The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20142608.tiff SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR) APPLICATION FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE DATE RECEIVED: RECEIPT # /AMOUNT # /$ CASE # ASSIGNED: APPLICATION RECEIVED BY PLANNER ASSIGNED: Parcel Number 1 2 0 9 _ 0 1 _ 2 _ 0 0 _ 0 3 5 (12 digit number - found on Tax I.D. information, obtainable at the Weld County Assessor's Office, or www.co.weld.co.us) Legal Description Lot B of RE 4174: Part of W2, NW4 , Section 01 , Township 3 North, Range 67 West Zone District: AG , Total Acreage: 40.68 , Flood Plain: N/A Geological Hazard: N/A Airport Overlay District: N/A FEE OWNER(S) OF THE PROPERTY: Name: Michael Kent Decker Work Phone # Home Phone # 970-330-2942 Email Address: 50 Coyote Trail Address: City/State/Zip Code Greeley/CO/80634 Name: N/A Work Phone # Home Phone # Email Address: Address: City/State/Zip Code Name: N/A Work Phone # Home Phone # Email Address: Address: City/State/Zip Code APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (See Below: Authorization must accompany applications signed by Authorized Agent) Name: AGPROfessionals (Tim Naylor) Work Phone # 970-535-9318 Home Phone # Email tnaylor@apros.com Address: 3050 67th Avenue Address: City/State/Zip Code Greeley/CO/80634 PROPOSED USE: Commercial activites supporting the oil and gas industry, specifically trucking and oil and gas roustabout services. 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 Agent signs, a letter of authorization from all fee owners must be includedit-h-the application. If a corporation is the fee owner, notarized evidence must be included indicating that the ign tbry has to legal authority to sign for the corporation. Signature: Q. ier or-Atitfriorized Agent Date Signature: Owner or Authorized Agent Date AGPROfessionals , LLC DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULTURE March 12, 2014 Miller HFI, LLC is contracted with AGPROfessionals, LLC to process work related to all land use and permitting processes. AGPROfessionals, LLC is authorized to represent and request the release of all records necessary on behalf of Miller HFI. We respectfully request that all correspondence from the county be directed to Wayne Frelund with AGPROfessionals, LLC. Sincerely, $-/3-/Y Nardi Date ENGINEERING, SURVEYING, PLANNING & CONSULTING 4350 Highway 66, Longmont, CO 80504 970.535.9318 / office 0 970.535.9854 / fax 0 www.agpros.com Mar 1414 04:36p Decker Agency LLC 9703565474 p119 I .• AG . es a s , LLC DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULTURE • . March 12, 2014 Michael Kent Decker.is.contracted with AGPROfessionals, LLC to process work related to all land• use and permitting processes. AGPROfessionals, LLC is authorized to • - the release of all records necessar n_. behalf of Miller FTFI- We . . . represent did request. .! o 'respectfully request that all correspondence from the county be directed to Wayne • - Frelund with AGPROfessionals, LLC. . . • .• . . . . S;n:; ely: ;�. . - • .< , . ... • /- . . . d I . ______.,---e• . . / ... / / -. . . . • . - • Michael ` ate i • • • • ENGINEERING, SURVEYING, PLANNING & CONSULTING • .. . 4350 Highway 66, Longmont, CO 80504 - - • 970335.9318 /office a 970335.9854 / fax 0 www,sggroes.comn - oil • _11.7-‘t< Miller- HA, LLC/RRC Holdings, LLC 428 N . 2nd Street LaSalle, CO 80645 Phone: 970-284-2074 Fax: 970-284-2096 April 25, 2014 RE: Colorado Secretary of State Business Division-Articles of Organization To whom it may concern : The ownership of Miller HFI, LLC is jointly MTFE Holdings, LLC located at 428 N. 2nd St, LaSalle, CO 80645 and HFI, LLC located at 13069 CR 40, Platteville, CO 80651. This ownership was effective as of 7-17-08. Ryan Harding is the owner of HA, LLC with all rights and privileges regarding Miller HA, LLC. Ryan Harding Owner/Managing Member AGPROfessionals,, Job # 2329 - 02 Miller HFI SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR) QUESTIONNAIRE The following questions are to be answered and submitted as part of the USR application. If a question does not pertain to your use, please respond with "not applicable", with an explanation as to why the question is not applicable. 1 . Explain, in detail, the proposed use of the property. This proposal is to build a shop for trucks and heavy equipment utilized in an oil and gas roustabout service related business. A part of the property is to be used to store equipment, raw materials and products utilized in the business operations of oil and gas service company. The remaining part of the property will continue to be farmed utilizing a center pivot sprinkler system . There will be no manufacturing at this location. The shop will be used to maintain the equipment used by the facility. There is no painting proposed at this facility. There is no fuel storage proposed on site, if fuel is to be stored at this site appropriate permit and SPCC plans will be acquired. No sign is proposed at this time. If at such time as a sign is required it will meet the sign requirements as stated in the Weld County Code. As shown on the site plan , the proposal is for approximately 80 truck parking spaces 12' x 80' . Additional parking is available for employees however, as the parking area is gravel striping and specific spaces are not specified . The location of the light poles in the parking area is shown on the plat. A total of eight light poles are proposed. All lights will be shielded and directed down as required in the Weld County Code. 2. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Code, Chapter 22 (Comprehensive Plan). This USR application has been prepared utilizing the process outlined in the Weld County Code and Procedural Guides. The Guiding Principles of the Comprehensive Plan found in Section 22-1 - 120 states, "Land use changes must afford flexibility based on the specific location and the particular circumstances encountered within the locality. It is also important to weigh the cumulative impacts that specific land use changes will have." This proposal is respectful of surrounding uses. There is a gravel pit and Power Plant to the west and a wood mulching operation to the east. The application is consistent with Section 22-2-20 G. A. Goal 7. "County land use regulations should protect the individual property owner's right to request a land use change. 2. A. Policy 7. 2. Conversion of agricultural land to nonurban residential, commercial and industrial uses should be accommodated when the subject site is in an area that can support such development, and should attempt to be compatible with the region. " The site is located near the Highway 85 and Highway 66 corridor and is central to the oil and gas support base in Weld County and throughout Colorado. 3. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Code, Chapter 23 (Zoning) and the zone district in which it is located. The proposal is for the manufacturing, fabrication and finishing of agricultural and oil and gas equipment in the Agricultural Zone. This proposal is allowed in the Ag Zone as a Use by Special Review as called in Chapter 23, 23-3-40. 23-3-40 A. Mineral resource development facilities including: 2. Oil and Gas Support and Service. B. Agricultural Service establishments primarily engaged in performing agricultural, animal husbandry or horticultural services on a fee or contract basis, including: 4. Farm equipment sales, repair and installation facilities. Adequate provision has been made to protect the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County. Operation Standards as found in Section 23-2-260 of the Weld County Code were consulted in preparing this application. 