HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19990112AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
.SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 12,1999, 4:30 PM
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
II. MINUTES
III. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
IV. ACTION ITEM
A. Burlingame Seasonal Housing, Conceptual PUD, Chris Bendon
V. . ADJOURN
CITY AGENDAS
1/6 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 12/1
Buildina Code;'Contractors. Special Work Session
1171 N. 6th Street (con*t from 12/9-con*t to 1/13)
1/6 DRAC
River Bluff Townhouse Condominiums
1/11 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 12/22
Code .A nendment. HP Procedures. Public Hearing (AG)
1/12 City Planning & Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 12/22
r
Burlingame Seasonal Housing, Conceptual PUD. (con't from 12/1.5), (CB)
1113 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 12/22
920 E. Hyman, Conceptual, Public Hearing
930 King Street. Final
117 N. 6th Street. Final & Variances (con't from 1/6)
135 W. Hopkins, Work Session
1/19 City Planning &_Z_onina (4:30)
City Notice 12/29
920 E. Hyman, Landmark, Public Hearing (AG)
970 Powder Road, Conditional Use for an ADU and 8040 Greenline Review, Public Hearing
(MH)
Changes to the ADU Program, `York Session (MH/CB)
1/25 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 1/6
Code Amendment, Security Company Signage, 2d Reading Public Hearing (MH)
Burlingame Seasonal Housing, Conceptual PUD, Public Hearing (CB)
Castle Creek Condos, Rezoning, 2d Reading Public Hearing (SO)
920 E. Hyman, Landmark, 1 st Reading (AG)
SCI Code Amendment and Definitions, 1st Reading Action Item (CB)
1/27 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 1/6
2/2 City Planning & Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 1/13
6M
2/4 DRAC
River Bluff Townhouse Condomimiums
2/8 City Council
City Notice 1/20
2/9 City Planning & Zoning/City Council (4:00)
Land Use Code Revisions. Joint Work Session
2/10 HPC
City Notice 1/20
2/16 ON Planning & Zoning
City Notice 1/27
2/22 City Council
City Notice 2/1
920 E. Hyman. Landmark. 2d Reading Public Hearing (AG)
2/2=1 HPC
City Notice'-2/2
cc: P&Z Packet
Community Development Admin. Staff
City Attorney's Office
City Planning Staff
City Clerk's Office
a:rpIanning/aspen/agendas/comin gup.doc/
1 /6/99
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
THRU: Mitch Haas, Interim Deputy Director
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: Burlingame Seasonal Housing -- Conceptual Planned Unit
Development (continued from December 15)
DATE: January 12, 1999
SUMMARY:
The Aspen Music Festival and School, represented by Jim Curtis and Tom Baker,
has applied for Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval for a 69
residential unit, 203 bed, seasonal affordable housing facility to be located within
the Burlingame Ranch parcel just north of the Maroon Creek Club affordable
housing units.
In the prior meeting, staff and the Commission had the opportunity to raise many
issues of concern. However, there was not a response or debate of these issues as,
considering time, the applicant merely wanted to "get all the issues on the table."
As the application has not changed, staff has not duplicated the memorandum
from December 15, 1998. A copy of he proposed Resolution with conditions has
been attached for consideration. (bring the complete packet from December 15)c---
The applicant will be making a full presentation to address the concerns raised in
the December meeting. This presentation is expected to be approximately 90
minutes in duration split between transportation related issues and site
design/architecture related issues.
Regarding transportation, Ralph Trapani representing CDOT, Roger Millar of
OTAK, and Steve Pouliot of MK Centennial will be describing the timing and
physical improvements scheduled for the Highway 82 corridor relevant to this
proj ect.
Staff and the applicant will provide a more thorough picture of potential
development in the immediate area. This includes lands from the AABC through
the Maroon Creek Road/Highway 82 intersection.
ISSUES FROM PRIOR MEETING:
Ownership. The City of Aspen owns the entire Burlingame Ranch property. It is
one undivided parcel and no portion has been conveyed. Legally, a property must
be defined as a separate lot of record to be conveyed. In this case, the seasonal
housing "parcel" must be subdivided prior to conveyance. This subdivision
request will be part of the final PUD application.
