPRS- Lots 5&8 WCIP- Public Works referral to planning department site plan review Elizabeth, Can you please explain what you mean in the yellow highlighted language below "You are already meeting the capacity thresholds". If you can please explain what you mean by this and provide the supporting documentation that would be helpful. Thanks, Mark From: Elizabeth Relford [mailto:erelford@weldgov.com] Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 9:54 AM To: Mark Goldstein <mark@geiresources.com>; Evan Pinkham <epinkham@weldgov.com>; Frank Haug <fhaug@weldgov.com>; Andy Reese <andy@northernengineering.com>; Don Dunker <ddunker@weldgov.com>; James A. Martell <jamartell@martelllawoffice.com>; Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald <imcdonald@weldgov.com>; Curtis Hall <chall@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; Jeff Donaldson <jeffdonaldson42@aol.com>; Barb Reed <breed@martelllawoffice.com>; Tiffane Johnson <tvjohnson@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com> Cc: Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com>; Tisa Juanicorena <tjuanicorena@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Larry Clark <larry@geiresources.com>; Kathy Herder <kathy@geiresources.com>; Stephen Goldstein <ste p h e n @ge i re s o u rce s. co m> Subject: RE: SPRS- Lots 5&8 WCIP- Public Works referral to planning department site plan review Mark, After reviewing your request, I do not see any benefit with phasing your improvements. You can do work on Niobrara Blvd up to our WCR 44 ROW limits on your own. If you do consider doing any work, the county would need a type 3 barricade at the WCR 44 ROW limits. This is a traffic safety issue for the entire subdivision regardless of how little traffic you will be adding to it with SPR lots for 5 & 8. You are alreadyWOW the c acit hresho1ds Therefore, please consider this Public Works official denial of your access permit. In accordance with the Weld County Code, you can appeal this decision to the Board of County Commissioners. It sounds like you want to construct your new facilities over the winter, which can also exacerbate traffic issues on county roads, however, I can offer another alternative, which may help get you through the winter months. If you agree to pave 6" of asphalt over 9" of Aggregate Base Course (ABC), class 6, on WCR 33 down to WCR 42 and WCR 42 to the existing traffic signal, I believe this would sustain the county road system until you are able to complete the needed safety improvements at the intersection of WCR 44 and Niobrara Blvd. In addition, please be aware that if you do not complete the required intersection improvements by the end of August 2018, you will be affecting another county project for replacing bridge 44/33A. I want to make you aware well in advance because we will be bidding this soon for construction next fall. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Elizabeth Elizabeth Relford 2 Deputy Director Weld County Public Works 1111 H Street PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632-0758 Email: erelford(aco.weld.co.us Office: (970) 400- 3748 Mobile: (970) 673-5836 Web: http://www.co.weld.co.us 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. From: Mark Goldstein [mailto:mark@geiresources.com] Sent: Friday, October 6, 2017 11:59 AM To: Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com>; Evan Pinkham <epinkham@weldgov.com>; Frank Haug <fhaug@weldgov.com>; Andy Reese <andv@northernengineering.com>; Don Dunker <ddunker@weldgov.com>; James A. Martell <jamartell@martelllawoffice.com>; Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald <jmcdonald@weldgov.com>; Curtis Hall <chall@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; Jeff Donaldson <ieffdonaldson42@aol.com>; Barb Reed <breed@martelllawoffice.com>; Tiffane Johnson <tviohnson@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com> Cc: Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com>; Tisa Juanicorena <tjuanicorena@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Larry Clark <larry@geiresources.com>; Kathy Herder <kathy@geiresources.com>; Stephen Goldstein <ste p h e n@ ge i reso u rces. co m> Subject: RE: SPRS- Lots 5&8 WCIP- Public Works referral to planning department site plan review Elizabeth, Thank you for the email. If you would be willing to take this under consideration in the near term it would be greatly appreciated. We have a couple timing sensitivities as outlined below: A. Peckham is holding a slot on the contractor's schedule and needs to let him know soon to avoid missing the opportunity. With the high construction activity in the area its difficult to hold contractor slots for very long and the weather this time of year can create delays. B. The tenant moving into the Lot 5 and 8 sites has an extreme timing sensitivity. They are a large international public company who needs to move asap. They are coming to Weld County from another municipality only if the SPRS move forward timely, and will be a nice addition to the County and will bring jobs and growth over time. The key issue is timing in that this company needs to move soon. We are under time pressure to get the SPRS finalized and the improvements made to the sites. Thank you for considering ways to assist us. Have a great day. Best Regards, Mark 3 From: Elizabeth Relford [mailto:erelford@weldgov.com] Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 11:34 AM To: Mark Goldstein <mark@geiresources.com>; Evan Pinkham <epinkham@weldgov.com>; Frank Haug <fhaug@weldgov.com>; Andy Reese <andy@northernengineering.com>; Don Dunker <ddunker@weldgov.com>; James A. Martell <iamartell@martelllawoffice.com>; Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald <imcdonald@weldgov.com>; Curtis Hall <chall@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; Jeff Donaldson <jeffdonaldson42@aol.com>; Barb Reed <breed@martelllawoffice.com>; Tiffane Johnson <tviohnson@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com> Cc: Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com>; Tisa Juanicorena <tivanicorena@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Larry Clark <larry@geiresources.com>; Kathy Herder <kathy@geiresources.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com> Subject: RE: SPRS- Lots 5&8 WCIP- Public Works referral to planning department site plan review Mark, I will review and get back to you next week. Elizabeth Relford Deputy Director Weld County Public Works 1111 H Street PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632-0758 Email: erelford@co.weld.co.us Office: (970) 400- 3748 Mobile: (970) 673-5836 Web: http://www.co.weld.co.us 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. From: Mark Goldstein [mailto:mark@geiresources.com] Sent: Friday, October 6, 2017 9:47 AM To: Evan Pinkham <epinkham@weldgov.com>; Frank Haug <fhaug@weldgov.com>; Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com>; Andy Reese <andy@northernengineering.com>; Don Dunker <ddunker@weldgov.com>; James A. Martell <iamartell@martelllawoffice.com>; Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald <imcdonald@weldgov.com>; Curtis Hall <chall@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; Jeff Donaldson <ieffdonaldson42@aol.com>; Barb Reed <breed@martelllawoffice.com>; Tiffane Johnson <tviohnson@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com> Cc: Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com>; Tisa Juanicorena <tivanicorena@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; 4 Larry Clark <larry@geiresources.com>; Kathy Herder <kathy@geiresources.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com> Subject: RE: SPRS- Lots 5&8 WCIP- Public Works referral to planning department site plan review Elizabeth, I am writing in regard to the referral comments P/W made on the Lot 5 of the Weld County Industrial Park site plan review. In the referral comments PW is making a condition of an access permit subject to completing the CR 44 improvements first. Peckham is planning to complete the CR 44 improvements asap but no later than August 2018. It has secured the necessary ROW from all applicable property owners, posted the Letters of Credit, etc. Peckham's counsel and Frank Haug are also in the process of finalizing the amended IA for the 44 improvements now. The issue at hand as the County is aware, is that the county approved plans require the relocation of Xcel power lines to accommodate the new 44 improvements.. Due to a backlog of construction projects and the diversion of crews to Florida for hurricane relief, Xcel cannot complete all the utility relocates until 15t quarter of next year. ( documentation from Xcel was sent to the County previously and attached again) As a result, Peckham cannot do the 44 improvements until next Spring/Summer 2018. One option to consider is to build out the extension of Niobrara to 44 and the improvements on 44 in 2 phases. The ft phase would be to build out the extension of Niobrara to CR 44 and open access this Fall. The 2"d phase would be to complete the paving of the Niobrara access and complete the 44 improvements and paving in Spring/Summer 2018, after the Xcel utilities are relocated and the weather is conducive for paving. Peckham's contractor can complete the following in the near term: In order to extend Niobrara Blvd. to the existing R.O.W of WCR 44 the following would take place; 1) Perform all Earthwork from existing Niobrara Blvd., 100' South of Ditch Crossing to approximately 122' North of Ditch Crossing. 2) Place 15" RCP Culvert at Grader Shed Access. 3) Construct Gravel access to Grader Shed. 4) Install Cattle Guards South of Ditch Crossing. 5) Place all Class 6 Road Base material to +/- 0.1 (One -Tenth) of proposed Finish Grade elevations from Niobrara Blvd., 100' South of Ditch Crossing to approximately 122' North of Ditch Crossing. 6) Place Temporary concrete barriers and reflective delineators over Ditch Crossing for safety purposes through the winter season. ( FYI- The permanent guardrails over the Western Mutual Ditch box culvert cannot be installed until all asphalt is installed over the box culvert. The concrete barriers and reflective delineators would be temporary until the 2nd phase of the construction is completed in 2018) The Niobara paving would occur in 2018 when the 44 improvements are completed. The bottom lift might be able to be done this Fall but the final top lift will not, due to weather inhibiting meeting the County paving requirements. The contractor thinks weather will preclude completing the Niobrara paving this Fall but we can play it by ear. Even if the Niobrara paving portion is not completed this Fall, the extension as proposed will be similar to the existing Niobrara / CR 33 current access ( ie. Dirt road with cattle guards) Since completing the CR 44 improvements this Fall is not possible due to the Xcel delays, would you consider a 2 phase construction schedule as outlined above? If so, would PW then be willing to remove the access permit condition of the Lot 5 and 8 SPRs if the 1st phase is completed this Fall? Thank you for considering the request. If you are not willing to approve this, are there other solutions you would approve to allow access permits to be issued for the Lot 5 and 8 SPRS prior to 5 the 44 improvements being built? The traffic narratives for the Lot 5 and 8 SPRS show very minimal traffic due to the primary use being storage. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best Regards, Mark From: Mark Goldstein Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 7:06 PM To: 'Evan Pinkham' <epinkham@weldgov.com>; Frank Haug <fhaug@weldgov.com>; Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com>; Andy Reese <andv@northernengineering.com>; Don Dunker <ddunker@weldgov.com>; James A. Martell <jamartell@martelllawoffice.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald <imcdonald@weldgov.com>; Curtis Hall <chall@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; Jeff Donaldson <jeffdonaldson42@aol.com>; Barb Reed <breed@martelllawoffice.com>; Tiffane Johnson <tvjohnson@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com> Cc: Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com>; Tisa Juanicorena <tivanicorena@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Larry Clark <larry@geiresources.com>; Kathy Herder <kathy@geiresources.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com> Subject: RE: WCIP- Letters of Credit - Submittal of New Letters of Credit attached - Petrocco ROW Elizabeth, I have attached the mutually executed Agreement for Peckham's purchase of the ROW from the Petrocco property West of the Peckham grader shed property. Peckham now has all the ROW needed from the property owners to the East and West of the grader shed to build the approved plans. I have previously sent the mutually executed contract for the ROW purchase from Cervantes to the County. Peckham has already sent the deed of dedication for the Peckham ROW to the County as well. Thanks, Mark From: Evan Pinkham [mailto:epinkham@weldgov.com] Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 4:07 PM To: Mark Goldstein <mark@geiresources.com>; Frank Haug <fhaug@weldgov.com>; Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com>; Andy Reese <andv@northernengineering.com>; Don Dunker <ddunker@weldgov.com>; James A. Martell <iamartell@martelllawoffice.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald <jmcdonald@weldgov.com>; Curtis Hall <chall@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; Jeff Donaldson <jeffdonaldson42@aol.com>; Barb Reed <breed@martelllawoffice.com>; Tiffane Johnson <tviohnsonftweldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com> Cc: Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com>; Tisa Juanicorena <tjuanicorena@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Larry Clark <larry@geiresources.com>; Kathy Herder <kathv@geiresources.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com> Subject: RE: WCIP- Letters of Credit - Submittal of New Letters of Credit attached Mark, 6 Attached is a copy of the amended Improvements Agreement for WCIP. Please review this document and return the signed original to me here in Public Works. I will need to receive the signed/notarized copy by Wednesday in order to have it placed on the Monday (10/9) BOCC agenda. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Evan Evan Pinkham Development Review Weld County Public Works 1111 H Street, P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 (970)400-3727 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. From: Mark Goldstein [mailto:mark@geiresources.comj Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 7:09 PM To: Frank Haug <fhaug@weldgov.com>; Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com>; Andy Reese <andy@northernengineering.com>; Don Dunker <ddunker@weldgov.com>; James A. Martell <iamartell@martelllawoffice.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Evan Pinkham <epinkham@weldgov.com>; Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald <imcdonald@weldgov.com>; Curtis Hall <chall@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; Jeff Donaldson <ieffdonaldson42@aol.com>; Barb Reed <breed@martelllawoffice.com>; Tiffane Johnson <tviohnson@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com> Cc: Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com>; Tisa Juanicorena <tivanicorena@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Larry Clark <larry@geiresources.com>; Kathy Herder <kathy@geiresources.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com> Subject: RE: WCIP- Letters of Credit - Submittal of New Letters of Credit attached Frank, I received word today that 1St Tier bank is sending the two original Letters of Credit referenced below to Esther tomorrow via Fed -Ex. Have a good night. Thanks, Mark Goldstein 7 From: Frank Haug [mailto:fhaug@weldgov.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 9:57 AM To: Mark Goldstein <mark@geiresources.com>; Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com>; Andy Reese <andy@northernengineering.com>; Don Dunker <ddunker@weldgov.com>; James A. Martell <jamartell@martelllawoffice.