4. What types of uses surround the site? Explain how the proposed use is consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. The surrounding area has multiple uses including production agriculture including a power plant, rangeland, oil and gas production and scattered residential uses. 5. Describe, in detail , the following: a. How many people will use this site? It is proposed that 10 full time employees will be at this site and 60-80 employees off site. b. How many employees are proposed to be employed at this site? It is proposed that 70-90 full time employees will be employed at this site in the future depending on business conditions. The on-site employees are office staff and shop personnel for minor maintenance of the trucks. The offsite employees are truck drivers and roustabout personnel. c. What are the hours of operation? The facility is projected to be operational Monday-Sunday, twenty-four hours per day. Normal business hours will be from 5 A. M . to 10 P. M. , Monday through Sunday. d . What type and how many structures will be erected (built) on this site? A new shop will be built on the site to be used for the oil and gas support business. A building envelope has been identified for the shop. The construction of the shop will begin immediately upon entitlement and applicable permits are acquired. The shop is proposed to 110'x150'x12'. e. What type and how many animals, if any, will be on this site? None. f. What kind (type, size, weight) of vehicles will access this site and how often? Typical vehicles accessing this site include employee and owner vehicles and service trucks. The following numbers are anticipated upon full build-out of the site: Semi-truck and trailer: 60 per day Roustabout pickup trucks: 24- one ton flat bed trucks per day Pickups and cars 75- 100 per day for full-time employees. g . Who will provide fire protection to the site? Platteville-Gilcrest Fire Protection District h. What is the water source on the property? (Both domestic and irrigation) A proposed CWCWD tap will be the commercial water source as indicated in the provided CWCWD Can-serve letter. Irrigation water is provided by an adjudicated well, permit number 12022. i. What is the sewage disposal system on the property? (Existing and proposed). A new commercial Individual Sewage Disposal System is proposed for the shop building. j . If storage or warehousing is proposed, what type of items will be stored? Storage and warehousing is not proposed to be a main activity of this request; however, storage of iron , hardware, installation equipment, service and miscellaneous business supplies will be stored on site to accommodate daily business requirements. Finished product may be stored outside temporarily while awaiting pick up. 6. Explain the proposed landscaping for the site. The landscaping shall be separately submitted as a landscape plan map as part of the application submittal. The site is located in rural Weld County with rangeland surrounding the site. No additional landscaping is planned. 7. Explain any proposed reclamation procedures when termination of the Use by Special Review activity occurs. Reclamation procedures include compliance with applicable regulations and operated as a dry shop. Should the facility be permanently discontinued , it would be marketed under applicable county planning and zoning regulations to its permitted use. 8. Explain how the storm water drainage will be handled on the site. A water quality feature will be designed to handle storm water. 9. Explain how long it will take to construct this site and when construction and landscaping is scheduled to begin. Construction is proposed to begin immediately upon entitlement and should be completed within one year; a building envelope has been established on the site plan for the shop building . 10. Explain where storage and/or stockpile of wastes will occur on this site. There will be no storage of wastes on this site. All materials will be in the production stream, recycled or collected in dumpsters and sent to the landfill. All materials not collected in dumpsters will be stored inside. Any wastes produced from employees will be contained in a dumpster and hauled off regularly by a sanitation service such as B&C Refuse Company. Oil waste from the shop will be collected in a vault for recycling to LaSalle Oil. There will be no floor drains connected to the septic system located in the shop area. 11 . Please list all proposed on-site and off-site improvements associated with the use (example: landscaping, fencing, drainage, turn lanes, etc. ) and a timeline of when you will have each one of the improvements completed. There are no off-site improvements planned for this project. On site improvements will include the overlot grading and storm drainage water quality feature, construction of the drive and parking areas, construction of the shop/office building, parking lot lighting. The construction of these structures will begin as soon as the permit is approved. The construction will be completed by the summer of 2015. vo CoU �, Weld County Public Works Dept. ..k 1111 H Street ACCESS PERMIT „0 „ , se 0, P.O. Box 758 V Nirr- - Greeley, CO 80632 APPLICATION FORM �S/C �� Phone: (970)304-6496 Fax: (970)304-6497 Applicant Property Owner ( If different than Applicant) Name Tim Naylor Michael Kent Decker Name Company AGPROfessionals Address 50 Coyote Trail Address 3050 67th Avenue , Suite 200 City Greeley State CO Zip 80634 City Greeley State co Zip 80634 Phone 970-330-2942 Business Phone 970-535-9318 Fax Fax 970-535-9854 E-mail E-mail tnaylor@agpros. com A = Existing Access A= Proposed Access Parcel Location & Sketch e 38 The access is on WCR Nearest Intersection : WCR 23 & WCR 38 WCR Distance from Intersection 367. 73 ,l A tin Parcel Number 120901200035cS Section/Township/Range 01 /03/67 t u V Is there an existing access to the property .'OYES NO N 3 � Number of Existing Accesses 2 Road Surface Type & Construction Information Asphalt n Gravel n Treated n Other WCR Culvert Size & Type Materials used to construct Access Construction Start Date Finish Date Proposed Use ,Temporary (Tracking Pad Required)/ $75 ❑Single Residential/$75 Industrial/$150 Small Commercial or Oil & Gas/$75 Large Commercial/$150 Subdivision/$ 150 [ Field (Agriculture Only)/Exempt / Is this access associated with a Planning Process? No E, USR RE PUD Other r Required Attached Documents - Traffic Control Plan -Certificate of Insurance - Access 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 to comply with all said permit requirements and provisions, all Weld County ordinances, and state laws regarding facilities construction. Signature ,___ Printed Name /inn.- /IL A/ v - / � Date 40 / 4 Approval or Denial will e issued in nimum of 5 days. Approved by Revised Date 6/29/10 7 F I . i• 4f t ; ki, II 11/4 41, _ r r • r • Y _ .f.• •As. 4 _ r •..r $b Pr•_ ,.� tti-ter 4. !. 7 * r wri• it it afL I .r... a .0, t .. r *- a v-14 y�� Goc�� c.` ° th R Gogle earth feet 10 meters 4 Y I i t i a • 1 , a. 1 sr • . • 4. a . q • , `y 10, fw1 f.. St-- .r. +..,.. OS +. , . >, T• 414rfit" ` A �•.L,an• • likt'••••- as lwjr �f� 'c I. • re.401"41:01 ... ' - . ii • . • et jam, .• . �,'til 1 , Or j‘li IA a �� - .. mow '• � Al'ToO ,,p . " s .: , • — . fit .• 't' .,ilk M. y •{• •• 1 t41W xn.. Nip. a � ar F+ , y` ...... .. 3.--.- _ Go : 31e earth feet 10Ilk meters! 3 lam - ii % st• M •• it � • Pr y e'' f , ', ICS % .r' , li. + . , •F 4 t ;v a °/. of jt. t ' .- _•c!�"""' 7. IP •t t • s 3 s .neivie ,. i` _ .,. AG-..u"..•.- .4 • A ._ ...- _ . � , : .. . at . •• ♦♦♦♦ `i S y .,* -• .4 w I 4 '•j`. - ,• 0 'Z - _ • • l ' s rt t I 6 ma ,leik • • ••g ��yy+`� !. .•,�'�S 'ter*'. L• ,• T , y - ti 3�s T97 ' 1 [ r r 4 • �' Y • � Ggliei Go . y feeti 10 meters 3 , it JAILS_. 0% • • # 4110SaeP 1Pre 0. ...e 4 elf — (iv— Lir . , a drWbr If c. 49.0? '"ell t . ' e -„i; cilitai. Pr- St ;-, 1�.. ,. a _ •rrk « _ `''� ti —�vr .' .. "..•• • 4. V ... 4) ' " - •••• et .s of ES Gogle`•.` earth feet; 10 meters 4 ' 4 lie 4a 1. V - ' .... 4 > �Yf yto a.l'• y - Atli, 4 �( Ala ar ^ ' � � t"4 1' - r 7 : : � * I, �_.