Currently, the City of Aspen owns the property and is, technically, the applicant.
The Aspen Music Festival and School (the MAA) has entered into an agreement
to purchase the property. Because land use approvals run with the property, the
MAA, or any other eventual owner of the parcel, will be obligated to any
conditions or representation made in the approval process.
This scenario is similar to many land use applications where a potential owner
(purchaser under contract) brings forward an application with the consent of the
current owner. In fact, this is very common with ADU and Residential Design
applications. Staff regularly refers to the current owner as the applicant�as any
land use decisions run with the property] and not the person representing the
property.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Proposed Resolution
l . This recommendation and any other City land use action on this application are subject to
annexation. Failure to annex this property shall render any land use action by the City
void.
2. The final PUD application shall include:
a. an application for Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review, Growth
Management, and Residential Design Standards. A pre -application conference with a
member of the Community Development Departments required prior to submitting an
application; !
b. delineation of all dimensional provisions to become requirements of the PUD. This
includes all variations;
c. a proposed subdivision plat and a Lot Area analysis of the property for purposes of
density and allowable floor area calculations;
d. a transit plan addressing the interim and long-term conditions for the Summer, Winter,
and Shoulder Seasons;
e. a construction plan delineating minimal areas of construction activity and a plan to
protect as much of the natural vegetation as possible. The plan shall also delineate the any
special provisions for site access and staging, any necessary Highway 82 traffic mitigation
measures, a planned route for modular delivery (considering bridge heights), a dust
mitigation plan, provisions for contractor parking and any incentive programs for
carpooling;
f. delineation of the short-term and long-term maintenance of the site landscaping There
shall be submitted a plan or documents describing the on -going maintenance of all
common areas and provisions which ensure landscape success for a three-year period;
g. incorporation an appropriate number of planting buffers in the parking areas. The
requirements for said buffers are located in the Special Review section of the Land Use
Code. The final application shall also delineate an appropriate amount of snow storage
area.
3. The applicant shall lower the berm heights to a necessary minimum.
4. The applicant shall investigate the ability to provide temporary vehicular and emergency
access to the center of the proposed courtyard with the Fire Marshall. A member of the
City Planning Department is available to facilitate this discussion if desired.
5. The applicant is encouraged to identify with the City Engineer all reports necessary for a
full evaluation and submit those reports with the final application. Examples of typical
information requested are a soils report and a drainage report.
6. The applicant is encouraged to submit a "mock-up" plat for review, submit with the final
application a draft plat and draft Subdivision Improvements Agreement, and make the
necessary amendments to said documents prior to second reading of the final Ordinance by
City Council.
7. The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page
recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will
record the resolution.
8. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of the recommendation, unless otherwise amended by an entity with the
authority to do so.
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE BURLINGAME
SEASONAL HOUSING CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED AT THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF THE HIGHWAY 82 AND
OWL CREEK ROAD INTERSECTION, WITHIN THE BURLINGAME RANCH
PARCEL, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel No. 2735.024.09.851
Resolution #98 - t� I