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Evan Pinkham <epinkham@weldgov.com>; Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald <imcdonald@weldgov.com>; Curtis Hall <chall@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; Jeff Donaldson <jeffdonaldson42@aol.com>; Barb Reed <breed@martelllawoffice.com>; Tiffane Johnson <tviohnson@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com> Cc: Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com>; Tisa Juanicorena <tjuanicorena@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Larry Clark <larry@geiresources.com>; Kathy Herder <kathy@geiresources.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com> Subject: RE: WCIP- Letters of Credit - Submittal of New Letters of Credit attached Sorry, I the 10030 was for the union colony peckham development, a separate thing. My mistake. From: Mark Goldstein [mailto:mark@geiresources.com] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 3:50 PM To: Frank Haug <fhaug@weldgov.com>; Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com>; Andy Reese <andy@northernengineering.com>; Don Dunker <ddunker@weldgov.com>; James A. Martell <jamartell@martelllawoffice.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Evan Pinkham <epinkham@weldgov.com>; Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald <jmcdonald@weldgov.com>; Curtis Hall <chall@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; Jeff Donaldson <jeffdonaldson42@aol.com>; Barb Reed <breed@martelllawoffice.com>; Tiffane Johnson <tvjohnson@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com> Cc: Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com>; Tisa Juanicorena <tivanicorena@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Larry Clark <larry@geiresources.com>; Kathy Herder <kathy@geiresources.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com> Subject: RE: WCIP- Letters of Credit - Submittal of New Letters of Credit attached Hi Frank, Thanks again for your assistance. I have attached the current existing LOC which is No. 10031. The new LOC numbers are as follows: A Number 10039 x 740,782,34 This is'_ fiiq 5 ,'`C ti is 6 Number .00 0 105,942.9b This is he new will`replace theizcurrent LOC #10031) LOC for 44JNiobrara for the warranty for the WCIP onsite improvements. ( This Can you send me what you are showing as 10030? Also, will PW be doing the amended IA draft or is that coming from the attorney's office? Thanks again for your help. We greatly appreciate it. I will circle back with the bank and have the originals sent to the County early next week. Have a nice weekend. Best Regards, Mark Goldstein 8 From: Frank Haug [mailto:fhaug@weldgov.comj Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 3:05 PM To: Mark Goldstein <mark@geiresources.com>; Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com>; Andy Reese <andy@northernengineering.com>; Don Dunker <ddunker@weldgov.com>; James A. Martell <jamartell@martelllawoffice.com>; Phill Osier <pvosler@gmail.com>; Evan Pinkham <epinkham@weldgov.com>; Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald <jmcdonald@weldgov.com>; Curtis Hall <chall@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; Jeff Donaldson <jeffdonaldson42@aol.com>; Barb Reed <breed@martelllawoffice.com>; Tiffane Johnson <tvjohnson@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com> Cc: Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com>; Tisa Juanicorena <tjuanicorena@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Larry Clark <larry@geiresources.com>; Kathy Herder <kathy@geiresources.com> Subject: RE: WCIP- Letters of Credit - Submittal of New Letters of Credit attached I think with regard to the LOC's we should be pretty well set. But I think we need to have the IA finalized also. I wanted to double check that it was LOC 100031, because there was a LOC 10030 that is coming up for me also. As far as getting the LOC's on the agenda, the deadline for the Monday agenda is Thursday at 5, the deadline for the Wednesday agenda is Monday at 5. In terms of having them added and released at the same hearing, that shouldn't be a problem. We can actually do the acceptance of the new one and the release of the old one as part of the same resolution I think. From: Mark Goldstein [mailto:mark@geiresources.coml Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 1:27 PM To: Frank Haug <fhaug@weldgov.com>; Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com>; Andy Reese <andy@northernengineering.com>; Don Dunker <ddunker@weldgov.com>; James A. Martell <jamartell@martelllawoffice.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Evan Pinkham <epinkham@weldgov.com>; Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald <jmcdonald@weldgov.com>; Curtis Hall <chall@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; Jeff Donaldson <jeffdonaldson42@aol.com>; Barb Reed <breed@martelllawoffice.com>; Tiffane Johnson <tvjohnson@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com> Cc: Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com>; Tisa Juanicorena <tjuanicorena@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Larry Clark <larrv@geiresources.com>; Kathy Herder <kathv@geiresources.com> Subject: RE: WCIP- Letters of Credit - Submittal of New Letters of Credit attached Hi Frank, I am following up on the email from yesterday to check in on the status of the final review and approval of the Letters of Credit. Thanks again for your assistance. The bank can send out the originals fed -ex or hand deliver depending on the deadline to get on the next BOCC agenda. For planning purposes, can you advise on when the deadline is to get on the next BOCC agenda? Also, in follow-up to our prior emails, have you had a chance to get more information on the process for having the new LOC's accepted and the existing one released in the same hearing? Thanks again for your assistance. Best Regards, Mark Goldstein 9 From: Frank Haug [mailto:fhaug@weldgov.comj Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 11:14 AM To: Mark Goldstein <mark@geiresources.com>; Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com>; Andy Reese <andy@northernengineering.com>; Don Dunker <ddunker@weldgov.com>; James A. Martell <iamartell@martelllawoffice.com>; Phill Osier <pvosler@gmail.com>; Evan Pinkham <epinkham@weldgov.com>; Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald <imcdonald@weldgov.com>; Curtis Hall <chall@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; Jeff Donaldson <jeffdonaldson42@aol.com>; Barb Reed <breed@martelllawoffice.com>; Tiffane Johnson <tviohnson@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com> Cc: Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Phill Osier <pvosler@gmail.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com>; Tisa Juanicorena <tjuanicorena@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Larry Clark <larry@geiresources.com>; Kathy Herder <kathy@geiresources.com> Subject: RE: WCIP- Letters of Credit - Submittal of New Letters of Credit attached Thanks, I will look through it and double check with our staff on it. From: Mark Goldstein [mailto:mark@geiresources.comj Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 12:44 PM To: Frank Haug <fhaug@weldgov.com>; Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com>; Andy Reese <andy@northernengineering.com>; Don Dunker <ddunker@weldgov.com>; James A. Martell <jamartell@martelllawoffice.com>; Phill Osier <pvosler@gmail.com>; Evan Pinkham <epinkham@weldgov.com>; Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald <imcdonald@weldgov.com>; Curtis Hall <chall@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; Jeff Donaldson <ieffdonaldson42@aol.com>; Barb Reed <breed@martelllawoffice.com>; Tiffane Johnson <tviohnson@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com> Cc: Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Phill Osier <pvosler@gmail.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com>; Tisa Juanicorena <tivanicorena@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Larry Clark <larry@geiresources.com>; Kathy Herder <kathy@geiresources.com> Subject: RE: WCIP- Letters of Credit - Submittal of New Letters of Credit attached Frank, I have attached a new set of Letters of Credit with the following updates and comments from the bank: • " Eliminated the "or other difficulty" working in the Compliance Burden section. • Noted the LC #10039 was related to improvements in / around Weld County Industrial Park • Changed the governing law for the Letter of Credit to Colorado • Noted that any draws under the LC would be funded by wire transfer, with wiring instructions to be provided by Beneficiary (Weld County) On #10040, the warranty Letter of Credit, he put in all the changes above to the structure of the LC. He also noted this was a warranty LC for the improvements originally covered under LC #10031. As an additional provision, he noted that acceptance of LC #10040 voided LC #10031, since #10040 is a warranty LC for the improvements originally installed under LC #10031. The bank left the original maturity date and the automatic renewals in the LOCs. The bank's preference is to leave the current maturity date since there are automatic renewals already in place, and this is the most expeditious route to finalizing the LOCs. If Weld County will not accept the current maturity date with the automatic renewals, the bank would like some feedback from Weld County as to what their concern is. The banker said he would then go through the internal process to extend the maturity date if necessary. If the attached LOCs are sufficient, the bank said they can either send the originals to you fed -ex today or hand deliver by Friday. Thanks again for your assistance. 10 Best Regards, • Mark Goldstein From: Mark Goldstein Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 11:06 AM To: 'Frank Haug' <fhaug@weldgov.com>; Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com>; Andy Reese <andy@northernengineering.com>; Don Dunker <ddunker@weldgov.com>; James A. Martell <jamartell@martelllawoffice.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Evan Pinkham <epinkham@weldgov.com>; Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald <imcdonald@weldgov.com>; Curtis Hall <chall@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; Jeff Donaldson <jeffdonaldson42@aol.com>; Barb Reed <breed@martelllawoffice.com>; Tiffane Johnson <tvjohnson@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com> Cc: Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com>; Tisa Juanicorena <tjuanicorena@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Larry Clark <larry@geiresources.com>; Kathy Herder <kathy@geiresources.com> Subject: RE: WCIP- Letters of Credit - Submittal of New Letters of Credit attached Frank, Thanks. I will circle up with the bank. Are you available to join a call if needed? Thanks, Mark From: Frank Haug [mailto:fhaug@weldgov.com] Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 11:02 AM To: Mark Goldstein <mark@geiresources.com>; Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com>; Andy Reese <andy@northernengineering.com>; Don Dunker <ddunker@weldgov.com>; James A. Martell <jamartell@martelllawoffice.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Evan Pinkham <epinkham@weldgov.com>; Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald <imcdonald@weldgov.com>; Curtis Hall <chall@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; Jeff Donaldson <ieffdonaldson42@aol.com>; Barb Reed <breed@martelllawoffice.com>; Tiffane Johnson <tviohnson@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com> Cc: Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com>; Tisa Juanicorena <tivanicorena@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Larry Clark <larry@geiresources.com>; Kathy Herder <kathy@geiresources.com> Subject: RE: WCIP- Letters of Credit - Submittal of New Letters of Credit attached With regard to the Wyoming language, I'd still prefer that to be Colorado. For the clause about impersonation or fraudulent draws, I think language saying it can only be paid to Weld County would work. For the compliance language, I am wanting to clarify what "other difficulty" means. That is really broad language that seems to me pretty much leaves the lender up to deciding what constitutes "other difficulty." Usually there is some act of God language which would be appropriate, but the "other difficulty" is what I am getting hung up on. I don't mind the "impossibility" language, maybe we just take out the vague "other difficulty" language. From: Mark Goldstein [mailto:mark@geiresources.com] Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 10:52 AM To: Frank Haug <fhaugta weldgov.com>; Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com>; Andy Reese 11 <andy@northernengineering.com>; Don Dunker <ddunker@weldgov.com>; James A. Martell <iamartell@martelllawoffice.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Evan Pinkham <epinkham@weldgov.com>; Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald <jmcdonald@weldgov.com>; Curtis Hall <chall@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; Jeff Donaldson <jeffdonaldson42@aol.com>; Barb Reed <breed@martelllawoffice.com>; Tiffane Johnson <tviohnson@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com> Cc: Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com>; Tisa Juanicorena <tjuanicorena@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Larry Clark <larry@geiresources.com>; Kathy Herder <kathy@geiresources.com> Subject: RE: WCIP- Letters of Credit - Submittal of New Letters of Credit attached Frank, Good morning. I received some initial feedback from our lender about some of your initial concerns and have interlaced the responses below in yellow highlight. Please let me know your thoughts on the comments from the bank and also the response to the term/auto renewal in red below. Thanks again for your assistance. I have also attached the existing LOC on file with the County for the onsite improvements for reference. The bank president is available for a call to discuss in order to work things out. Best, Mark From: Mark Goldstein Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 4:18 PM To: Frank Haug <fhaug@weldgov.com>; Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com>; Andy Reese <andy@northernengineering.com>; Don Dunker <ddunker@weldgov.com>; James A. Martell <jamartell@martelllawoffice.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Evan Pinkham <epinkham@weldgov.com>; Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald <jmcdonald@weldgov.com>; Curtis Hall <chall@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; Jeff Donaldson <jeffdonaldson42@aol.com>; Barb Reed <breed@martelllawoffice.com>; Tiffane Johnson <tviohnson@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com> Cc: Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com>; Tisa Juanicorena <tivanicorena@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Larry Clark <larry@geiresources.com>; Kathy Herder <kathy@geiresources.com> Subject: RE: WCIP- Letters of Credit - Submittal of New Letters of Credit attached Frank, Thank you for the quick response. Please see answers below in red. I hope you are having a great weekend. Best Regards, Mark Goldstein From: Frank Haug [mailto:fhaug@weldgov.com] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 1:58 PM To: Mark Goldstein <mark@geiresources.com>; Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com>; Andy Reese <andy@northernengineering.com>; Don Dunker <ddunker@weldgov.com>; James A. Martell <jamartell@martelllawoffice.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Evan Pinkham <epinkham@weldgov.com>; Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald <imcdonald@weldgov.com>; Curtis Hall <chall@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; Jeff Donaldson <ieffdonaldson42@aol.com>; Barb Reed <breed@martelllawoffice.com>; Tiffane Johnson <tviohnson@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin 12 <mmartin@weldgov.com> Cc: Cinde Wright <cwright@welduov.com>; Phill Osier <pvosler@gmail.