� ';a f, -. ��y1 .V e� _ - �'�:. w � _ '" t y�� 1 r el • • L1OO IC ILg. I 4,04" :"at at t .'x M Go \ 2le earth feet, 10 Q metersIf 5 7-r r* -.4 0.lliallialailltrb Pa let*� "Fat' - - -_-. - ya _ w. . - 4...V-4. "t• '`_ .. • -••fr �I-,-�: �µ%' • ` - ••, , + . rl.Y a- 7 . +' a': era y y� ,4p9 -• 4� 1 -0• t,• %mils IV ,• .� rege •i'9 I�+ r, r _ b ,••T I - • } ��..cciii��e��•sssc I.IS J.. �Y� - . • b _e.il ;. 4 ; , , G0000gl�. ear 1 " S ?: Go 1e earth feet 10 C meters 4 AGPROfessionals DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULTURE Miller-HFI, LLC Nuisance Management Plan Dust Abatement plan Existing gravel and/or road base will be used at the entrance and on internal roadways to control dust onsite. Should it be necessary to mitigate for excessive dust, a water tanker truck or portable sprinkling system may be used for moisture control on roadways. If dirt is stored on the site, it will be moistened as needed with water to prevent dust. Waste Management Plan There will be no storage of wastes on this site. All materials will be in the production stream, recycled or collected in dumpsters and sent to the landfill . All materials not collected in dumpsters will be stored inside. Chemicals stored on site include standard household cleaning items and the volumes very minimal . While oil changes are not anticipated to be done on site, if necessary, used oil and anti-freeze is hauled off site to an appropriate facility such as LaSalle Oil Company, 320 North 1st Street, La Salle, CO 80645 (970) 284-5255 . All shop floor drains will drain to a vault and hauled off site to an appropriate facility such as Waste Management of Northern Colorado 40950 Weld County Rd . 25 Ault, CO 80610, (866) 482-6319 . Any wastes produced from employees will be contained in a dumpster and hauled off regularly by a sanitation service such as B&C Refuse, Platteville, CO 80651, (970) 785-2908. ENGINEERING , SURVEYING , PLANNING & CONSULTING 4350 Highway 66 ELongmont, CO 80504 970.535.9318 / office 170.535.9854 / fax mwww.agpros.com FOR COMMERCIAL SITES, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION BUSINESS EMERGENCY INFORMATION: Business Name: Miller HFI, LLC Phone: 970-396-7359 Address: 428 N. 2nd Street City, ST, Zip: LaSalle, CO 80645 Business Owner: Ryan Harding Phone: 970-396-7359 Home Address: N/A City, ST, Zip: N/A List three persons in the order to be called in the event of an emergency: NAME TITLE ADDRESS PHONE Ryan Harding Business Hours: 6 - 10 Days: 7 days/week Type of Alarm: None Burglar Holdup Fire Silent Audible Name and address of Alarm Company: Location of Safe: N/A MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION: Number of entry/exit doors in this building: N/A Location(s): Is alcohol stored in building? N/A Location(s): Are drugs stored in building? N/A Location(s): Are weapons stored in building? N/A Location(s): The following programs are offerer a public service of the Weld Coun Tiff's Office. Please indicate the programs of interest. I I Physical Security Check Crime Prevention Presentation UTILITY SHUT OFF LOCATIONS: Main Electrical: N/A Gas Shut Off: N/A Exterior Water Shutoff: N/A Interior Water Shutoff: N/A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW (USR) APPLICATION FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE DATE RECEIVED: RECEIPT#/AMOUNT# 1$ CASE#ASSIGNED: APPLICATION RECEIVED BY PLANNER ASSIGNED: Parcel Number 1 2 0 9 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 5 (12 digit number-found on Tax I.D.information,obtainable at the Weld County Assessor's Office,or www.co.weld.co.us) Legal Description Lot B of RE 4174, Part of W2, NW4 , Section 01 , Township 3 North, Range 67 West Zone District: AG , Total Acreage: 40.68 , Flood Plain: N/A , Geological Hazard: N/A , Airport Overlay District: N/A FEE OWNER(S) OF THE PROPERTY: Name: Michael Kent Decker Work Phone It Home Phone# 970-330-2942 Email Address: 50 Coyote Trail Address: City/State/Zip Code Greeley/CO/80634 Name: Miller HFI c/o Ryan Harding(Applicant) Work Phone# 970-396-7359 Home Phone# Email ryanroadrunner@yahoo.com Address: 428 N. 2nd Street Address: City/State/Zip Code LaSalle, CO 80645 Name: N/A Work Phone# Home Phone# Email Address: Address: City/State/Zip Code APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT(See Below:Authorization must accompany applications signed by Authorized Agent) Name: AGPROfessionals (Tim Naylor) Work Phone# 970-535-9318 Home Phone# Email tnaylor@apros.com Address: 3050 67th Avenue Address: City/State/Zip Code Greeley/CO/80634 PROPOSED USE: Commercial activites supporting the oil and gas industry, specifically trucking and oil and gas roustabout services. 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 Agent signs, a letter of authorization from all lee owner must be included with the application. If a corporation is the fee owner, notarized evidence must be includedipating at the signatory has to legal uthority to sign for the corporation. 7 ! /% I' - Signature;,bwner or. uthorized Agent Date Signature: Owner or Authorized Agent Date aWe CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT June 18,2014 Tim Naylor Agpro 3050 67'h Ave, Suite 200 Greeley,CO 80634 RE: Can Serve- Water Service for Decker Property Dear Tim: This letter is in response to a request for water service to serve the following property described as follows: Lot B of RE-4174 being a part of the W 1/2 of the NW '/ of Section 1,Township 3 North,Range 67 West, Weld County,Colorado Water service can be made available to the above described property provided all requirements of Central Weld County Water District, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation are satisfied. Central Weld County Water District will require that Tap Assignments be consummated prior to the setting of a tap or this letter shall become null and void unless extended in writing by the District. Subdivisions requiring 10 or more taps will be required to purchase and transfer raw water prior to District approval.Please note that it is your responsibility to contact Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District at 800-369-7246 for petitioning confirmation into the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Subdistrict of Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District(Windy Gap). Central Weld cannot issue a tap until all requirements are satisfied This is in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District Central Weld cannot issue a tap until all requirements are satisfied.A review of the District's system in this water service area will need to be done prior to water taps being sold. Due to the rapid cost increase of raw water, existing tap fees may not apply for water service to this property. The District will not notify, by separate letter, any prospective landowners or land purchasers of tap fee or line extension cost increases. The cost of a tap fee and/or line extension will have to be paid in advance to the District by the prospective customer in accordance with District policy within one (1) year from the date of this letter It is your responsibility to confirm with your local Fire Protection Authority if fire flow water capacity is required for your project. Sincerely, CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Stan Linker,District Manager SL/jr 2235 2"d Avenue• Greeley,Colorado 80631 •Phone (970)352-1284 •Fax(970)353-5865 Stan Linker,District Manager AGPROfessionals lr k 1 DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULTURE Preliminary Drainage Report Weld County USR Application Prepared for Miller — HF1, LLC cy AGPROfessionals ■ DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULTURE Miller HFI, LLC 4/25/2014 Drainage and Water Quality Feature Historically, the Miller HFI site has been in irrigated crop production that generally drained toward the north. The proposed development at the site will require a