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from the City of Aspen, owner and applicant represented by Curtis and Associates and
Baker and Associates on behalf of the Music Festival and School and Aspen Skiing
Company, for Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval for a 69 residential unit,
203 bed, seasonal housing facility to be located near the intersection of State Highway 82
and the Owl Creek Road intersection, at a site commonly referred to as "parcel B," within
the undivided Burlingame Ranch parcel as described in Exhibit A; and,
WHEREAS, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B is a site plan conceptually
illustrating the proposed land uses, building placements, landscaping, and accessways for
the Burlingame Seasonal Housing project; and,
WHEREAS, Burlingame Ranch currently lies entirely within Pitkin County and
any land use approvals granted by the City of Aspen for this parcel are subject to
annexation into the City of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.84, Planned Unit Development, of the Aspen
Municipal Code, designation of land Planned Unit Development and development of land
designated Planned Unit Development may be granted conceptual approval by the City
Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the
Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the
appropriate referral agencies, and members of the general public; and,
WHEREAS, the Fire Marshall, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the City
Water Department, City Engineering, Parks Department, the City Transportation Planner,
the Pitkin County Airport Administrator, the Pitkin County Planning Department, and the
Community Development Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval
with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on January 12, 1999, the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended, by a to vote, that the Aspen City Council
approve the Conceptual Planned Unit Development for the Burlingame Seasonal Housing
project with the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department
as amended by the Commission during the meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That City Council should approve this Conceptual Planned Unit Development application
for the Burlingame Seasonal Housing project subject final annexation of the property into
the City of Aspen and to the following conditions:
'NTH
h, I--P�
SCHEDULE A -OWNERS POLICY
NUMBER DATE OF POLL
PCT - POLICY. AM
. 9429C3 01/16/97 911:35 A.M. 0 OF INSURANCE
S 2, 625, 000. 00 POLICY NTjMBER
1312-70515
1• NAME OF INSURED:
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, A CCLCRA.DO MUNTCI_p
AL CORPORATION
2. T:�.E ESTATE OR INTEREST IN TI?E LAM r=N
IN FSIMPLE AND WHIC'
•3 IS COVERED BY TLIS POLICY IS:
EE
3. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST REFERRED :'0 REIN IS AT D ATE OF POLICY VESTED IN:
CITY OF p.SPEN, COLORADO, A CCLC RADO MUNI CT
- - AL CORPORA TI ON
4. T LriND REFERRED TO IN THIS POL=C'r
STATE OF COLORADO AND IS DESC;--El) AS S'TSATED IN TIE COUNTY OF PI='RIN,
-ALLOWS:
LOTS 6 A.�'VD 18 , SLCTICN 2 , ':'Cw:V� - I � 10 T-
6 T:�: P . M . - SO UTn , RANGE 8 5 WEST OF T.T
T7�.
LOTS 1,
TOWNSHIP
71 8-1g
10 SCUT, GE
8 7
-� �.1
tiv
14 , 2 0
AND 21, SECTION 3
..,.. _
C F Tmiz
6 TT
�-
_-- OL ,C ry =NG
PARC7T
SOCK
166
AT
PAGE
AS
DESCRIBED
T�1':
-
BOCK
BOCK
78
AT
PAGE,
152,
1241
BOCK
BOCK
17
� ? S
�T
pAG�
�G"
6^ , �
BOCK
.176
AT
PAGE
318
BOCK
18 5
202
AT
AT
PAGE
PAGE`
19 9
-
..,00:�
: a _
�_
A^_'
PAGE
3 L '�J ,
517,
BOOK
BOCK
18 5
AT
P_
�GT
-- ,
1�0,
BOCK
243
AT
PAC-t
2 0
'
BOCK
21 3
-
A�
T
PAGE,
,
__J
SOCK
199
225
AT
AT
- �G�
P
5 5 7
'
SOCK
BOOK
302
AT
PAGE
687
BOCK
1�
Ar:,
_
PAGE
777,
BOOK
294
�'^
m_
_
v�GE
IAGE
154,
943
BOOK
3 3 5
351
AT
AT
PAGE
PAGE
369,
BOOK
3 -
�7,
a
PAGE
-
PAGE
9 76 ,
380
EOOK
BOOK
2 3
5
A_
-
=AGE
'
639
'
EXCEPTED
IN
1441 3CC K
THr ..
-� DEED RDC�RD-�
7 -= �r
�,., 2 A.
PAGL
, 3 3 AT PAGE
4 5 0 kND `"'r PARCEL
383,
IN
BOOK
188
AT
PAGE
462.
PITKIN COL-NTY TITLE, I,- .
501 E. P:OPK:NS AVE.
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
(970) 925-1766/ (970) -925-6527 = A:K
THE POLICY NUMBER SHOWN ON THIS SCHEDULE MUST AGREE WITH THE PREPRINTED NUMBER
ON THE COVER SHEET.