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com>; Tisa Juanicorena <tjuanicorena@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: WCIP- Letters of Credit - Submittal of New Letters of Credit attached Mark, thanks. In looking through the letters of credit a few concerns come to mind. It is from a bank in Wyoming, and is governed by the law in Wyoming. It needs to be governed by Colorado Law. Comment: Ok, I will circle up with the bank : Lender feedback The existing LOC accepted by Weld County has the same Wyoming venue fee attached. 1. It expires on April 19, 2018, where did that date come from? Comment: Arbitrary date from the lender. To me that is an issue because we are already probably too late to do any road work for this year, and we won't be able to get it done prior to April of next year, so that doesn't really help us. We would need it to go out farther. Also, typically these things auto renew every year, so it will need to be able to renew automatically, or needs to be for a much longer period of time. Comment: The LOC does provide for an automatic 1 year extension in the "Additional Provisions— Maturity Date Extension" section. ADDITIONAL PROVISION - MATURITY DATE EXTENSION. This letter o maturity date of April 19, 2018, unless notice is given in writing by First The banker's thinking is that if construction was not complete by April that the LOC would automatically renew. His further thinking with the 60 day notice is that in the event First Tier acted on this it would give the County sufficient time to either a) call the LOC or b) have Peckham renew the LOC at that time if improvements had not been completed. Please let me know if this is acceptable. If not, I can circle back with the bank. 2. The name of the borrower is Peckham development. I thought that the ownership had changed, is Peckham still the appropriate body to pull the letter of credit? The current IA was originally with Big Thompson and then eventually assigned to the Weld County Industrial Park Association. ( see attached). It was our understanding from Janet initially that PW would do a new IA for the County Road 44 improvements which we assume would be in the name of Peckham given the circumstances. We then learned that Elizabeth was planning to amend the existing IA for the County Road 44 improvements. Just prior to Janet's departure, Janet then switched her position to be consistent with Elizabeth's. ( I can resend you all the email traffic if necessary on this). At this point we are waiting for a draft amended IA from PW. PW is waiting on us to give them an Ex. A and B which we have in draft form and are just waiting on PW to approve the plans. In the amendment we could also acknowledge and agree that this LOC in the name of Peckham secures the WCIP Association's obligations under the IA. It would be difficult for the Association to get a LOC because it has no significant assets which is why Peckham is doing it. They were the developer. Let me know how you would like to address. 3 There is a clause which basically says that if someone impersonates the county and draws on the LOC improperly, we can't do anything about it. We need to take that out. Comment: Ok, I will circle up with the bank and let them know Lender feedback " The existing t bC ccepted byll elci County hasthe same languaget :Regarding his points under 3, we are unwilling tp complete o awa r th that, d h re's ourlogic.yIf someone draws the LC fraudulently, fiat means the County would ve failled to c htrol the h sisal letter oeh raw' oy.f credit yin their � � � �i€x-x �,c-fi< �1* � �,�f"€" �` � -- 7 r� ,..�' as � ual r hvsical original le ter c ec it urt er he bankwould z,� � z� zu `'" �� . �� t -;'�r }� � r ,.�,„��,�^ r r .... only fund the L t tie trbunty if Sally Smith b in with fre prig a Icy ie's notrgoing o get a cashier's check langua Count eoutto' at state ran raw ease advise Whet made only'b is issatisfactory re :transfer; est We add eld 4. The language about the compliance burden needs to come out, which basically says that the lender doesn't have to strictly comply, but we do. Comment: Ok, I will circle up with the bank and let them know. "Lender feedback: , The same }language is in`the existing LOC that was already -accepted by Weld County See 13 attached. "This boiler plate language is standard in our form docs and would require a customized LOC-and legal approval to'modify" I'm happy to work with you and Jim to try to sort through this stuff. In terms of scheduling things, I believe that we can have Esther and Tisa just put them on the docket on the same day, we can probably have the new ones accepted and then have the next line items of business be releases of the old ones. I'll check with them about how to best do that, thanks. Thank you, Much appreciated. From: Mark Goldstein [mailto:mark@geiresources.com] Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 12:29 PM To: Elizabeth Relford <erelford@weldgov.com>; Andy Reese <andy@northernengineering.com>; Don Dunker <ddunker@weldgov.com>; James A. Martell<iamartell@martelllawoffice.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Evan Pinkham <epinkham@weldgov.com>; Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Jay McDonald <imcdonald@weldgov.com>; Curtis Hall <chall@weldgov.com>; Tom Parko Jr. <tparko@weldgov.com>; Bob Choate <bchoate@weldgov.com>; Frank Haug <fhaug@weldgov.com>; Jeff Donaldson <ieffdonaldson42@aol.com>; Barb Reed <breed@martelllawoffice.com>; Tiffane Johnson <tviohnson@weldgov.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com> Cc: Cinde Wright <cwright@weldgov.com>; Phill Osler <pvosler@gmail.com>; Michelle Martin <mmartin@weldgov.com>; Stephen Goldstein <stephen@geiresources.com>; Tisa Juanicorena <tjuanicorena@weldgov.com>; Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: WCIP- Letters of Credit - Submittal of New Letters of Credit attached Frank, I have attached copies of two letters of credit: A. LOC #1 in the amount of $105,942.80 for the warranty related to the existing IA that covers onsite improvements. The term is to April of 2018 with automatic renewals B. LOC #2 in the amount of $740,792.34 for the improvements to Niobrara Blvd/Weld County Road 44. The term is to April of 2018 with automatic annual renewals The plan ( per attached email approval from PW and agreement with BOCC in 11/7/16 work session) is to release the existing LOC on file with Weld County for the onsite improvements pursuant to the attached IA, concurrently with the submittal and Weld County approval of A) new LOC for the warranty for the onsite improvements and B) new LOC for the Niobrara/CR 44 improvements. I have attached the final construction estimates for 44 and referenced email approvals from PW. I have also attached correspondence I just sent out to Elizabeth working through a few new questions she had on the budgets. If Elizabeth is satisfied with the answers and supporting documentation, then the attached Letters of Credit for CR 44 are ready to go! Peckham's lender, 1st Tier, would like to coordinate the submittal of the original Letters of Credit to the County concurrent with picking up the original LOC currently on file with Weld County. Eg. Swap out the new LOCs with the existing LOC. Can you please advise on the process so Peckham can plan accordingly? I have copied Jim Martell, Peckham's legal counsel as well for coordination purposes. I was told by Peckham's lender, that it's his understanding that either Esther or Tisa would be the point people to coordinate getting on the commissioner docket for the LOC approvals, but we are not clear on the process. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. 14 In the event you have any questions or issues with the format of the new LOC's, Peckham's lender is available should we need to loop him in by phone to discuss. Please let Jim Martell or I know if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance. Have a good weekend. Thanks, Mark Goldstein, President Peckham Development Corporation Mark S. Goldstein, President Goldstein Enterprises, Inc. 2850 McClelland Drive, Suite 2400 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 O -970-797-2187/M-970-231-6389 Mailing Address: PO Box 273180 Fort Collins, Colorado 80527 15 EXHIBIT II RESOLUTION RE: APPROVE NEW INTERIM ROAD MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT ACCORDING TO POLICY REGARDING COLLATERAL FOR TRITON WATER DEPOT, AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN, AND RETAIN COLLATERAL FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW, SPR12-0010, LOCATED IN LOT ONE (1) OF THE NINE (9) LOT SUBDIVISION APPROVED IN MINOR SUBDIVISION, MINF12-0001 - BIG THOMPSON INVESTMENT HOLDINGS, LLC, CIO MARK GOLDSTEIN WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, on October 31, 2012, the Weld County Board of Commissioners approved a Minor Subdivision Final Plan, MINF12-0001, for Big Thompson Investment Holdings, LLC, 1205 W. Elizabeth Street, P.O. Box 134, Ft. Collins, Colorado 80521, for a nine (9) Lot Minor Subdivision in the 1-3 (Industrial) Zone District on the following described real estate, to -wit: Lot B of Recorded Exemption, RECX12-0056; being part of the W1/2 of Section 23, Township 4 North, Range 66 West of 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado WHEREAS, On April 3, 2013, the Board was presented with an Interim Road Maintenance Improvements Agreement for Triton Water Depot According to Policy Regarding Collateral for Improvements between the County of Weld, State of Colorado, by and through the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, and Big Thompson Investment Holdings, LLC, do Mark Goldstein, with terms and conditions being as stated in said agreement, and was presented with Company check #1319 from Big Thompson Investment Holdings, LLC, drawn on Mile High Banks, 601 S. Main Street, Longmont, Colorado 80501, in the amount of $2,400.00, and WHEREAS, the Board has been presented with a new Interim Road Maintenance and Collateral Agreement, which supersedes the previous agreement approved on April 3, 2013, and agrees to retain the collateral received from Big Thompson Investment Holdings, LLC, in the amount of $2,400.00. WHEREAS, after review, the Board deems it advisable to approve said new agreement and retain said business check as stated above, copies of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the new Interim Road Maintenance Improvements Agreement which supersedes the prior agreement approved April 3, 2013, for Triton Water Depot According to Policy Regarding Collateral for Improvements between the County of Weld, State of Colorado, by and through the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, and Big Thompson Investment Holding, LLC, do Mark Goldstein, be, and hereby is, approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Company check #1319 from Big Thompson Investment Holding, LLC, drawn on Mile High Banks, 601 S. Main Street, Longmont, Colorado 80501, in the amount of $2,400.00, be and hereby is, retained. ek: POD Pi,, CA 4000061 Pages: 1 of 9 3 a 03/04/2014 03:36 PP1 R Fee:S0.00 Steve Moreno• CIerM Ind Recorder Weld County CO �Ih ktitty iiimaimargovonramilAV M iI III 2014-0145 PL2147 IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT - BIG THOMPSON INVESTMENT HOLDING, LLC PAGE 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Chair be, and hereby is, authorized to sign said agreement. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 15th day of January, A.D., 2014. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: Weld County Clerk to the Boar B Dep 4:F ougles Radem Barbara Kirkmeyer, omey c✓fX�ll/l l Willia4 ' Garcia Date of signature: I -a8i4 �a 114e336�P111 RFof 9 St.v� l or�np, CJ.rk arW Rimed =0W C tY CO 1111 r;�na� l �,liii`�i { situ ,l�+��c'a +i inn 2014-0145 PL2147 INTERIM ROAD MAINTENANCE AND COLLATERAL AGREEMENT. WELD COUNTY CASE M1NF12-0001 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this /J~day of , 201Y, by and between the County of Weld, State of Colorado, acting through the Board of County Commissioners, hereinafter "County," and Big Thompson Investment Holdings LLC, C/O Mark Goldstein, hereinafter "Thompson." RECITALS WHEREAS, Thompson owns the following described property in the County of Weld, Colorado: Lot B of Recorded Exemption, RECX-12-0056; located in part of the NW4 of Section 23, Township 4 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado, consisting of approximately 93.71 acres (hereinafter the "Property"), and WHEREAS, on October 31, 2012, the Board of Weld County Commissioners approved a nine (9) lot Minor Subdivision (hereinafter "Subdivision") on the Property in case MINF12-0001, and WHEREAS, on April 3, 2013, Thompson and County entered into the Interim Road Maintenance Agreement, regarding the required maintenance of certain portions of Weld County Road 33 in relation to operation of the Triton Water Depot, SPRl2-0010, and WHEREAS, because of anticipated additional businesses operating out of the Subdivision, Thompson wishes to enter into this Agreement detailing maintenance obligations for certain Weld County Roads, as specified herein, and WHEREAS, upon execution, this Agreement shall supersede the Interim Road Maintenance Agreement, dated April 3, 2013, and WHEREAS, Thompson has not yet completed all of the conditions of approval nor submitted a final plat (hereinafter "Final Plat") for the Property as required pursuant to the Weld County Board of Commissioners resolution in case MINF12-0001. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF the foregoing and of the promises and covenants contained herein, the parties hereto promise, covenant and agree as follows: 1. Recitals. The above set forth recitals are incorporated herein as if fully set forth herein. 2. Supersede Interim Road Maintenance Aveement. Thompson and County agree that upon execution, this Agreement shall supersede the Interim Road Maintenance Agreement, dated April 3, 2013, between Thompson and County, and the Interim Road Maintenance Agreement shall terminate in its entirety. 3. Term. Thompson shall be responsible for the ofd site road maintenance, as detailed in Section 5 of this Agreement, on CR 33 from US 85 to CR 42, (hereinafter the "Haul Route") and any 4000081 Pages: 3 of 9 03/04/2014 03:36 PM R Fee:$0.60 Steve Moreno, Clerk and Recorder, Meld County. CO ■IIII7PAIJIIAP 11111 010/S/— p/0_5 other roadways impacted by Subdivision traffic, until all of the following conditions are fulfilled: A. The MINF12-0001 Final Plat is recorded, AND B. The M[NF12-0001 Improvements Agreement is executed and any required collateral is posted by Thompson, AND EITHER C. The title to the County owned property located in the NW4, S23, T4N, R66W of the 6`b P.M., Weld County, CO, commonly known as 16460 Weld County Road 44, is transferred to Thompson by County pursuant to the terms of the Agreement for the Exchange of Certain Real Property Between Big Thompson Investment Holdings, LLC and Weld County Colorado, executed contemporaneously with this Agreement (hereinafter "Exchange Agreement"); OR D. The Exchange Agreement is terminated for any reason. Upon fulfillment of the above conditions, this Agreement shall terminate and road maintenance obligations and triggers shall be thereafter be governed by the terms of the MINFI2-0001 Improvements Agreement. Thompson agrees that any maintenance obligations for which Thompson is responsible during the term of this Agreement and which have not been addressed at the time of termination of this Agreement shall remain Thompson's obligation subsequent to termination of this Agreement and such obligation shalt be addressed by Thompson pursuant to the terms of the MINF 12-0001 Improvements Agreement. 4. Haul Route Parameters, A. Subdivision traffic shall enter or exit the Subdivision only at County approved accesses onto CR 33. Haul truck traffic shall consist of the following: i. Ninety-five percent (95%) of traffic will travel north on CR 33 to US 85. ii. Five percent (5%) of traffic will travel south on CR 33 to ck 42. B. No haul truck entering or exiting the Subdivision may exceed CDOT required specifications for pounds per axle. C. No deviation in the use of any roads other than those specifically authorized for use in this Agreement is permitted without the prior written amendment of this Agreement by County. 