structure to serve as a water quality feature. Calculations were performed using a spreadsheet based on the suggested methods of Weld County in their Water Quality Feature Procedure as presented in Appendix A. This procedure is based off the Drainage Criteria Manual V.3. A copy of Weld County's procedure is included in Appendix B. Results show that for the drainage area of ±1,751,983 square feet a required storage volume of at least 13,809 cubic feet would be required at the site. A proposed structure of 200' x 50' x 1.5' (length x width x depth) is proposed on the northern edge of the devloped site as shown in a site map in Appendix C. Site grading shall be implemented to ensure the mapped area is collected for drainage. VU. A !'sue 6. .1 `45122 n: � a 2 mss/ONAL ENGINEERING, SURVEYING, PLANNING & CONSULTING 3050 67th Avenue, Suite 200 Greeley, CO 80634 970.535.9318/office 970.535.9854/fax www.agpros.com APPENIDIX A WATER QUALITY FEATURE SPREADSHEET Miller HFI,LLC Roustabout Service Water Quality Depression Calculations 4/25/2014 Impervious Acreage Roofs Sq. Ft. New Shop 16500 0 Total Roof Area(ft2) 16500 Concrete Garage Apron 0 Office Apron 0 Shop Apron 0 Total Concrete Area(ft2) 0 Gravel Area/Gravel Roads Gravel Parking 538312 Gravel Road 30810 0 0 Total Gravel Area(ft2) 569122 Total Drainage Area (ft2) 1751983 Total Impervious Area (ft2) 16500 Total Gravel Area (ft2) 569122 Total Undeveloped/Grass Area (ft2) 11663 .r c DOi\L)cF"1l Total Property Area (Acre) ' ....6 1�� Impervious 1159.V cr.°'fly ° �4� 22 e SQ-2 24 hr Drain time (approximate)- Look up method I 5 Required Storage(acre-feet)* %l'' .��,01 on Drainage Criteria Manual(V.3) Requ'd Storage formula look up ll`\\�'' method '''' a = 1.00 WQCV=a*(.91*i3-1.19i2+.78i) = 0.095 Required Storage = (WQCV/12)(Total drainage area) = 0.317 acre-feet Required Storage in Cubic Feet= 13809 cu-ft Required Storage in Gallons = 103,300 gallons APPENIDIX B WATER QUALITY FEATURE PROCEDURE PUBLIC WORKS DRAINAGE NARRATIVE I AND WATER QUALITY GUIDANCE ig a The purpose of this handout is to assist applicants with developing a drainage narrative addressing water quality. A water quality feature is intended to improve water quality from COUNTY the impacts of site development. A water quality feature can be an existing low spot on the property that currently collects water or an excavated area. This depression is intended to allow stormwater runoff from the site to collect and settle out any contaminants prior to flowing offsite to neighboring properties or downstream waterways. DRAINAGE NARRATIVE A drainage narrative should include a short description of how the historic stormwater flows across the property and how the project will affect those flows. The description shall include but not be limited to: 1. Where the water originates if it flows onto the property from an offsite source, 2. Where it flows to as it leaves the property, 3. The direction of flow across the property, and 4. If there have been previous drainage problems with the property. WATER QUALITY FEATURE Weld County Public Works Development Engineers are available to provide assistance for the below calculation. Below is an accepted methodology for a water quality feature design. Additional information can be found at www.udfcd.ora. Calculate total site imperviousness(i)-this is the imperviousness of your site, how much water soaks into the ground and how much runs off Areas don't need to be exact just estimate in square feet. i — [(Area of Grass*0.02)+(Area of Gravel*0.40)+(Area of paved* 1.00)+(Area of Roof*0.90)] Total Area of site Calculate the Water Quality Capture Volume(WQCV)in feet,(a=1 for drain time of 40 hrs) WQCV(ft) =a(0.91*is—1.19*is+0.78*i) 12 Calculate the required volume in cubic feet. Volume(fts) =WQCV(ft) *Area of site(fts) Contact Public Works development review engineer at 970-304-6496 with questions or for assistance. 6/28/2013 ■■ GPROfessionals '■ DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULTURE Traffic Narrative Weld County USR Application Prepared for Miller — HFI, LLC r Traffic Impact Study MILLER HFI Weld County, Colorado • Eugene G. Coppola, PE, PTOE P.O. Box 630027 Littleton, CO 80163 303-792-2450 J Traffic Impact Study MILLER HFI Weld County, Colorado Prepared For: AGPROfessionals 3050 67th Avenue, #200 Greeley, CO 80634 Prepared By: Eugene G. Coppola PE, PTOE P. O. Box 630027 .�••#:�c �RFq Clot' Littleton, CO 80163 4J�•a Fc•��9 . 303-792-2450 =, • 'e .1-0*:.1 15945 w°s,�= cflo April 21, 2014 1J4 O A� ;:O�^V ,;� , O c C o\ Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. AGENCY DISCUSSIONS 3 III. CURRENT CONDITIONS 3 A). Current Road Network 3 B). Current Traffic Conditions 4 C). Surrounding Land Uses 7 IV. SITE ASSUMPTIONS 7 V. FUTURE CONDITIONS 14 A). Background Traffic 14 B). Total Traffic 14 C). Roadway System 14 VI. TRAFFIC IMPACTS 19 A). Short Term 19 B). Long Term 21 VII. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 23 VIII.CONCLUSIONS 25 List of Figures Figure 1 Vicinity Map 2 Figure 2 Current Roadway Geometry 5 Figure 3 Current Traffic 6 Figure 4 Concept Plan 8 Figure 5 Site Traffic Distributions 10 Figure 6 Site Traffic — 4:00 to 5:00 AM 11 Figure 7 Site Traffic — 5:00 to 6:00 AM 12 Figure 8 Site Traffic — 5:00 to 6:00 PM 13 Figure 9 Short-Term Background Traffic 15 Figure 10 Long-Term Background Traffic 16 Figure 11 Short-Term Total Traffic 17 Figure 12 Long-Term Total Traffic 18 Figure 13 Short-Term Roadway Geometry 20 Figure 14 Long Term Roadway Geometry 22 I. INTRODUCTION This study addresses the traffic engineering impacts of Miller HFI in Weld County Colorado. It assesses current site operations and future operations based on future expansions. Primary activities currently focus on roustabout services for the oil and gas industry. Miller HFI is currently located in LaSalle, Colorado and will relocate to a site on the south side of CR 38, just east of CR 23. Site access will be provided by CR 38 leading to SH 60 and U.S. 85. A vicinity map is presented in Figure 1. Key work tasks undertaken as part of this effort are described below. • Obtain current traffic and roadway data in the immediate area of the site. • Determine site generated traffic and distribute this traffic to the nearby street system. • Estimate traffic for future short- and long-term conditions. • Evaluate traffic operations with the proposed facilities fully operational un- der future conditions. • Identify areas of potential deficiencies. • Recommend measures to mitigate the impact of site generated traffic and other deficiencies as appropriate. C Fort St Vrat • CA h 85 Houstor - CR S4 c,R34 tat��Ile Omi 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Copyright 5 and(P)1988-2008 Microsoft Corporation and/or its suppliers.All rights reserved.hllp://ww.v mbrosott com/streets/ Figure 1 2 VICINITY MAP II. AGENCY DISCUSSIONS At the onset of this study, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) was contacted. Several discussions with Gloria Hice-Idler resulted in the following agreed upon items: • Peak hour analyses should be conducted. • Traffic growth as stated in CDOT documents should be used to estimate future traffic. • The need for site related new acceleration and deceleration lanes at the SH 60 intersections with CR 38 and U.S. 85 should be fully investigated. • Consideration should be given to future improvements at the U.S. 85 - SH 60 intersection. These items are used or included in the various sections of this study. • III. CURRENT CONDITIONS • A). Current Road Network SH 60 is a major east — west roadway extending from 1-25 east to the communities of Johnstown and Milliken before turning south and connecting to U.S. 85. SH 60 is under CDOT control and carries a RA access designation. It has one lane in each direction and there are currently no existing turn lanes at the SH 60 — CR 38 intersec- tion. The posted speed limit is 65 miles per hour in the immediate area reducing to 35 MPH at U.S. 85. U.S. 85 is also under CDOT control and is a regional truck route. It has a 65 MPH speed limit, two lanes in each direction and all auxiliary lanes at SH 60. 3 SH 60 ends and is under stop sign control at U.S. 85. CR 38 is a two lane paved roadway from SH 60 west to the site. It has a 55 MPH posted speed limit and effec- tively ends at CR 23. Current roadway geometry is shown on Figure 2. B). Current Traffic Conditions Traffic counts were undertaken in conjunction with this study. Traffic was counted on SH 60 at the CR 38 and U.S. 85 intersections. Given site activities, counts were conducted between the hours of 4:30 AM and 6:30 AM and between the hours of 5:00 PM and 7:00 PM framing the typical site morning and afternoon peak hours. The high continuous peak hour within the two hour count times represents the morning and afternoon peak hour. Traffic during these peak hours is shown on Figure 3 with count tabulations provided in Appendix A. On a daily basis, some 4,100 vehicles per day use SH 60 and 17,000 vehicles use U.S. 85 in this area based on CDOT data. Traffic on CR 38 is negligible. Capacity analyses were conducted at the SH 60 — CR 38 and the SH 60 - U.S. 85 intersections using current traffic demands and the existing roadway geometry. Current operating levels of service are shown below. CURRENT OPERATING CONDITIONS Movement/ Level of Service Intersection Control Direction AM PM SH 60 - CR 38 Stop NB LTR A A SB LTR A A WB LTR A B EB LTR B I B SH 60 - U.S. 85 Stop EB L A B SB L D F SB R C B 4 2 O 4 `°P CR 38 • J5• e AK- STOP LEGEND: *Acceleration Lane Figure 2 5 CURRENT ROADWAY GEOMETRY 2 O 0 N CO Cn N o CO 0 0/0 4-0/0 4J 1 s 0/0 CR38 0/1—'4 1/0_, N cO N do 2/0—� N J5• $ -17 12`11$ Ikg1\ LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour Figure 3 6 CURRENT TRAFFIC For definition purposes, acceptable levels of service (LOS) are defined as 'D' or better except for minor street left turns which are allowed to operate at LOS E/F' during peak hours. This condition is considered normal. As shown, acceptable operations are currently being experienced with the existing Miller HFI facility fully operational. Capacity worksheets are provided in Appendix B. C). Surrounding Land Uses The site is currently used for industrial and agricultural purposes and is surrounded by other agricultural and industrial land uses. IV. SITE ASSUMPTIONS Miller HFI is currently located in LaSalle and has about 130 employees about 30 of which report to field locations rather than the LaSalle location. It will relocate and use 15 acres of a 40 acre site on the south side of CR 38 just east of CR 23. The remain- ing 25 acres will continue to be used for farming. A concept plan for the Miller HFI site is provided on Figure 4. Miller HFI provides roustabout services primarily to the oil and gas industry. Typical operating hours are from about 5:00 AM to 10:00 PM with operations outside of these hours limited to emergency services and maintenance. As with any field service organization, exact shift times vary based on work location, daylight, the availability of supplies, traffic conditions, and travel times. Most workers will report to the site by 5:00 AM. At that time, crews will gather and depart the site in company operated vehicles. Most crews will leave by 6:00 AM. These vehicles include 60 semi-trucks and 10 pick-ups. Most crews will return to the site between 5:00 PM and 7:00 PM with the remaining crews returning by 10:00 PM. For analysis purposes, about 85% of the field crews were assumed to return to the site between 5:00 PM and 7:00 PM. 7 0 bS86SE5(0L6): J•8IE65E5(o6) 1 J R: 11 Il 1ip` tE908 OJ 6 I zo o0Z l S tl41L9060f „• I- I f ='�I I NV1d 3IIS a E--1 r E � /�s€� lal'�I;��lll 8j ''-'-'C)Nd -i: IdHl311BA Z Q J c I- 11 L 0 Z O I U II ai 1 11 - l'r - o o n - p- x/rv3 ac_ �� w lltt I' f F J �40� y3ovds J.,nei of . I _ I III --I--- 1 F I 11 I I IIIII II' I�tyy 3 ll1 �. 1-1 Z 1i 00930VdS Aoftlal 1 � I • / w I =I:i iel- I O. _ _ . _ - 4, a —_ T 8 Future growth resulting in an additional 30 employees at the new location was as- sumed and is included in the following estimates. Field employees, those that report to job sites and not the office location, are not included. These employees or their supervisor only visit the office for administrative purposes, supplies, or other such items. This is normally limited to 1 — 2 times per week. Operator provided representative site traffic is outlined below: • 130 employees — 124 report to work by 5:00 AM with the balance reporting at more traditional work hours. Experience indicates 2 or more employees per vehicle. • 60 semi-trucks — most will depart the site between 5:00 AM and 6:00 AM • 10 pick-ups — most will depart the site between 5:00 AM and 6:00 AM • Most trucks — return to the site between 5:00 PM and 7:00 PM • Most employees — depart the site between 5:00 PM and 7:00 PM On a daily basis, an estimated 450 trips per day are expected from the Miller HFI development. Using the site traffic distributions shown on Figure 5, site traffic for three one-hour time frames was developed. These represent the time when most employees arrive at work (4:00 AM - 5:00 AM), the time when most trucks are dispatched (5:00 AM - 6:00 AM), and the time when most trucks return to the site and most employees depart the site (5:00 PM - 6:00 PM) at the end of the shift. These trips are shown on Figures 6, 7, and 8 and include passenger car equivalents (PCEs). As indicated, the 5:00 AM - 6:00 AM and 5:00 PM - 6:00 PM hours represent peak site traffic times. These hours were selected for further analysis in the following sections of the report and are considered the morning and afternoon site peak hours. 9 2 00 co 0 N N N CR 38 100% 100% 0 0 CO ro g5 Jy gm 0.e 0 oio 5 3 LEGEND: Trucks 0. Employees Figure 5 1 0 SITE TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION 2 0 U) CD 62 - 0-62 CR 38 0 -0 -0 0 0 -0 -0 � 0 0 0 0 0 0 o U J)* 13Q- 0 0- o o 'o i 1$ 0- 1a Figure 6 LEGEND: Cars-Trucks-PCEs SITE TRAFFIC 11 4:00 - 5:00 AM 2 O 0 0 CD 0 c- 0 -0 - 0 CR 38 1 - 12 - 37� 3 -48 - 147 o oo 0 co 0 0 m g v 0 o Jy C ' es c AK OJ o-o" Figure 7 LEGEND. Cars-Trucks-PCEs SITE TRAFFIC 1Z 5:00 - 6:00 AM O to co 0 0 j 0 - 30 - 90 CR 38 6 - 0 -6—)4 co 22 - 0 -22� N O N oo N o` 5 c^t 36 E O 1L. 0' •O d> R/ 12. 36 0" Figure 8 LEGEND: Cars-Trucks-PCEs SITE TRAFFIC 1 3 5:00 - 6:00 PM V. FUTURE CONDITIONS A).Background Traffic Background traffic was developed using straight-line growth based on CDOT pub- lished growth factors for relevant sections of SH 60 and U.S. 85. Background peak hour traffic is shown on Figures 9 and 10 for the short-term (2015) and long-term (2034) time frames, respectively. B). Total Traffic Total traffic volumes were developed for each future evaluation year, namely 2015 and 2034. Total traffic is the combination of site and background traffic. This infor- mation is shown on Figure 11 for the short-term and on Figure 12 for the long-term. C). Roadway System Short-term and long-term roadway features were estimated using known or planned roadway improvements. There are no planned improvements in the short term; however, significant long term changes are anticipated based on the recommenda- tions contained in the U.S. 85 Access Control Plan. These include: 1. Realigning SH 60 at U.S. 85 to improve the approach angle, 2. A flyover ramp for the northbound left turn from U.S 85 to SH 60, and 3. Fully improved auxiliary lanes. These improvements were identified as medium priorities in the Access Control Plan. 14 2 C In N Z LO z -N/N z M z 4c N/N A C N/N CR 38 NUN— 1 r• N/N—► z N N/N— v U) c+� h S. cts az cp 15�0\�go fpoi • LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour N =Nominal NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. Figure 9 1 5 SHORT-TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC 2 O