5. Off -Site Road Maintenance Obligations. Thompson shall be solely financially responsible for the grading, excavation, repair, and patching of any damage on the Haul Route and any other impacted roadways, which, in the sole discretion of the County Engineer, has been created by vehicle traffic to and/or from the Subdivision. Should the Subdivision's activities and/or vehicle circulation patterns change so that County approves an alternate haul route, Thompson shall also maintain any new haul routes in accordance with County instructions. The type and method of any repairs will be determined in the sole discretion of the County Engineer. A 2 4009061 Pages: 4 of 9 03/04/2014 03:30 Pfl R Fss:$0.00 Steve Moreno. lerk and Recorder, Weld County, CO Ell NV1� p1� 1 61 ICl4IKIIIAV V.1111. 11. III Thompson representative shall regularly inspect the Haul Route during the term of this Agreement to monitor whether maintenance is required. A. Dust Control/Abatement. As part of its road maintenance obligations, Thompson shall be responsible for dust control/abatement along the Haul Route and any other roadway(s) impacted by Subdivision traffic. Thompson shall contract with a private service/contractor to maintain and provide Mag-Chloride for affected roadway(s), the extent and frequency of application as determined in the sole discretion of the County Engineer. B. Trackin : Thompson shall place and maintain crushed concrete at the access from CR 33 to the Property to mitigate the tracking of mud and debris onto CR 33. C. Immediate Repairs. In the event of damage to the Haul Route or other roadways by Subdivision traffic that causes an immediate threat to public health and safety or renders the road impassible (hereinafter "Significant Damage"), County shall notify Thompson by email to ►narkeoldstein@goldsteinenterprisesiinc.com, of such Significant Damage. The sending of such email shall be deemed notice to Thompson of Significant Damage. Thompson shall respond by email identifying the repair required and shall consult with the County Engineer on the extent, type, timing, materials and quality of repair (i.e. temporary versus permanent) within twenty-four (24) hours after the issuance of such notice and shall commence such repair within forty-eight (48) hours after issuance of such notice. If such repair is not commenced within such forty-eight (48) hour period, County shall have the right to draw on the Road Maintenance Collateral posted pursuant to Section 6 below and use such funds to perform repairs. If Thompson identifies Significant Damage prior to receiving notice thereof from County, Thompson may commence repair of such Significant Damage and shall concurrently notify County of the extent, type, timing, materials and quality of repair (i.e. temporary versus permanent) so that the County Engineer may consult with Thompson regarding the repairs. D. Non -Immediate Repairs. Where damage caused by Subdivision traffic does not cause an immediate threat to public health and safety or render the road impassable, and the County is the first to notice such damage, County shall notify Thompson by email to markgoldstein@goldsteinenterprisesinc.com. The sending of such email shall be deemed notice to Thompson. Thompson shall respond by email identifying the repair required and shall consult with the County Engineer on the extent, type, timing, materials and quality of repair (i.e. temporary versus permanent) within fourteen (14) days of receiving notice and Thompson shall commence repairs within thirty (30) days of receiving notice. If Thompson does' not consult with the County Engineer within fourteen (14) days and/or commence repairs within thirty (30) days, County shall have the right to draw on the Road Maintenance Collateral posted pursuant to Section 6 below and use such funds to perform such repair. Should Thompson be the first to notice such damage, Thompson may commence repairs and concurrently notify County of the extent, type, timing, materials and quality of repair (i.e. temporary versus permanent), so the County Engineer may consult with Thompson regarding the repairs. 6. General Collateral Requirements. 3 4000061 Pages: 5 of 9 93/04/2814 tts a Moren*o.eCliGk ennd R corrder. Meld Canty. Co �I� Ii�rr� 1�i L1�l�r1 l llaiH� li4ti:y 4pL�l�,Y 1111111 A. County requires Thompson to provide collateral (hereinafter "Road Maintenance Collateral") to guaranty all of Thompson's obligations under this Agreement. All Road Maintenance Collateral shall be kept in place until the termination of this Agreement. B. In the event Thompson fails to adequately complete and/or repair improvements associated with this Agreement, County will access, in its sole discretion, the Road Maintenance Collateral to the extent necessary to complete said improvements or repairs in order to preserve the public interest. Should Road Maintenance Collateral be insufficient to complete required improvements or repairs, County may utilize all existing Road Maintenance Collateral and Thompson shall be liable for fully reimbursing County for any additional County expenditures to complete the improvements or repairs. Reimbursement by Thompson for such additional costs shall be within fifteen (1 S) days of notice of such expenditures to Thompson. C. Road Maintenance Collateral shall be submitted to County upon approval of this Agreement by the Board of County Commissioners. Road Maintenance Collateral is held for use on the Haul Route or any other roadway(s) damaged by Subdivision traffic. The amount of the collateral required for this Agreement shall be two -thousand four hundred dollars ($2,400.00) for the CR 33 Haul Route. Road Maintenance Collateral shall be held by County until the termination of this Agreement. If any of this collateral shall be utilized by County, Thompson shall replace the amount, plus interest, within one month. D. Collateral may be in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit (hereinafter "LOC") in an amount equivalent to one -hundred percent (100%) of the total value of the improvements set forth in this Agreement. The LOC shall be subject to the requirements of Weld County Code Section 2-3-30 B. Thompson shall utilize only a County approved form when obtaining an LOC: (1RRVEVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT FOR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO). A copy of said form shall be provided to Thompson upon request. E. Collateral may be in the form of a surety bond given by a corporate surety authorized to do business in the State of Colorado in an amount equivalent to one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the improvements set forth in this Agreement. The surety bond shall conform to and be subject to the requirements of Weld County Code Section 2-3-30 B.4. Thompson shall utilize only a County approved form when obtaining a surety bond: (PERFORMANCE BOND FOR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO). A copy of said form shall be provided to Thompson upon request. F. Collateral may be in the form of a cash deposit made with the Board in an amount equivalent to One Hundred Percent (100%) of the value of the improvements set forth in this Agreement. G. The Board of County Commissioners reserves the tight to reject collateral which is deemed inappropriate or insufficient, which may be either as collateral in the form of a letter of credit offered by a banking institution which does not have at least a "three star" rating given by Bauer Financial, or as collateral in the form of a performance bond offered by an insurance company which does not have at least a B+ rating given by A.M. Best. The 4 4000061 Pages: 6 of 9 03/04/2014 03.36 PM R Fee:$0.00 Steve Moreno. Clerk and Recorder. Weld Canty. CO 'III Board further reserves the right to require Thompson to obtain replacement collateral if the rating of the financial institution providing said collateral drops below the levels stated above. Replacement collateral shall be submitted by Thompson within sixty (60) days of the Board's notice to Thompson that the rating has fallen and that the collateral must be replaced. Thompson may not terminate existing collateral until replacement collateral has been secured. H. Road Maintenance Collateral for the CR 33 Haul Route shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement and shall be released upon termination of this Agreement pursuant to Section 3 of this Agreement. 7. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement may be delegated, transferred or assigned in whole or in part by Thompson to Peckham Development Corporation, a Colorado corporation, whose address is C/O Mark Goldstein, President, PO Box 273180, Fort Collins, Colorado 80527, provided that a copy of any agreement for assignment is provided to County. Assignment to any other party shall require prior approval by the Weld County Board of Commissioners. 8. Count/ Engineer. All references in this Agreement to "County Engineer" shall refer to the County Engineer or any individual or individuals appointed by the County Engineer to act on his/her behalf. 9. Violation of Terms of Agreement. If in County's sole opinion, Thompson has violated any of the terms of this Agreement, County shall notify Thompson of its belief that this Agreement has been violated and shall state with specificity the facts and circumstances which County believes constitute the violation. Thompson shall have fifteen (15) days within which to either cure the violation or demonstrate compliance. If after fifteen (15) days have elapsed County believes in good faith that there has been a violation of the terms of this Agreement, County shall refuse to issue permits for grading, building, or otherwise, for the entire Subdivision until the violation has been cured to County's satisfaction. Additionally, County may enforce by any legal means, including, but not limited to, legal action for equitable or monetary relief filed in the Weld District Court, execution upon submitted collateral (if applicable), and/or administrative action of the County to suspend or revoke the underlying land use permit or approval pursuant to the procedural provisions of Section 2-440 of the Weld County Code. 10. Governmental Immunity: No term or condition of this Agreement shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protections or other provisions, of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act §§2410-101 et seq., as applicable now or hereafter amended. 11. No Third Party Beneficiary Enforcement: It is expressly understood and agreed that the enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to the undersigned parties, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall give or allow any claim or right of action whatsoever by any other person or entity not included in this Agreement. It is the express intention of the undersigned parties that any person or entity, other than the undersigned parties, receiving services or benefits under this Agreement shall be an incidental beneficiary only. 3 4000061 Pages: 7 of 9 03/04/2014 03!38 PM R Fee:$0.00 Stew Moreno- Clerk and Recorder, Weld County, CO ��I WIPAIiQii, n:ItiAM1iNSrretK'�r� �ir�tl �h II LU 12. Authority to Sign: Each person signing this Agreement represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized and has legal capacity to execute and deliver this Agreement. Each party represents and warrants to the other that the execution and delivery of the Agreement and the performance of such party's obligations hereunder have been duly authorized and that the Agreement is a valid and legal agreement binding on such party and enforceable in accordance with its terms. If requested by County, Thompson shall provide County with proof of Thompson's authority to enter into this Agreement within five (5) days of receiving such request. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. Big Thompson Investment Holdings, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company SIGNATURE Asks. Mark S. Goldstein, M Weld County Board of Commisioners SIGNATURE ATTEST: AL' Douglas Rademac er, Chairman kak,_ li � .._da.A Weld County Clerk to the Board 4000061 Pages: 8 of 9 03/04/2014 03.36 PM R Pee:$0.00 Steve Moreno, Clerk and Recorder, Held County CO JAN 15 2014 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Douglas Rade III 6 oele/Y- 2/ 5 BY: 11/11�� Deputy clerk o me Board Clerk o the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: `County Attorney 4000061 Pages: 9 of 9 03/04/2014 03:36 Pfl R Pee :$0.00 Steve Moreno. Clerk end Recorder. W ld Canty. CO � ! il��.r��l�fl� MI 1lt E �I��uNt�I�rSsIi' t�ihl�tik II! al EXHIBIT JJ MEMORANDUM TO: Diana Aungst, Planning Services DATE: 2/26/15 FROM: Wayne Howard, P.E., Development Review Engineer SUBJECT: SPR15-0002, Magna Oil and Gas Filed Service and Accounting Headquarters The Weld County Department of Planning Services -Engineering has reviewed this proposal. Staff comments made during this phase of the application process may not be all-inclusive, as other issues may arise during the remaining application process. COMMENTS: General Project Information/Location: This project is proposed to be a oil field services operation with a accounting headquarters for Magna. This project is located with the Weld County Industrial Park located east of CR 33 and east of HWY85. Parcel #105723200001. Roads: The roadway accessing this parcel is an internal subdivision road maintained by the business owner association. This road is not maintained by Weld County. Per the traffic memo from Gene Cappola, PE, PTOE, the internal roadway currently provides access to CR33 and additional access is anticipated onto CR44 mid 2015. CR33 will be paved from HWY85 to the subdivision intersection. Currently CR 33 is a magchloride roadway. Current counts on CR 33 (MC) taken 1/22/14 counted 530 vpd with 52% trucks. Traffic: Per the traffic memo from Gene Cappola, PE, PTOE, about 60 trucks/day and 105 employees operating 24/7 will use CFR 33. Per meeting with Janet Lundquist of Public Works, Marc Goldstein and the applicant on November 20, 2014, traffic from this site triggers offsite improvements. Access is being pursued off of CR44 by Big Thompson Investment Holdings, LLC. Access: An access permit has been approved for this subdivision onto CR33 and CR44 (AP12-00008). Other PW Permits: A Right -of -Way Use Permit is required for any work in the Weld County Right -of -Way. Contact Weld County Public Works at 970-304-6496 ext. 3764. A Transport Permit is required for any oversize and/or over weight vehicles. Contact Weld County Public Works at 970-304-6496 ext. 3764. General Site Plan Requirements: i.e (IA, RMA, City Town Agreement, etc..., offsite auxiliary lanes) Improvements Agreement: An improvements agreement (IA) is in place between Big Thompson Investment Holdings, LLC and the County for triggering offsite roadway improvements including turn lanes on CR44 and/or CR33. This improvements agreement was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March 26, 2014 and recorded the same day with reception number 4004604. Geologic hazard Area: This area IS NOT in a Geologic Hazard Area. Floodplain: This area IS NOT in a Floodplain. Drainage Study: A drainage narrative was prepared by Mathew Adams of Jansen Strawn, dated 12-12-14. The engineer indicated the flows from the site were below what was calculated for the master drainage report for this site and all runoff for this project is directed to the detention pond. The letter shall be signed and stamped before acceptance by Weld County. This site is not within an MS4 area. Grading Permit A Weld County Grading Permit will be required if disturbing more than 1 acre. Contact the Planning Department for more information. A Construction Stormwater Permit is also required with the State for disturbing more than 1 acre. Contact: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Water Quality Control Division, Rik Gay, 303- 692-3575. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The map shall be amended to delineate the following: A. Show the approved access(es) on the plat and label with the approved access permit number (AP12-00008). B. The applicant shall indicate specifically on the plat any right of way and/or easements and indicate whether they are dedicated, private, or deeded and label with recorded document, book and page and/or reception number. C. Show and label standard tracking control onto publically maintained roadways on the map. D. A drainage narrative was prepared by Mathew Adams of Jansen Strawn, dated 12-12-14. Stating that the improvements are compatible with the Master drainage report. The letter shall be signed and stamped by a registered Colorado engineer. E. Show and label the drainage facilities, drainage flow arrows, and parking and circulation on the map. Prior to Construction: A. If more than 1 acre is to be disturbed, a Weld County grading permit will be required prior to the start of construction. Contact the Planning Department for application information. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (NOTES ON THE PLAT) 1. Should noxious weeds exist on the property, or become established as a result of the proposed development, the applicant/landowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds, pursuant to Chapter 15, Articles I and II, of the Weld County Code. 2. The historical flow patterns and runoff amounts will be maintained on the site. 3. Weld County is not responsible for the maintenance of onsite drainage related features. 4. There shall be no parking or staging of vehicles on County roads. On -site parking shall be utilized. 5. The applicant shall adhere to the existing Improvements Agreement reception number 4004604 recorded 3/26/14 is required. TRAFFIC NARRATIVE Legal: Parcel Number: Section, Township, Range: Acreage: Owner: Roads and Right of Way: LOT 5, WELD COUNTY INDUSTRIAL PARK 1057-23-2-01-005 Section 23, Township 4 North, Range 66 West of 6t P.M. (Weld County) 6.96 acres Peckham Development Corporation Mark Goldstein, President County Road 33 is a paved road which turns into compacted dirt road and is designated by Weld County as a local road. County Road 33 is dedicated to meet Weld County code for (sixty) 60 foot right of way. County Road 44 is a paved road and is designated by Weld County as an arterial road requiring 140 ft. at full buildout. Currently County. Road 44 is maintained by Weld County and is currently not used as an access point into Weld County Industrial Park or onto Niobrara Blvd. Niobrara Blvd. is the main road into Weld County Industrial Park which has compacted road base and dedicated to meet Weld County's requirements of a sixty (60) foot set back. Niobrara Blvd. is maintained by Weld County Industrial Park. Niobrara Blvd. will be the main access into Lot S. Traffic Requirements: 1. Round trips per day per vehicle type: We expect 1 trip in and 1 trip out of Lot 5 per day from a passenger car, truck, semi -truck or Trailer after initial storage lay down. 2. Describe expected travel/haul routes: All ingress into Lot 5 will be a right turn from Niobrara Blvd. Egress will be a left turn onto Niobrara Blvd. Upon reaching the intersection of Niobrara Blvd. and County 33 all vehicles, trucks, semi's and etc. must make a right turn lane and travel westerly to Highway 85 interchange. At County Road 33 and Highway 85, travelers can choose to go northerly (right) towards Greeley or southbound (left) towards Denver. 3. Travel Distribution along the Routes: Currently all traffic will travel southbound on Niobrara Blvd to County Road 33. No left turns are acceptable off of Niobrara Blvd onto County Road 33. Right turn only (west bound) which takes you directly to the Highway 85 interchange. 4. Expected Highest Traffic Volume: We project the highest traffic volume will be morning hours between 6:00 AM and 9:00 AM, lunch time 12:00 PM to 2:00 PM and near close of day 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. As stated in the application, once a tenant has laid down its storage items, traffic will diminish tremendously and would remain for months or up to a year. In this time we believe that the premises would then only be checked by the tenant once a week or twice a week, if even that. We expect minimal traffic impact for Lot 5 proposed storage usage. Shared Access Maintenance Agreement: Peckham Development together with Weld County Industrial Park Association has a road maintenance agreement in place throughout the park for current lot owners and future prospective tenants and lot owners. Entrance Gates: Lot 5 will have a lock box gated access which will be set back a minimum of one hundred (100) feet from the edge of the existing shoulder to allow a semi, trailer, RV, trucks, bobcat loaders and cars to access the Lot easily without obstructing the traffic flow on Niobrara Blvd. Turning Radi: The access to Lot 5 will allow for the required twenty-five (25) feet turning radius for cars and sixty (60) feet for trucks. This radius will also allow a vehicle/truck to pull over to traffic if two or more vehicles are following, complete a U -Turn, or get out and pull off to open the gate without impeding traffic flow on Niobrara Blvd. Drainage Flows and Grading Permit: Weld County Industrial Park and Peckham Development Corporation have already in place an approved drainage plan and grading permit with Weld County official and will remain in compliance for this Industrial Park. Geological Hazard: Weld County Industrial Park presents no geological hazard. Floodplain: Diana Aungst, Weld County official was contacted on March 29th, 2016 at (970) 353-6100 ext. 3524 (email: daungstPweldgov.com) to determine if said Lot 5 was in a flood plain. Per Diana this lot is not within a flood zone. Also checking with FEMA Firm website this part of Weld County is not mapped. Therefore Lot 5 is conceded to have no potential flooding hazard Parking & Traffic Circulation on Lot: Lot 5 will not having a parking lot and traffic circulation will be an interior graded road. Mining Permits: Lot 5 of Weld County Industrial Park has not applied for any mining permits, nor is it currently operating any gravel pit or mining extraction processes. Lot 5 is currently vacant dormant land. Tel: 303-792-2450 P.O. Box 630027 EUGENE G. COPPOLA P.E., PTOE Fax: 303-792-5990 Littleton, CO 80163-0027 December 29, 2014 Scott Brands, Job Captain Ware Malcomb 6251 Greenwood Plaza Blvd., Building 6, Suite 100 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 RE: Traffic Narrative for Magna Energy, Lot A in Weld County Industrial Park Weld County, CO Scott: As requested by Mark Goldstein, I have prepared a traffic narrative for the Magna Ener- gy (Magna) development located in Weld County Industrial Park (WCIP). WCIP is lo- cated east of U.S. 85 between CR 33 and CR 44. Specific traffic items are identified and discussed in the following sections of this letter. PROJECT OVERVIEW Magna will be build an oil and gas support facility on Lot A of WCIP. The facility will serve the oil and gas industry by providing well completion, water management, well abandonment, and other support services. This site will have 60 trucks and about 105 employees and will operate 24 hours per day with two work shifts. On the day shift, 60 truck drivers will arrive between 5:30 AM and 7:30 AM with trucks departing the site between 6:00 AM and 8:00 AM and returning between 5:00 PM and 7:30 PM. Some 15 on -site administrative and support staff will typically start work between 7:00 to 9:00 AM and end work between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. The night shift will have 25 truck drivers and 5 on -site employees. This shift will start around 6:00 PM and end around 6:00 AM. Site traffic will use the internal roadway to access CR 33 with supplemental access available to CR 44 in mid -2015. CR 33 will be paved from U.S. 85 to the internal road- way intersection. EXISTING CONDITIONS CR 33 is a gravel two lane roadway south of the railroad tracks and runs south from U.S. 85 while CR 44 is a paved two lane roadway extending east of U.S. 85. U.S. 85 is a regional multi -lane roadway serving this area. At this time, WCIP has a gravel inter- nal roadway providing access to the various lots. This internal roadway currently con- nects to CR 33 and is planned to connect to CR 44 in the near -term. About 530 vehi- cles per day use CR 33 and 1,625 vehicles per day use CR 44 in this area based on 2014 Weld County traffic counts. SITE TRAFFIC Site traffic was estimated by the operator of this facility. On a daily basis, an estimated 85 trucks and 110 cars/pickups will arrive and depart the site. Morning site peak hour traffic is expected to occur when truck drivers arrive in the morning, get into their trucks and depart the site. This process will occur between 5:30 AM and 8:00 AM. During a one hour period, 30 drivers will arrive at the site and 30 trucks will depart the site. Truck return times will vary significantly depending on the proximity of the vari- ous work sites, daily workloads, and traffic conditions. Peak hour and daily traffic asso- ciated with this development is shown below. These estimates have been rounded to the nearest 5 vehicles. Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out In Out Truck Drivers (85) 170 30 10 10 30 Trucks (85) 170 10 30 30 10 Employees (20) 40 10 5 5 10 Visitors 10 -- -- -- -- TOTAL 390 50 45 45 50 As indicated, at build out Magna will add 95 morning and afternoon peak hour trips and 390 daily trips to the area street system. Site traffic is expected to arrive and depart the site according to the traffic distributions shown below. 75% Nominal CR 44 25% 25% W E w c Nominal 75% 3 v CO 0 re Nominal Nominal LEGEND: Trucks Cars CR 33 SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION Based on the above, the following peak hour and daily site traffic is expected. 8/23 95 CR44 130 12/13 --). 0 0Z oZ 165 W E c i0 I 0 re It-- N/N 30/10 LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour N = Nominal Daily N CR 33 MAGNA SITE TRAFFIC As requested by the County, site traffic related to Magna was combined with the antici- pated site traffic generated by the JLW development on Lot 6 of WCIP submitted earli- er. Combined traffic is shown below: I— 10/25 175 20/20 240 To E 2 c I v m cc ii N/N 135 35/15 --'4 LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour N = Nominal Daily NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. N CR 44 CR 33 MAGNA + JLW TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS Auxiliary lane improvements will be warranted by the Magna development. This was determined by comparing site traffic at the CR 33 and CR 44 access points and the County's numerical turn lane warrants identified below: >10 vph during peak hour turning left into the facility -left deceleration lane >25 vph during peak hour turning right into the facility -right deceleration lane >50 vph during peak hour turning right out of the facility -right acceleration lane A left turn lane will be warranted at the site driveway to CR 44. Additionally, a left turn lane will be numerically warranted at the site driveway to CR 33. Given current and future traffic using CR 33 to the east of the site, the left turn lane at the site entrance was further reviewed. Based on earlier traffic counts, up to an esti- mated 10 peak hour vehicles will oppose the left turning vehicles with up to an estimat- ed 15 peak hour eastbound vehicles following the turning vehicles. This equates to on- ly 1 vehicle every 6 minutes opposing the turning traffic and 1 vehicle every 4 minutes following the left turning traffic. With only minor traffic using CR 33 vehicle conflicts at the site driveway are expected to be insignificant. Consequently, the County can con- sider waiving the left turn lane on CR 33 at this time. In summary, the Magna development is not expected to adversely impact the area street system. It is considered viable from a traffic engineering perspective. I trust this traffic narrative will meet your current needs. Please give me a call if you have any questions or need further assistance. Sincerely, • Eugene G. Coppola, P.E., PTOE N Traffic Impact Study HICKMAN DEVELOPMENT Weld County, Colorado Eugene G. Coppola, P.E. P.O. Box 630027 Littleton, CO 80163 303-792-2450 J Traffic Impact Study HICKMAN DEVELOPMENT Weld County, Colorado Prepared For: AGPROfessionals 4350 Highway 66 Longmont, CO 80504 Prepared By: Eugene G. Coppola, P.E. P. O. Box 630027 Littleton, CO 80163 303-792-2450 May 24, 2012 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 A. Existing Road Network 3 B. Existing Traffic Conditions 3 C. Surrounding Land Uses 7 III. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 7 A. Site Assumptions 7 B. Site Traffic 9 C. Trip Distribution 10 D. Background Traffic 10 E. Future Total Traffic 10 F. Future Roadway System 18 IV. TRAFFIC IMPACTS 18 A. Auxiliary Lanes and Traffic Controls 21 B. Future Operating Conditions (with Hickman) 21 V. DESIGN ISSUES 23 VI. CONCLUSIONS 24 List of Figures Figure 1 Vicinity Map 2 Figure 2 Current Traffic 5 Figure 3 Current Roadway Geometry 6 Figure 4 Concept Plan 8 Figure 5 Site Traffic Distribution 11 Figure 6 Site Traffic 12 Figure 7 Build Out Site Traffic 13 Figure 8 Short -Term Background Traffic 14 Figure 9 Long -Term Background Traffic 15 Figure 10 Short -Term Total Traffic 16 Figure 11 Long -Term Total Traffic 17 Figure 12 Short -Term Roadway Geometry 19 Figure 13 Long -Term Roadway Geometry 20 I. INTRODUCTION The Hickman Development (Hickman) is a proposed light industrial development in Weld County, Colorado. The site is generally located east of U.S. 85 between County Road 33 (CR 33) and Weld County Road 44 (CR 44). The initial phase of develop- ment will be a water service company with follow-on development expected to be other light industry. A vicinity map is presented in Figure 1. This study contains the investigations and analyses typically contained in a full traffic study. Key steps undertaken as part of this study are defined below. • Obtain current traffic and roadway data in the immediate area of the site. • Evaluate current traffic operations to establish baseline conditions. • Determine site generated traffic and distribute this traffic to the nearby street system. • Estimate roadway traffic for future roadway conditions. • Evaluate traffic operations with the proposed operation fully functional un- der future conditions. • Identify areas of potential deficiencies. • Recommend measures to mitigate the impact of site generated traffic as appropriate. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Existing Road Network The Hickman site is bordered on the west by U.S. 85, on the north by CR 44 and on the south by CR 33. These roadways are either under Weld County or Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) control. CR 33 is an east -west two-lane roadway serving the local area on both sides of U.S. 85. It is skewed in the southwest to northeast directions. CR 33 is currently paved between U.S. 85 and the railroad tracks and oiled to the east of the tracks. There is no posted speed limit on CR 33, east of U.S. 85. CR 44 is a paved two lane east -west roadway with one lane in each direction serving the area east and west of U.S. 85. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour. U.S. 85 is the major north -south roadway serving this area. It provides regional service and essentially abuts the site on the west. U.S. 85 has two lanes in each direction with auxiliary lanes at intersections and a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour. The U.S. 85 intersections with CR 33 and CR 44 are under stop sign control. There are railroad tracks paralleling U.S. 85 on the east side with railroad gates controlling traffic on CR 44 and stop signs controlling CR 33 traffic at the railroad crossing. B. Existing Traffic Conditions Traffic counts were collected as part of this study and extracted from other sources and agency publications. The CR 33 and CR 44 intersections were counted during the morning highway peak hour (6:00 - 9:00 A.M.), and the afternoon highway peak hour (3:00 - 6:00 P.M.). Daily traffic was provided by the County and by CDOT. 3 Recent traffic is shown on Figure 2 with current roadway geometry and controls shown on Figure 3. Count sheets are provided in Appendix A. Critical intersections were evaluated using highway capacity procedures during the highway morning and afternoon peak hours. Resultant levels of service are shown below. CURRENT OPERATING CONDITIONS Intersection Control Movement/ Direction Level of Service AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. CR 33 — U.S. 85 Stop NB L A A SBL A A WB LTR B C EB LTR B B CR 44 - U.S. 85 Stop NB L A A SBL A A WB LT C C WB R B B EB LT D D EB R A B For definition purposes, overall level of service D' is considered acceptable at stop sign controlled intersections during peak hours with critical minor street traffic move- ments allowed to operate at LOS `E/F'. At signalized intersections, overall level of service `D' or better is considered acceptable during peak hours. It should be noted that capacity analyses were conducted only to the level necessary to meet acceptable operations. Additional tweaking is expected to result in improved operations for individual traffic movements, approaches and/or overall operations at signalized intersections. As indicated above, acceptable operations are currently being experienced at all intersections. Capacity work sheets are provided in Appendix B. 4 U) co 15/16 4— 2/6 28/18 1420 U, U) N (O U) U) CO 'Cr O CO O 0 (NI 260 LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour Daily ti CR 44 CR 33 Figure 2 CURRENT TRAFFIC 5 C. Surrounding Land Uses The Gilcrest and LaSalle areas are located to the south and north of the site, respec- tively with Milliken located to the west. In the immediate area of the site, land uses are generally devoted to industrial and agricultural uses. III. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS A. Site Assumptions The Hickman site will initiate development in 2013 with a water service company catering to the oil industry. It will be located along CR 33 south of the proposed driveway on some 8 acres. For evaluation purposes, the short- and long-term hori- zons were investigated. The short-term time frame represents the year 2013 con- sistent with the initial phase of development with the long-term representing the widely accepted planning horizon of some 20 years in the future. Development after the water service company is uncertain; however, the balance of the site, some 92 acres, is assumed developed as light industrial uses by 2032, the long-term horizon. With the initial phase of development all site traffic will enter and exit the site using CR 33. All departing truck trips will turn either left or right onto U.S. 85 with the reverse traffic movements expected for trips arriving at the site. Virtually all departing trucks will be loaded with arriving trucks being empty. Employee trips are expected to use the same arrival and departure routes. Site activity for the water service company will be up to 24 hours per day, seven days per week. A concept plan is provided on Figure 4. 7 • PS86-SES(0L6):x3.8IE6-SES'(0L6) 60508 OJ iuow Qo-t •99 6aMgthH 05E4 JTl'grrt"I JO`L(1t��■ B. Site Traffic Site traffic for the initial phase of development was estimated using the operating strategies planned by the water service company. The site will generally operate up to 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Based on operator estimates, 124 trucks will enter and exit the site each day. There will be up to two employees per shift and two shifts per day. Site traffic is expected to arrive at and depart the site equally to and from the north and south on U.S. 85. No significant site traffic is expected to use the County street system. The balance of the site (92 acres) is expected to develop sometime after the water service company but before the long-term (2032) planning horizon. Uncertainties abound regarding future development; however, it is anticipated that light industrial uses will find this site attractive. Development activity will occur in concert with de- mand. - Site traffic for Phase I and build out of the Hickman development is shown below: Use Size Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate In Out Rate In Out Phase I Water Service - * 260 * 6 4 * 4 6 Future Phases Light Industrial 92 AC 51.8 4,766 7.51 573 117 7.26 147 521 TOTAL 5,026 579 121 151 527 * Based on water service operator estimates On a representative day, Phase I, the water service company, will generate 10 morn- ing highway peak hour trips, 10 afternoon highway peak hour trips and 260 daily trips. This reflects 248 truck trips, 8 employee trips and 4 miscellaneous trips per day. At build out, the Hickman development will generate 700 morning peak hour trips, 678 afternoon peak hour trips, and 5,026 trips per day. 9 C. Trip Distribution Trip distribution is a function of the origin and destination of site users and the availa- ble roadway system. In this case, virtually all traffic will use U.S. 85 to access either CR 33 or CR 44. Local trips will use the shortest access route; however, the number of local trips is expected to be negligible. The distribution of water from this site is based on operator estimates and anticipated market areas. Site traffic distribution is shown on Figure 5 with Phase I site traffic shown on Figure 6 and build out site traffic shown on Figure 7. Build out site traffic reflects future roadway changes planned as part of the U.S. 85 Access Control Plan. D. Background Traffic Background traffic was developed for the years 2013 and 2032. These represent the short- and long-term horizons. CDOT publications indicate a growth rate in the range of about 2% annually on U.S. 85. Growth on other streets was estimated using County provided annual growth rates of 2% for both CR 33 and CR 44. Short- and long-term background traffic is shown on Figures 8 and 9. E. Future Total Traffic Total traffic is the combination of site traffic and background traffic. It represents conditions with the Hickman site fully operational. Peak hours were evaluated since these times represent the most severe traffic conditions. Site traffic was added to background traffic resulting in the short- and long-term total traffic shown on Figures 10 and 11, respectively. 10 in co I u) Nominal Nominal 0 0 in V 11 CR 44 CR 33 Figure 5 SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION co x N 7 N M 2/3 t— N/N lc- 2/3 IZ m • k— N/N N/N —► N M LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour 6/4 -p CR 44 CR 33 Figure 6 12 SHORT-TERM SITE TRAFFIC u) co 50/175 4 N/N r- 25/200 N/N N/N -► 0 0 Nir U) ii 75/155 290/75 a N/N LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 13 190/50 CR 44 CR 33 Figure 7 BUILD OUT SITE TRAFFIC a co s i) at-- 15/15 4 - N/5 30/20 U) O CO II) (-Es C 10/5 4— N/N N/N N/N N/N —► 5/5 LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 14 CR 44 CR 33 Figure 8 SHORT-TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Un co z 0 25/25 4— 5/10 40/25 15/15-j 20/10 --> 10/10 --4 1 k— 10/5 10/5 -b LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 15 t u-) CO rn 0 CO rn z 0 CR 44 CR 33 Figure 9 LONG-TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC U, co x 0 0 N t 15/15 4— N/5 30/20 5/5 -it 15/10—► 5/5 --e CR 44 N/N .4-- N/10 N/N - N/N —► 5/5 --)4, LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 16 5/5 20/10 —► CR 33 Figure 10 SHORT-TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC in co CD ll) CO o rn CO NN cY7 75/120 f— 5/10 65/225 f— 70/60 vr-- N/N 15/15 20/10 —► 10/10 CD C) OD i 11 0 0 �- r CD in !I) CD CO 85/160 115/90 —► 390/100 - Ln Ln Z a) Z Z Ln ti N/N 4— 10/5 10/5 —� LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour l 00 00 12 0 N C") CD NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. 190/50 -} 10/N —D• 17 CR 44 CR 33 Figure 11 LONG-TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC F. Future Roadway System No improvements are planned at the U.S. 85 intersections with CR 33 and CR 44 in the short-term. Consequently, the existing roadway system will remain constant through 2013. The U.S. 85 intersections with CR 33 and CR 44 have been identified in the U.S. 85 Access Control Plan as needing reconstruction in the future due to skewed approach- es and safety concerns. This improvement is rated as a high priority which is ex- pected by 2032 or earlier. The long-term roadway system is expected to include a traffic signal at CR 44 and improvements on the CR 44 approaches to U.S. 85. In conjunction with the CR 44 intersection improvements, CR 33 will be restricted to right -turn in and out movements and perhaps the left turn movement from U.S. 85 to CR 33. As part of this study, these changes were discussed with and determined reasonable by CDOT. For evaluation purposes only right turns were assumed al- lowed at the CR 33 intersection in the long term time frame. Short- and long-term roadway geometry is shown on Figures 12 and 13, respectively. IV. TRAFFIC IMPACTS To assess operating conditions with the site fully functional, capacity analysis proce- dures were utilized at key intersections. These include the U.S. 85 — CR 33 and the U.S. 85 — CR 44, and the site access intersections. Site access will only be available from CR 33 in the short-term, with CR 44 providing additional site access when needed to serve future development on this site. At the onset of these undertakings, future traffic volumes were reviewed at each location to determine if any new auxiliary lanes will be needed. Findings are indicated below. 18 .J 1 1 in w I U) STOP STOP a4 . CR 44 Js 7M(' 1� 19 STOP +t CR 33 Figure 12 SHORT-TERM ROADWAY GEOMETRY • STOP U, co x [o7 STOP a) a) STOP CR 44 CR 33 Figure 13 LONG-TERM ROADWAY GEOMETRY 20 A. Auxiliary Lanes and Traffic Controls All warranted turn lanes currently exist at the U.S. 85 intersections with CR 33 and CR 44; however, these lanes were built to earlier design standards. Given that access restrictions will be imposed at the CR 33 — U.S. 85 intersection in the future, only 2 — 3 vehicles per hour will be added to impacted traffic movements, turning traffic is not high enough to meet warrants, and spacing is limited between intersections, no auxiliary lane improvements are needed in the short-term. Since turning traffic at CR 44 will not be impacted in the short-term, the geometry at that intersection will remain unchanged. Additionally, traffic at the CR 33 site driveway will be negligible in the short-term and will ,not warrant any turn lanes on CR 33. In the long-term, the CR 44 — U.S. 85 intersection will be relocated, improved, and signalized. When this intersection is improved, it is expected that CDOT will improve the approach geometry at that time. A review of traffic at the CR 44 -- site driveway and the CR 33 — site driveway intersections determined that an eastbound right turn lane will be warranted on CR 44 at the driveway intersection and that an eastbound left turn lane on CR 33 at the site driveway intersection will not be needed since eastbound left turns into the site are opposed by only 10 vehicles per hour which is well below the 100 vehicles per hour threshold when the left turn lane can be waived. This threshold assesses the likelihood of conflict between left turning vehicles and opposing traffic. B. Future Operating Conditions (with Hickman) Capacity analyses were conducted using short- and long-term total traffic and the short -and long-term roadway geometry. Acceptable conditions are defined as overall level of service `D' with critical, stop sign controlled side street traffic movements allowed to operate at level of service 'E/F. Resultant levels -of -service are indicated in the following tables. 21 SHORT-TERM OPERATING CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Intersection Control Movement/ Direction Level of Service AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. CR 33 — U.S. 85 Stop NB L A A SBL A A WB LTR C C EB LTR C C CR 33 — Drive Stop EB LT _ A A SB LR A A CR 44 - U.S. 85 Stop NB L A A SBL A A WB LT C C WB R B B EB LT D D EBR A B LONG-TERM OPERATING CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Intersection Control Movement/ Direction Level of Service AM Pk Hr. PM Pk Hr. CR 33 — U.S. 85 Stop WB R B C EBR B B CR 33 — Drive Stop EB LT A A SB LR A A CR 44 - U.S. 85 Signal EB C C WB C C NB C C SB A A Overall B B CR 44 — Drive Stop WB LT A A NB LR B B 22 As indicated, all intersections will operate acceptably in both the short- and long-term with development on the Hickman site. The capacity analyses do not consider the availability of right turn acceleration lanes and therefore better than indicated operat- ing conditions are expected. Accordingly, level -of -service 'C' or better is expected for all traffic movements at all intersections. Tweaking future traffic signal timings at the U.S. 85 — CR 44 intersection will also result in improved operations. For purposes of this study, however, analyses were only conducted to the point of demonstrating acceptable operations. Capacity worksheets are presented in Appendix C for short- term conditions and Appendix D for long-term conditions. V. DESIGN ISSUES Given that the CR 33 and CR 44 intersections are closely spaced along U.S. 85, that CR 44 will be relocated and connect to U.S. 85 at a signalized location and future turn restrictions will be imposed at CR 33, the practicality and cost-effectiveness of auxilia- ry lane improvements were considered when determining which improvements can be reasonably made. It was determined that the northbound right turn lane on U.S. 85 at CR 33 and the eastbound right turn lane on CR 44 at the site driveway can be in- stalled in the long-term. Preliminary auxiliary lane designs were developed for northbound to eastbound right turns at the U.S. 85 — CR 33 intersection and for eastbound right turns at the CR 44 driveway. Based upon current CDOT design criteria, truck usage, and the posted speed limits, the northbound right turn lane should have a deceleration length of 800 feet plus 300 feet of transition taper. On CR 44, an eastbound right -turn deceleration lane at the site driveway should be built with 435 feet of deceleration lane including a 160 foot transition taper. Large radii capable of accommodating trucks should be provided at both locations. The indicated improvements are not needed with Phase I, but will be warranted sometime thereafter. 23 The feasibility of building the above indicated auxiliary lanes should be investigated as part of the preliminary design phase. At that time, adjustments to the indicated design parameters may be appropriate or construction of any given lane may be determined impractical. The need for these lanes should be confirmed as development proceeds. VI. CONCLUSIONS Based on the above documented analyses and investigations, the following can be concluded: • Current operating conditions are acceptable in the area of the Hickman site. • Phase I of this development will generate 10 morning and afternoon peak hour trips and 260 trips per day. These trips will use CR 33 to access the site and can be accommodated by the existing roadway system. No new auxiliary lane improvements are needed with Phase I. • The existing roadway system can adequately serve Phase I traffic as evi- denced by very acceptable levels of service at all intersections. • At build out, the Hickman site will generate 700 morning highway peak hour trips, 678 afternoon highway peak hour trips and 5,026 trips per day. These trips can be served by CDOT planned improvements at the U.S. 85 — CR 44 and U.S. 85 — CR 33 intersections. • The existing northbound right turn lane on U.S. 85 at CR 33 should be im- proved sometime after Phase I. This lane should be improved to CDOT stand- ards when the lane is warranted by the combination of background traffic and site traffic resulting from future phases of development on the Hickman site. • On CR 44, an eastbound right -turn lane will be warranted at the site access when traffic volumes warrant this improvement. Preliminary design parameters for this lane are provided in this report for site build out conditions. 