LU CD M un a_ it—5/5 m —5/5 5/5 CR 38 5/5� 5/5--► u) o LO o 5/5� • 5 • OAS si R/ ^^O 23 `1 cto 12 LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. Figure 10 1 6 LONG-TERM BACKGROUND TRAFFIC 0 to N co N le 5z N/N z c., z f N/N N/N CR 38 15/20— ' 1 N/N--P Lf) Lf) z 50/25 z z • co JS. 50°‘ LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour N = Nominal NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. Figure 11 1 7 SHORT-TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC 2 O CD u-i 0) M O o ,nIC 5/5 r 5/5 ir-5/5 CR 38 35/25-4 " 1 1' 5/5 o o_ Ln 50/25-4 `n N N N 5 ti'00\1p'° O, O NC/ 5 ‘9O ni s z�3\159 • LEGEND: AM/PM Peak Hour NOTE: Rounded to nearest 5 vehicles. Figure 12 1 8 LONG-TERM TOTAL TRAFFIC VI. TRAFFIC IMPACTS In order to assess operating conditions with this development fully operational, high- way capacity analyses were conducted at critical intersections. Short- and long-term conditions were evaluated. At the onset of these undertakings, peak hour traffic was reviewed at each location to identify the need for new auxiliary lanes or an upgrade in traffic controls. Findings for each time frame are documented in the following sections. A). Short Term Conditions at the site access to CR 38 will not warrant turn lanes at this locations. This is due to very limited background traffic and local conditions. A review of site peak hour traffic was conducted to determine the need for new auxiliary lanes at the SH 60 — CR 38 and SH 60 - U.S. 85 intersections. CDOT's State Highway Access Code auxiliary lane criteria for RA roadways, the existing 65 MPH speed limit and PCEs were used in this assessment. It was determined that a northbound left turn deceleration lane and an eastbound to southbound right turn acceleration lane will be warranted on SH 60 at CR 38. No other new turn lanes were determined warranted. This results in the short-term roadway geometry shown on Figure 13. Short-term operating conditions were as- sessed using highway capacity analysis procedures. Resultant 2015 levels of service with the Miller HFI facility operational are shown below. 19 2 Ir y 1 ,> `°P CR 38 tt 5$ .ir TOP LEGEND: *Acceleration Lane Figure 13 20 SHORT-TERM ROADWAY GEOMETRY, SHORT TERM OPERATING CONDITIONS WITH MILLER HFI Movement/ Level of Intersection Control Direction AM PM SH 60 - CR 38 Stop NB L A A SB LTR A A WB LTR A B EB LTR B C SH 60 - U.S. 85 Stop EB L B B SB L E F SB R D B As shown, acceptable operations are expected with Miller HFI fully operational. Capacity worksheets are presented in Appendix C. B). Long Term A review of long term peak hour traffic determined that no new turn lanes (beyond those warranted in the short term) will be warranted in the long term with Miller HFI. However, CDOT has improvements planned at the U.S. 85 - SH 60 intersection. Long term total peak hour traffic was loaded onto the long-term roadway geometry • shown on Figure 14 to determine operating conditions in 2034. Resultant operating levels of service are shown below. 21 2 O cn + °J CR 38 5 Jys STOP LEGEND: `Acceleration Lane Figure 14 22 LONG-TERM ROADWAY GEOMETRY LONG TERM OPERATING CONDITIONS WITH MILLER HFI Movement/ Level of Intersection Control Direction AM PM SH 60 - CR 38 Stop NB LTR A A SB LTR A A WB LTR C C EB LTR C C SH 60 - U.S. 85* Stop SB L E E * Assumes an eastbound left turn flyover and a fully functional southbound right turn acceleration lane are available. As indicated above, the site access intersection will operate acceptably in the long- term. Capacity worksheets are available in Appendix D. VII. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Based on CDOT Access Code criteria for RA designated roadways with a 65 mile per hour speed limit, the following preliminary design criteria for a 12 foot northbound left- turn deceleration lane on SH 60 at CR 38 is appropriate. Peak truck activity leaving the site is expected to occur between 5:00 AM and 6:00 AM with peak returning truck traffic expected between 5:00 PM and 7:00 PM. If a truck design is required the lane will be built to full length with the transition taper extending beyond the lane. FEATURE LT DECEL RT ACCEL Storage 100 ft. -- Deceleration Lane 800 ft * -- Acceleration Lane -- 1 ,380 ft Total Lane Length 900 ft 1,380 ft Includes 300 feet of transition taper A 65:1 redirect taper should be used when designing the above lanes. 23 The indicated design parameters are considered preliminary and subject to future confirmation and/or modification as part of preliminary design. They may require design changes or waiver due to issues such as right-of-way availability, drainage, etc. Auxiliary lanes are typically designed and built for long term conditions; however, in this instance, SH 60 will be realigned and a flyover ramp will be built for left turns from SH 60 to U.S. 85. Given the fact that there are currently 437 afternoon peak hour eastbound U.S. 85 left turns occurring in a single lane, the need for major improve- ments is likely to occur sooner than the 20 year long term horizon. This being the case, any short term improvements at this intersection may prove to be short-lived. Improvements at the CR 38 — SH 60 intersection should also be viewed with an eye towards future improvements at U.S. 85. For example, the desirability of providing the eastbound to southbound right turn acceleration lane on SH 60 at CR 38 should be fully evaluated since vehicles would be asked to accelerate to 65 MPH only to slow down or stop at U.S. 85. With a separation of about 3,100 feet between CR 38 and U.S. 85 vehicles may only be able to travel at 65 MPH for a quarter mile or less. Truck radii should be provided at all intersections including the site access to CR 38. 24 VIII. CONCLUSIONS Based upon the above documented investigations and analyses, the following can be concluded. • Current operating conditions are acceptable in the area of the Miller HFI site. • At full operation, Miller HFI will generate 60 morning and 60 afternoon peak hour trips. On a daily basis, an estimated 450 trips are expected. These trips are considered minor. • A northbound left turn deceleration lane and an eastbound to southbound right turn acceleration lane will be numerically warranted on SH 60 at CR 38 in the short-term. The practicality of building these lanes should be de- termined during preliminary design. Consideration should be given to right- of-way availability, drainage, the current speed limit on SH 60, the spacing between CR 38 and US 85 and other such issues. • Short-term improvements should be assessed for future compatibility with planned improvements to re-align SH 60 and the grade separation planned at US 85. The life span and cost effectiveness of all short-term improve- ments should be fully evaluated. • Site trips can be readily accommodated by the short- and long-term street systems. • Acceptable levels of service are expected for all traffic movements at all intersections. These levels of service will be maintained from opening day through the long-term. • Miller HFI is viable from a traffic engineering perspective. In summary, with the indicated improvements, acceptable operating conditions are likely in the area of Miller HFI for the foreseeable future. 25 APPENDIX A R _ N N O) 1� O O N O N CO R co N co CO CO N.F a co CV N N M r.. CV U)) 7- INLJ C0O V CN0 M V M CO N O U — T C N = d O R 3 CO T0 M t CO O O OO A OO CO 0) 0 0) OO CC) O U O O N V C)') A N Di c> opM d' CA in 10 N M N N 0 l— Cu C To N C .0 CD O CO-0 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o CO 0 ~ (n 06 -o 0 0 T o Z op m G o 0 In o 0 r D v co to N O O U N C 0 O J O O U .. V C W o J U0) CO co v A DO OT- co LIP N YO) 00 N CO co N N Op _ N N T ii C its to O 0 cC IS) 0) CO CO a O O N- I— CO 0) 07 N- 00 N O 16 r N U) p- I� O) CD M et I LO u7 N 07 N C _ O o n rn 0 0 N R W Ce J e- O O O O O O O O O c- O O O N O f— e- Q Jr . C 3 L G m C R O t0 co co0) O N N- O CO el'COCO T co CO �` N M O nr r VA D) O 6) N N - 1- fit) O tD O 00 O L I` co CO N CO d' cM- V Ul V V COM R COM N CO Lii V/ O C 0) IX QR LC) V CO W 00 0 CO CO M I- O I O N M N- N- CD J O V L= O T- In N- CD N W• N- urs O A CO v N T r I • - W Q Q O O O O r O CO O13 N CO r CO O CO CO O) C mr O C() V N- N C() 0) 0) r 0) V O O) O O CO Q (n V co O r ` N N- CO 1_ N- CD LID N- CO CO N r- CD t r = N O Cl) J O O If J R CD !-- N M 00 CD N M 00 N- M A M) CO O co O co V LL) r r 0O 00 of OO CO M CV 0 N coCD C) M CO N N N N N W 0 O a o o c a M co = — _ O O O N Z m N [") V CO O N CO O) O) CO CD CO V N- co O CO N- 0_ cc r r r r d o O O LO O n 0 0 V Z J r co v .r- N CO vCV r. r CO r N- CO CO LC) R • CO p p « ui a O ZD. t' CO N 0 Q up co CA co U) O to M LL 0 in O in a CA O CA 0 LL W J L E .a,O V O a- C) R co CD = O r M V O r CO V O = C) d F y M C C0 CO CO N O CO O LL O l0 C0 10 t0 O CD CD O O_ m 4i 0 0 0 O O O O M en 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 W O Li) O Y) APPENDIX B Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection CR 38- SH 60 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 4/20/2014 Analysis Year EXIST LT TOT Analysis Time Period AM PM PK HR Project Description EastNVest Street: CR 38 North/South Street: SH 60 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) 2 129 0 1 336 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 129 0 1 336 0 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 - 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 1 2 0 0 1 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 2 0 0 1 (veh/h) 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 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 LTR LTR LTR LTR v(veh/h) 2 1 1 3 C (m) (veh/h) 1235 1469 926 620 v/c 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95% queue length 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.9 7.5 8.9 10.8 LOS A A A B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 8.9 10.8 Approach LOS -- -- A B Copyright(>2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM version 5.6 Generated 4/20/2014 9'42 AM file:///C Ili sers/TrafficPE/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k42B6.tmp 4/20/2014 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection CR 38-SH 60 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 4/20/2014 Analysis Year EX ST LT TOT Analysis Time Period AM/PIVI PK HR ‘.--, _ ... Project Description East/West Street: CR 38 North/South Street: SH 60 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) 2 444 0 0 220 1 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 444 0 0 220 1 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR 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 0 0 0 0 1 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 0 0 0 0 1 (veh/h) 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 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 LTR LTR LTR LTR v (veh/h) 2 0 1 1 C (m) (veh/h) 1360 1127 618 374 v/c 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95% queue length 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 8.2 10.8 14.7 LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 10.8 14,7 Approach LOS -- -- B B Copyright©2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 4/20/2014 9:44 AM file:///CJUsers/TrafficPE/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k42B6.tmp 4/20/2014 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst EGC Intersection US 85- SH 60 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 4/20/2014 Analysis Year €g',ST LT TOT Analysis Time Period 'M,PM PK HR Project Description East/West Street: US 85 North/South Street: SH 60 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) 127 491 719 4 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 127 491 0 0 719 4 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration L T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 'Volume (veh/h) 1 338 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 1 0 338 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 5 0 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (veh/h) 127 1 338 C (m) (veh/h) 856 144 674 v/c 0.15 0.01 0.50 95% queue length 0.52 0.02 2.83 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.9 30.2 15.6 LOS A D C Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 15.6 Approach LOS -- -- C Copyright©2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+T64 Version 5.6 Generated: 4/20/2014 10:07 AM file:///C:/Users/TrafficPE/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k42B6.tmp 4/20/2014 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection US 85-SH 60 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 4/20/2014 Analysis Year EXj'ST LT TOT Analysis Time Period MkMIPKHR �- Project Description East West Street: US 85 North/South Street: SH 60 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) 437 783 719 9 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 437 783 0 0 719 9 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration L T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1 219 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 1 0 219 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 5 0 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (veh/h) 437 1 219 C (m) (veh/h) 852 25 674 v/c 0.51 0.04 0.32 95% queue length 2.99 0.12 1.41 Control Delay (s/veh) 13.6 154.9 12.9 LOS B F B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 13.5 Approach LOS -- -- B Copyright©2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.0 Generated. 4/20/2014 10:08 AM file:///C:/Users/TrafficPE/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k42B6.tmp 4/20/2014 APPENDIX C Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection CR 38- SH 60 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 4/20/2014 Analysis Year EX LT tO PST, T!Analysis Time Period -MPM PK HR Project Description East/West Street: CR 38 North/South Street: SH 60 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) 1 135 0 1 345 1 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 1 135 0 1 345 / (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound - Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 15 0 50 0 0 1 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 15 0 50 0 0 / (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 100 0 100 0 0 0 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 LTR LTR LTR v (veh/h) / 1 1 _ 65 C (m) (veh/h) 1224 1462 919 473 v/c 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 95% queue length 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.9 7.5 _ 8.9 13.8 LOS A A A 8 Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 8.9 13.8 Approach LOS -- -- A B Copyright©2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 4/20/2014 9:49 AM file:///C:/Users/TrafficPE/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k42B6.tmp 4/20/2014 Iwo-Way Stop Control rage I of l TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection CR 38- SH 60 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 4/20,0014 Analysis Year EXSTLTI or�i Analysis Time Period M PK HR Project Description East/West Street: CR 38 North/South Street: SH 60 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) 15 455 1 0 225 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 15 455 1 0 225 5 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 20 0 25 1 1 1 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 20 0 25 1 1 1 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 85 0 90 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized • R0 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 LTR LTR LTR v(veh/h) 15 0 3 45 C (m) (veh/h) 1350 1115 399 382 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.12 95% queue length 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.40 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 