24 • Acceptable operating conditions will be achieved and maintained through the long-term at all intersections. • The Hickman development is viable from a traffic engineering standpoint. In summary, with the identified improvements the Hickman Development will not adversely impact the area street system. This is verified by the determination that acceptable operating conditions can be anticipated at all intersections for the foresee- able future. 25 APPENDIX A TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS CR 33 & Highway 85 0 U 0 Cu .0 O 3/27/2012 & 5/10/2012 W ca CI Li; g 0 CI - 0_ O 0 w z w LU w P.O. Box 260027 LJNIeton, 0O eaIe0 Phone: (303)792.2450 O Q r F t c ;.:' °3 }5' t `. oY MA. ' y: rt c .. t agogr. (?35 y,}tr S. 1. 4 ray N k m •-1' f it r'. LcV •'t - iii - m O - CO CO III CO e- CO e- e- V) C) e - IV Cu } 1,',' 4 f '•' 47i :Siy# *t 4 x•.; 0r CO N ON DC, rf7O CC O e- N N N O e- O O e- e- O C O eV) 0 C) 0 e— CI 0 e- 0 0 0 0 0 N J O O r 0 Co 0 0 r e— O N O Eastbound: LISIRI Total t dp } r! S 5J rf 6 J,. i `i N yy , -f} • r4v � { ' 4 ; J • i r, O a- N e- +- O N O CD e- 0 0 CD O - CD O O CD 0 0 r 0 0 .- e- O e- O e- N 0 O N O s- Total north/south at I� I 12 t c•-) r N r) e- t N e- - o a '7'a .i;ocOe-cDe-Oco.-O 00 C 7 a CO 0 0 Northbound: 5' �:'' IN Xi (( 4 4a t.O- c+) N O N O e- O O N e- CD CO -.I 0.4 e- M N Or- r CD c- O .- ,- 0 CL:ifl °' S 1- o 03 o,-crt7. O O CD o 42 o 9. O i C) " O C) O o c(C)v CO O co t0 N C) LCD 0 0 CD O CD O LL a ii.1 ea J 441 1- y I ) . m� ,f�++ I t C) i' -- . 'af i t ) 1 Q) - l• N .�tY': i ` .0) ) r F- 'St st Co 3 N N N V) r t t N N U 11t I,f e- N O O N e- O Cc) O e- O CD O r- CD O O e- O O N O CD O e- CD CD e- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `t } V{ TV -4 t:s f ,h ��1'� it I y t' e- N O r- e- O e- e- O O e- N CD CD CD O CD O C) O O s- CD CD N O e- c- CD CD N O e- e- 0 CD ,If N CO CD I. N '' ' V) e- V) N e- O N r- e- O O O N O O N CV C-) C•) CO N N V Cs/ e- e- 0 4 i ��ii 1 + -c st , .:.• yJ KC b 74. -- CD 0 a- 0 0<- CD c- O M s — CD CD e— e— CD O e— CD O O e— 0 O 0� 03:45 O a— M 0� 4.45 0 O _ a-- O c') 7 0 0 0 0 O 4 0 0 0 0 TABULAR SUMMARY OF VEHICLE COUNTS CR 44 & Highway 85 O U N Observer: Linda 3/27/2012 & 5/16/2012 w O. Q M J nLO O 0 0 R 0 Co co O U U o D c 6 m W O m y a � W ci LU W Phone: (303) 792-2 O U 0) O) Q) d T CU 0) Cll I -- 0 T3 — o a H O O c0 t� r,. t• N- CO N ! h M T M t #� N iD C1D fV • . CO m M . fit ti p� N �.. CCf CC) N .1 CO O N CD N 7 N Ct) N O f- b CO O O CO N CT N Is - CA IA Y tD CL O M O . t� N o r Se N Cn o 1- Q O N M N C.O O N- N .- CO CA h 7 0 a Cn O .-- 0 0 0 0 .- ..- M CO N .- N d J CO .-- '7 (O CC) 00 O) N O" N N Eastbound: LISIRI Total CO N et r: 4S (4 0 0 co N r.- O c. - O Cr) N N co d CO M CO N O N CV O r O .- O O CO N N N N C) Total north/south CND COO CO m C if) CO C)) 277-1 V COD Yd. 250 O O N N N N N M N N N N r CSC N .. 0 CV 0 N �" s M .: O) H el ee,-. h 'tom- r ? O) 00 ix N co N s d .- CO .- .-- C) C) 7 O Cl)43 co O r r CV r CO y- Cb y- N' Cr t— O r N V- 0) cA O N. NJ C.) 4, CC) n co CC) N. Mtn co in t-- Northbound: 4 �f d ), ? ' s L ry5 : �. `tl L -qt.- > O- :: • ti C4to co (OO V f1•. U01 M M ce CD N m ti O) Cq O) ti N CO V CO �y tD N N N N CA 1- M N U) d- N CA M Cl) R., N CD U) N N O .-- J . - O .- O 0 O .- O .-- .- .--- •- CA u� °7 5 0 a" ao) I o U) CO). v o CO) v •- m o 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 COD U) CA CO N N N 0 N co CV CO cn 0 S 0 O) M 2t ) 1' U) f,.�;C� rY 4" 'i '-4 ) O) /s 4 O) it.' CO Ai t O ) 't tpr O) %h s)y ' tia I t O> s t , .. -- 14 N 0) 0 i' 0 � N- N- co ) o tt co co O C) O V V N CO O N c) O N [sic'.- O CO N O y— CO CC) cc) CO CO CO N N- N C) O r- Y.1- !C;.:- ,..5.: a s ''' jr 7•7'I •'•. ,; Yfl d )s. - ✓F iP t` P °O _�.t P 1° ..; at )t h ;71.'1 = ��;+ '4 Y. CC. r1 ! N; , O N N N O O O (1.I O N .- N O '.:t N N 4- QM 4- M s— c') CV O O CC] O CO C) .- d 307 323 N M O M N CO N M M M 0OO N 347 I 345 CO) M 270 I Cff )O C[i Cifµ .w t0 y�. $6�` ' r fir f4 ..1',, w)ir M, , - `I N O N s- ..- a- CO N CO N N 05:45 I 0 1 155 1 2 1 `` ' 157= yA 0 1 111 1 2 4 UU) C() VO � U) (OO Cl)4CDD C <Y N CC) N co N N N y - a COOP CO CO S U T t` OC CoCD CD coCD }sf CO M 'i£J , _co "Os, !+. IR' e- r r -r-. r. r. r r r ' 1 M co U') CO o0 h CA N '‘— co O) C C ) L CMO U) CD CD CCD C) N- CO CCD r .-- O .-- O O •- O O O 03:00 ri O 03:30 03:45 o O 04:15 cO ,, v 0 " v 0 o Li 0 05:15 05:30 10 O lD 0 N CD CD CO O) C) C~D ( r CD O CD N 0 N O N 0 W a APPENDIX B Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed 3/2012 Analysis Time Period piA PM Project Description EastNVest Street: CR 33 Intersection CR33-US 85 Jurisdiction Analysis Year &ST LT TOTAL North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North -South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement 1 Northbound 2 Study Period (hrs): 0.25 3 4 Southbound 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 2 623 7 8 550 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2 623 7 8 550 5 10 10 Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration Upstream Si4nal L T R L T R 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 2 1 5 1 1 7 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 2 1 5 1 1 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 25 25 25 25 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR v (veh/h) 2 8 9 8 C (m) (veh/h) 958 896 437 396 v/c 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 95% queue length 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.06 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.8 9.1 13.4 14.3 LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s/veh) 13.4 14.3 Approach LOS B B Copyright ® 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 11:24 AM 5/23/2012 rage i (A I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General information Site Information Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed 5/233/ZQ12 Analysis Time Period AMP4') M Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 Intersection CR 33 - US 85 Jurisdiction Analysis Year ST LT TOTAL North/South Street: US 85 ntersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement 1 Northbound 2 3 4 Southbound 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type RT Channelized 6 1.00 661 1.00 1 1.00 14 1.00 625 1.00 4 1.00 6 661 1 14 625 4 10 10 Two Way Left Turn Lane 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration Upstream Signal L T R L T R 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 2 0 4 2 1 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 2 0 4 2 1 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 25 25 25 25 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1- 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR v (veh/h) 6 14 6 6 C (m) (veh/h) 897 871 296 447 v/c 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 95% queue length 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.04 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.0 9.2 17.4 13.2 LOS A A C B Approach Delay (s/veh) Approach LOS 17.4 C 13.2 B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 11:24 AM 5/23/2012 Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed 5/26/2012 Analysis Time Period PM Intersection 44 - 85 Jurisdiction Analysis Year 0ST TOTAL Project Description East/West Street CR 44 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: Norfh-South Study Period (hrs4: 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement 1 Northbound 2 3 4 Southbound 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 1 594 37 18 530 12 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 594 37 18 530 12 15 15 Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration Upstream Signal L T R L T R 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 14 5 28 2 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 5 14 5 28 2 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 15 _ 15 15 15 15 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 Configuration LT _ R LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R LT R v (veh/h) 1 18 30 15 19 5 C (m) (veh/h) 938 864 295 701 187 732 v/c 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.02 0.10 0.01 95% queue length 0.00 0.06 0.34 0.07 0.33 0.02 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.8 9.3 18.6 10.2 26.4 10.0 LOS A A C 8 D A Approach Delay (s/veh) 15.8 23.0 Approach LOS C C Copyright © 2010 Univeraly of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/26/2012 8:55 AM 5/26/2012 Page lot1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection 44 - 85 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 5/26, 112 Analysis Year 6 ST TOTAL Analysis Time Period A i' Project Description East/West Street: CR 44 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 2 638 26 12 619 9 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 2 638 26 12 619 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 -- -- 15 — — Median Type _ Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 - 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 7 8 6 18 6 16 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 7 8 6 18 6 16 Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 15 15 15 15 15 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 Configuration _ LT R LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R LT R v (veh/h) 2 12 24 16 15 6 C (m) (veh/h) 867 839 232 681 184 689 v/c 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.08 0.01 95% queue length 0.01 0.04 0.34 0.07 0.26 0.03 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.2 9.4 22.3 10.4 26.3 10.3 LOS A A C _ B O B pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 17.5 21.7 pproach LOS - -- C C , Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: : 5/26/2012 APPENDIX C L ubl L l/1 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Analyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period N/2012 PM Site Information Intersection CR 33 - DRIVE Jurisdiction - ~ Analysis Year ST TOTA Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 North/South Street: DRIVE Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 5 20 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 5 20 0 0 5 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 100 -- -- _ 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 / 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal _ 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 5 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach Storage 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 100 0 0 0 5 100 N N 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound LR Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration v (veh/h) LT LR 5 10 C (m) (veh/h) v/c 1150 807 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.01 0.04 Control Delay (s/veh) LOS 8.1 9.5 A A Approach Delay (s/veh) Approach LOS 9.5 A Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 11:36 AM 5/23/2012 rage 1 O1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection CR 33 - DRIVE Agency/Co. Jurisdictionc,LT Date Performed 5/23/ 012 Analysis Year OTA Analysis Time Period A PM✓✓ Project Description EastNVest Street: CR 33 North/South Street: DRIVE Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (his): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T. R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 10 10 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 5 10 0 0 10 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 100 - -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 _ 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 0 5 0 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 100 0 100 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 5 10 C (m) (veh/h) 1144 809 v/c 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.01 0.04 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.2 _ 9.5 LOS A A pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 9.5 pproach LOS -- -- A Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/2312012 11: 5/23/2012 rage 1 cm 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection CR 33 - US 85 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 5/ 3/2012 Analysis Year E LT 'TA Analysis Time Period t9PM Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 5 640 10 15 560 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 5 640 10 15 560 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 10 -- -- 10 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 _ Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 5 5 5 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 5 5 5 5 5 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 25 25 25 25 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR v (veh/h) 5 15 15 15 C (m) (veh/h) 950 880 246 250 vlc 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.06 95% queue length 0.02 0.05 0.19 0.19 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.8 9.2 20.6 20.3 LOS A A C C pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 20.6 20.3 pproach LOS _ - -- C C Copyright© 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 11: 5/23/2012 rage i or i TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection CR 33 - US 85 Jurisdiction Agency/Co. Analysis Year Ex LT (IT s' Date Performed 5/23/2012 Analysis Time Period AMe Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 5 670 5 15 640 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HER (veh/h) 5 670 5 15 640 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 10 -- -- 10 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 _ 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 5 5 5 5 5 10 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 5 5 5 5 5 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 25 _ 25 25 25 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR (veh/h) 5 15 20 15 C (m) (veh/h) 884 860 260 218 v/c 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.07 95% queue length 0.02 0.05 0.25 0.22 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.1 9.3 20.0 22.7 LOS A , A C C pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 20.0 22.7 pproach LOS - -- C C Copyright ©2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 11:22 AM 5/23/2012 rage iO11 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection 44 - 85 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 6/2012 Analysis Year EX ST OTA Time Period AM M Analysis Project Description East/West Street: CR 44 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 2 605 40 20 545 10 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 2 605 40 20 545 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 -- -- 15 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 5 15 5 30 2 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 5 15 5 30 2 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 15 15 15 15 15 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 Configuration LT R LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R .LT R v (veh/h) 2 20 32 15 20 5 C (m) (veh/h) 927 853 287 697 177 725 vlc 0.00 0.02 0.11 0.02 0.11 0.01 95% queue length 0.01 0.07 0.37 0.07 0.38 0.02 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.9 9.3 19.1 10.3 27.9 10.0 LOS A A C B D A pproach Delay (s/veh) -- — 16.3 24.3 pproach LOS - -- C C Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 eneratea: 5/26/2012 Page I ot 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection 44 - 85 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 5/26 012 Analysis Year EX T OTAP Analysis Time Period AM M �� Project Description EastNVest Street: CR 44 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 2 655 25 10 630 10 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 2 655 25 10 630 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 — -- 15 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 1 1 2 1 Configuration L T R L T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 5 10 5 30 5 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 5 10 5 30 5 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 15 15 15 15 15 15 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 1 Configuration LT R LT R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LT R LT R v (veh/h) 2 10 35 15 15 5 C (m) (veh/h) 857 826 247 673 164 685 v/c 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.02 0.09 0.01 95% queue length 0.01 0.04 0.49 0.07 0.30 0.02 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.2 9.4 22.0 10.5 29.1 10.3 LOS A A C B D B pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 18.5 24.4 pproach LOS -- _ -- C C Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/26/2012 9:01 AM 5/26/2012 APPENDIX D General Information Agency Analyst Jurisdiction '-Intersection File Name Project Description Demand Information _ HCS 20v10 Signalized Intersection Results Summary rla t h T3riT% Intersection Information Duration, h 0.25 GC Analysis Date 5/23/2012 Area Type Other Time Period 'AM PM PHF 0.92 85 - 44 ..