8.2 14.1 15.7 LOS A A B C Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 14.1 15.7 Approach LOS -- -- B C Copyright©2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 4/20/2014 3:50 PM file:///C:/Users/TrafficPE/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kE1 E2.tmp 4/20/2014 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection US 85- SH 60 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction _ Date Performed 4/20/2014 Analysis Year EX tST,LT TOT; Analysis Time Period lAMIPM PK HR Project Description East/West Street: US 85 North/South Street: SH 60 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) 130 500 735 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 130 500 0 0 735 5 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration L T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 25 375 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 25 0 375 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 15 0 75 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 _ RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v(veh/h) 130 25 375 C (m) (veh/h) 843 126 494 v/c 0.15 0.20 0.76 95% queue length 0.54 0.70 6.56 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.0 40.5 31.8 LOS B E D Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 32.3 Approach LOS -- -- D Copyright©2010 University of Florida,All Rights Resented HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 4/20/2014 10-.10 AM file:///C:/Users/TrafficPE/AppData/Local/Temp/u2k42B6.tmp 4/20/2014 Two-Way Stop Control ?age 1 of I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information ;Analyst GC Intersection US 85-SH 60 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 4/20/ 014 Analysis Year EX( 7 LT OT Analysis Time Period AM PM F'K HR Project Description East/West Street: US 85 North/South Street: SH 60 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) 455 800 680 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 455 800 0 0 680 15 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration L T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 15 235 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 15 0 235 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 5 0 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 • R0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v(veh/h) 455 15 235 C (m) (veh/h) 877 82 691 v/c 0.52 0.18 0.34 95% queue length 3.06 0.63 1.51 Control Delay (s/veh) 13.4 58.5 12.9 LOS B F B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 15.6 Approach LOS -- -- C Copyright©2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated. 4/20/2014 3.47 PM file:///C:/Users/TrafficPE/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kF63A.tmp 4/20/2014 APPENDIX D I wo- vv ay owl) v_vnitioi I ab'c 1 vl I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection CR 38- SH 60 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 60/2014 Analysis Year EX S L OT Analysis Time Period PM PK HR Project Description EastNVest Street: CR 38 North/South Street: SH 60 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) 5 225 5 5 610 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 225 5 5 610 5 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 35 5 50 5 5 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 35 5 50 5 5 5 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 85 0 90 0 0 0 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 LTR LTR LTR v (veh/h) 5 5 15 90 C (m) (veh/h) 974 1350 330 269 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.33 95% queue length 0.02 0.01 0.14 1.42 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.7 7.7 16.4 25.0 LOS A A C C Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 16.4 25.0 Approach LOS -- -- C C Copyright©2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM versions.6 Generated: 4/20/2014 3'.51 PM filet//C:/Users/TrafficPE/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kE1 E2.tmp 4/20/2014 Iwo-way stop control rage i of t TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information (Analyst GC (Intersection CR 38- SH 60 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 4/20/2014 Analysis Year EX ST L7 Analysis Time Period M(PPK HR vOT Project Description LLJJ East/West Street: CR 38 North/South Street: SH 60 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) 40 810 5 5 395 10 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 40 810 5 5 395 10 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 75 -- -- 5 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L TR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 25 5 25 5 5 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 25 5 25 5 5 5 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 0 5 0 0 0 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 LTR LTR LTR v(veh/h) 40 5 15 55 C (m) (veh/h) 849 799 223 306 v/c 0.05 0.01 0.07 0.18 95% queue length 0.15 0.02 0.21 _ 0.64 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.4 9.5 22.3 19.3 LOS A A C C Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 22.3 19.3 Approach LOS -- -- C C Copyright©2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated. 4/20/2014 3.59 PM file:///C:/Users/TrafficPE/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kE 1 E2.tmp 4/20/2014 1 wo-Way Stop Control Yage 1 of I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC Intersection US 85-SH 60 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 4/20/2014 Analysis Year EX S OT Analysis Time Period 6PM PK HR Project Description East/West Street: US 85 North/South Street: SH 60 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) 750 1100 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 750 0 0 1100 5 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 0 _ -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane — RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 15 0 0 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 75 0 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 0 Configuration L Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound j Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 j 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L v(veh/h) 15 C (m) (veh/h) 131 v/c 0.11 95% queue length 0.38 Control Delay (s/veh) 36.0 LOS E Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 36.0 — Approach LOS -- -- E Copyright©2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCs+TM Version 5.6 Generated' 4/20/2014 3:40 PM file:///C:/Users/TrafficPE/AppData/Local/Temp/u2kB730.tinp 4/20/2014 1 VW-WV ay JLU}I l-UIIUUI £agc 1 Ul 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst GC 'Intersection US 85- SH 60 Agency/Co. Jurisdiction __T'L Date Performed 41204014 Analysis Year EX STJTOT Analysis Time Period MpMPK HR Project Description East/A/est Street: US 85 North/South Street: SH 60 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) 1200 1020 25 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1200 0 0 1020 25 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 5 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 1 Configuration T T R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 20 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 20 0 0 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 75 0 5 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N _ N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 • 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 0 Configuration L Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L v(veh/h) 20 C (m) (veh/h) 128 v/c 0.16 95% queue length 0.53 Control Delay (s/veh) 38.3 LOS E Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 38.3 Approach LOS -- -- E Copyright©2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 4/21/2014 6.10 PM file:///C:/Users/TrafficP> /AppData/Local/Temp/u2kCB6.tmp 4/21/2014 Hello