•T _ Analysis Year 132 Analysis Period 1> 7:00 Streets1.xus Approach Movement Demand (v), veh/h Signal Information_ Cycle, s 100.0 Offset, s 0 Uncoordinated Yes Force Mode Fixed Timer Results Reference Phase Reference Point Simult. Gap E/W Gap N/S Assigned Phase Case Number Phase Duration, s Change Period, (Y+Rc), s _a Max Allow Headway (MAH), s Queue Clearance Time (gs), s Green Extension Time (ge), s Phase Call Probability Max Out Probability Movement Group Results Approach Movement Assigned Movement Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h _ _ _ _ Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/In Queue Service Time (gs), s Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc), s Capacity (c), veh/h Volume -to -Capacity Ratio pg Available Capacity (co), veh/h Back of Queue (Q), veh/In (50th percentile) Overflow Queue (Q3), veh/In Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) Uniform Delay (dr), s/veh Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh Control Delay (d), s/veh Level of Service (LOS) Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS Multimodal Results Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS Bicycle LOS Score / LOS Copyright© 2012 University of Florida. Ail Rights Reserved. EB 15 20 10 EBL EBT 4 5.0 _...- -35.0 5.0 2.9 3.0 0.2 1.00 0.00 7 4 14 _16 22 11 1433 1900 1610 0.8 0.8 0.5 1.0 499 0.033 30.0 4.0 1.0 3 71 1412 0.8 0.5 4.5 570 r_ 483 484 0.038 0.023 0.146 570 483 484 0.2 0.3 0.2 . 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 24.9 0.0 0.0 24.9 C 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.8 24.7 26.4 0.0_ 0.0 0.0 00.0 0.0 0.0 o.0 WBT 8 5.0 35.0 5.0 8 _... 5 1900 2.9 .- 6.5 161( 1610 650 1809 1.6 0.5 21.2 1.6 0.5 21.2 805 300 0.061 0.018 805 300 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.9 21.3 0.0 0.0 _ 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.8 24.7 26.4 24.6 12.9 21.3 C 24.8 I C 21.1 16.9 EB 3.0 0.6 A 3.0 0.7 WB A B C HCS 2010"" Streets Version 6.3 24.8 2.5 1.4 NBT 2 5.3 40.0 5.0 2.8 23.2 1610 6.0 6.0 564 Y SB L T 330 795 SBL 1 1.0 25.0 5.0 2.9 12.6 0.4 -R- ,65.0 �5.0 2.8 1 6 359 864 1810 1809 10.6 7.0 10.6 7.0 0.743 0.241 ; 0.693 1266 564 517 2171 966 4.7 1.00 2171 _966 0.398 0.02; 7.0 2.0 3.8 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.1 0.1 0.0 0.00 16.8 4.7 8.1 3.3 0.0 0.0 25.1 23.2 20.1 C NB B A 9.2 2.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 4.7 8.1 A A SB A Generated: 5/2312012 12:16:59 PI i <siQs1i;.-.kf General Information Agency Analyst Jurisdiction HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary Y' AW GC Analysis Date 5/23/2012 Time Period AM Intersection 185 - 44 File Name Streets1.xus Project Description Demand Information Approach Movement Demand (v), veh/h Signal Information Cycle, s Offset, s Uncoordinated Force 100.0 0 Yes Fixed Reference Phase Reference Point Simult. Gap E/W Simult. Gap N/S Timer Results Assigned Phase 92.1e Number Phase Duration, s.f... Change Period, (Y+Rs), s Max Allow Headway (_11/Ii_4/:-/.)., s Queue Clearance Time (gs), s Green Extension Time (g), s� Phase Call Probability Max Out Probability Movement Group Results Approach Movement Assigned Movement Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s), veh/h/In Queue Service Time (gs), s Cycle Queue Clearance Time (gc)s Capacity (c), veh/h Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (X) Available Capacity (ca), veh/h Back of Queue (Q), veh/In (50th percentile) Overflow Queue (Q3), veh/ln Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) Uniform Delay (di), s/veh Incremental Delay (d2), s/veh Initial Queue Delay (d3), s/veh s_� r Control Delay (d), s/veh Level of Service (LOS) Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS Intersection Delay, s/veh I LOS Multimodal Results Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 3.0 Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.6 Analysis Yea EB L^ T R 15 10 10 1L _Green 15.0 40.0 30.0 Yellow 4.0 4.0 4.0 Red 1.0 1.6- 1.0 1.0 End On On Intersection Information Duration, h Area Type PHF 0.25 Other 0.92 tor/11- Analysis Period 1> 7:00 EBL EBT WBL 7 4 16 _11 1426 1900 0.8 0.4 1.2 0.4 494 570 0.033 0.019 494 570 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.00_ 0.00 25.1 24.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.1 24.6 C C 24.8 CoIiyrtitn 2012 University of Florieta, Al' Rights R=_:ierved. 5.0 35.0 5.0 2.9 3.2 0.6 1.00 14 3 8 18 11 245 11 98 1610 1426 1900 1610 0.5 14.6 0.4 3.6 0.5 15.0 483 494 0.023 0.495 483 494 0.2 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.00 a 0.00 24.7 29.9 0.0 0.0 24.7 30.2 C C C A 26.1 17.1 0.4 570 0.019 24.6 0.0 0.0 10 1110 11 1207 566 1809 3.6 1.2 725 299 0.135 0.036 725 299 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 16.1 18.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 24.4 1447 0.834 1447 8.5 0.0 0.00 20.5 4.1 0.0 45.0 5.0 4.3 1.00 0.32 644 0.059 644 0.5 0.0 0.00 18.4 0.0 0.0 A.3'ir'T1'rf er.. SBT 6 3.0 65.0 5.0 2.8 10.9 6.1 .00 SB 125 1011 16 1810 3.2 3.2 400 0.313 400 1809 8.9 8.9 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 16.1 4.9 0.2 0.1 0,0 0.0 16.2 4.9 6.2 1.4 HCS 2010'M Streets Version 6.3 161( 0.4 0.4 966 0.01' 966 0.1 0.0 0.00 0.0 8.1 A Generated: 5/2312012 12:13:38 P1 1 ..6., A WA TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection CR 33 - DRIVE Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 5/23/2012 Analysis Year ST LT •TA Analysis Time Period 1lIPM Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 North/South Street: DRIVE Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 190 10 10 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 190 10 0 0 10 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 0 -- — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 / 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 75 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 0 5 0 75 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration _ LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 190 80 C (m) (veh/h) 1616 1011 v/c 0.12 0.08 95% queue length 0.40 0.26 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 8.9 LOS A A pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 8.9 pproach LOS -- -- - A Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 11: 5/23/2012 rag 1 ui 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection CR 33 - DRIVE Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 5/23/ 012 Analysis Year S LT T•TA Analysis Time Period AM Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 North/South Street: DRIVE Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 50 5 5 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 . 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 50 5 0 0 5 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 0 -- — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 155 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 0 5 0 155 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound pproach Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 50 160 C (m) (veh/h) 1623 1071 v/c 0.03 0.15 95% queue length 0.10 0.52 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 9.0 LOS A A pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 9.0 pproach LOS -- -- A n A. Copyright© 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+"" Version 5.6 eneratea: 5/2312012 11. 5/23/2012 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC intersection CR 33 - US 85 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction C1 Date Performed 23/2012 Analysis Year EX S1 OTA Analysis Time Period c4PM Project Description �J East/West Street: CR 33 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1030 200 865 10 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 1030 200 0 865 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 10 -- -- 10 — -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 / 0 2 1 Configuration T R T R Upstream Signal _ 0 _ 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 10 85 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 10 0 0 85 Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 25 25 25 25 25 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 Configuration R R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R R v (veh/h) 85 10 C (m) (veh/h) 496 557 v/c 0.17 0.02 95% queue length 0.61 0.05 Control Delay (s/veh) 13.8 11.6 LOS B B pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 13.8 11.6 pproach LOS -- -- B B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 11:28 AM 5/23/2012 rage 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection CR 33 - US 85 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 5/23/2012 Analysis Year EX ST OTA Analysis Time Period AM 9 Project Description East/West Street: CR 33 North/South Street: US 85 Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 1010 50 1140 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 1010 50 0 1140 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 10 - - 10 -- — Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 0 2 1 Configuration T R T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street _ Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 5 160 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 0 5 0 0 160 Percent Heavy Vehicles 25 25 _ 25 25 25 25 Percent Grade (%) _ 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 1 Configuration R R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R R v (veh/h) 160 5 C (m) (veh/h) 503 459 v/c 0.32 0.01 95% queue length 1.36 0.03 Control Delay (s/veh) 15.5 12.9 LOS C B pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 15.5 12.9 pproach LOS - _ -- C B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+rM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 11:28 AM 5/23/2012 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection CR 44 - DRIVE Jurisdiction Ag_ency/Co. Analysis Year LT TOTAL Date Performed 5/23/2012 Analysis Time Period M PM Project Description East/West Street: CR 44 North/South Street: DRIVE Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 115 390 5 70 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 0 115 390 5 70 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 — -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration T R LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 75 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 75 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 10 0 10 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration _ LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 5 80 C (m) (veh/h) 1070 780 v/c 0.00 0.10 95% queue length 0.01 0.34 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.4 10.1 LOS A _ B pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 10.1 pproach LOS - -- B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 1:55 PM 5/23/2012 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information nalyst GC Agency/Co. Date Performed 5/23/2012 Analysis Time Period AM{'A4 Project Description East/West Street: CR 44 Intersection CR 44 - DRIVE Jurisdiction Analysis Year LT TOTAL North/South Street: DRIVE Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement 1 Eastbound 2 3 4 Westbound 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 90 100 5 60 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 90 100 5 60 0 0 0 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration Upstream Sipnal T R LT 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 375 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 375 0 5 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 10 0 10 0 0 0 Percent Grade (c/o) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 5 380 C (m) (veh/h) 1396 812 v/c 0.00 0.47 95% queue length • 0.01 2.52 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 13.3 LOS A 8 Approach Delay (s/veh) 13.3 Approach LOS 8 Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 5/23/2012 1:55 PM 5/23/2012 Tel: 303-792-2450 EUGENE G. COPPOLA P.E., PTOE Fax: 303-792-5990 Littleton, CO 80163-0027 P.O. Box 630027 October 17, 2017 Mark Goldstein Goldstein Enterprises 2850 McClelland Drive, Suite 2400 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RE: Daily Traffic on Area Streets Weld County Industrial Park Dear Mark: I am writing to document daily traffic currently using CR 33 in the area of Weld County Industrial Park (WCIP). Traffic counts were conducted at the identified locations and dates noted below. Road Date Location Daily Trips CR 33 March 2017* East (South) of U.S. 85 224 8/23/2017 South of Niobrara 218 10/12/2017 South of Niobrara 390 10/12/2017 North of Niobrara 944 * Counts conducted by Weld County. Based upon the traffic counts taken before Niobrara and after Niobrara illustrate the traffic generated by the WCIP. The traffic generated by the WCIP is approximately 554 Daily Trips or Vehicles per Day(vpd). EXHIBIT i `/ 1 t Peak hour traffic is shown below. For definition purposes, U.S. 85 is assumed to run in the east -west direction. Road Location AM Pk Hr PM Pk Hr CR 33 North of Niobrara 134 96 South of Niobrara 14 16 These counts are consistent with the recent peak hour manual counts conducted at the CR 33 - Niobrara intersection shown below. LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour 11/13 0/0 in co IZ V Niobrara CURRENT TRAFFIC CR 33 can function at a level of service of C with a 55 MPH speed limit and a traffic volume of 1,400 vehicles per hour. Meaning, the amount of traffic activity in the study area is minor or uninterrupted considering the available capacity of the roadway. The maximum amount of traffic to the Site from Lots 5 and 8 combined will add about 50 trips per day with an estimated 65% of these trips being large trucks. Once the rigs/equipment are moved to Lots 5 and 8 for storage the daily site traffic will drop to approximately 15 - 20 trips per day about 30% of which will be large trucks. Access to CR 44 is expected by Summer, 2018. At that time, about 50% of the traffic is expected to use CR 44. Peak hour traffic in the area of WCIP is shown below. LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour 19/19 N/N M M 0 Niobrara FUTURE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC CDOT Access Code criteria for NR -B roadways were reviewed to determine the need for a southbound left turn lane on CR 33 at Niobrara. Per the Code: A left turn lane is required for any access with a projected peak hour left ingress turning volume greater than 10 vehicles per hour if the posted speed is greater than 40 mph. This criteria, however is subject to section 3.5 of the Access Code which reads: "The auxiliary lanes required in the category design standards may be waived when the 20th year predicted roadway volumes conflicting with the turning vehicle are below the following minimum volume thresholds. The left turn deceleration lane may be dropped if opposing traffic is predicted to be below 100 DHV (design hour volume). As indicated, the volume opposing the left turn is 10 vehicles per hour which is significantly less than the 100 vehicles per hour threshold allowing the left turn lane to be dropped. In summary, it is concluded that the southbound left turn lane on CR 33 at the Niobrara Boulevard access is not needed. This determination is based on CDOT criteria which are intended to maintain smooth traffic flow and protect the public health, safety, and welfare. I trust this letter meets your current needs. Please contact me if you have any questions or need further assistance. Sincerely, Eugene G. Coppola, P.E., PTOE Hello