�aazA Ib � '���
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on January 12, 1999.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMNUSSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Attachents:
A -- Legal Description of Burlingame Ranch
B -- Illustrative Conceptual Plan
Robert Blaich, Chair
- --
N N
n T N O
8
ai
m
U
w M a
8
m Q
Q m in
C) m °; rn
V O
m L
Z N
°o
� C m
O - j
Z U) m o
0
O to
cm
'
0
m a
cm m
m C C to S
IL .� ; r
2 p
m m U
E to p 9
�i m N
m U d N O
p u n !�
O C; p o°
g c � m
p m e
N 3
�n vni c N
Q 3 m w
m aNi
m o E
o E r
ao
u, Y`o 0
o Z¢ m a s
u Ly 'J 2-a
a< -a -a
a
E O p U
E U i a y
o
a` y a a c 1E
¢ 3 m
r0 r°-
0
_a _2
a c0 > o
...................... o...,
.S .
.....
........................................................................
i
....E. �N�..1 G H . J •�-
00.
Wui
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
THRU: Mitch Haas, Interim Deputy Director
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner 1-M
RE: Burlingame Seasonal Housing -- Conceptual Planned Unit Development
DATE: December 15, 1998
SUMMARY:
The City of Aspen, represented by Jim Curtis and Tom Baker, has applied for
Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval for a 69 residential unit, 203 bed,
seasonal affordable housing facility to be located within the Burlingame Ranch parcel
just north of the Maroon Creek Club affordable housing units. This area has been
commonly referred to as "parcel B" during discussion about the Burlingame Ranch.
There are two projects being discussed for the Burlingame Ranch parcel; the
"Burlingame Seasonal Housing" and the `Burlingame Village." This is an
application for the seasonal housing only and does not have any review or
recommendations concerning the larger `Burlingame Village" project.
The expected users of the seasonal housing would be the Aspen Music Festival and
School (a.k.a. the Music Associates of Aspen) and the Aspen Skiing Company. The
plan includes a conveyance of a newly created parcel to the MAA after completion of
the Subdivision/PUD process. The MAA would then build, own, and operate the
facility. There may also be shoulder season tenants of the facility that are not
currently defined.
Staff has summarized many of the issues related to this proposed development in the
"Staff Comments" section of this memorandum and will present these during the
meeting.
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission pass forward a
recommendation of approval to City Council for this Burlingame Seasonal
Housing Conceptual Planned Unit Development, with conditions.
APPLICANT:
The City of Aspen, owner. Represented by Jim Curtis and Tom Baker on behalf of
the Music Associates of Aspen and the Aspen Ski Company.
LOCATION:
Owl Creek Road and State Highway 82. See location map attached as Exhibit B.
ZONING:
The property is currently in Pitkin County and zoned AR-2 (2 acre residential). The
land is proposed for annexation and will be rezoned to either AH 1-PUD or RMF-A-
PUD.
LOT SIZE:
The entire Burlingame Ranch parcel is approximately 215 acres. This specific parcel,
parcel B, has riot yet been subdivided and is not a legal lot. The subdivision will
proceed with the final application. The proposed parcel is approximately 3.75 acres.
LOT AREA, FAR:
The application for final PUD will have an accurate lot area for the purpose of density
and FAR calculations.
CURRENT LAND USE:
Vacant.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Seasonal affordable housing and accessory uses. 69 residential units consisting of
203 beds (66 three -bedroom units. 2 two -bedroom units, and 1 one -bedroom
manager's apartment). Accessory uses include a common facility with a lounge,
laundry machines, and practice rooms for music students.
PREVIous ACTION:
The Commission has not previously considered this application.
REN'IENA' PROCEDURE:
Conceptual Planned Unit Development. The Commission shall recommend City
Council approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. Conceptual
PUD's do not require a public hearing at the Planning and Zoning Commission.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Aspen purchased the Burlingame Ranch parcel in January of 1997. The
subject area of this proposal was generally referred to as "parcel B" in discussions
about the Burlingame Ranch.
STAFF COMMENTS:
There are two Burlingame projects that are currently being discussed. The "Seasonal
Housing" and the "Burlingame Village." This is the seasonal housing project and
does not include any review or recommendation concerning the larger Burlingame
Village project. That project is still in its infancy and, while there are still public
meetings on occasion and much public discourse, there has been no formal
application made for Burlingame Village.
0)
Staff has provided an analysis of the Seasonal Housing project in relation to specific
topic areas. This discussion is detailed below. Review criteria and Staff Findings
have been included as Exhibit "A." A location Map of the property is included as
Exhibit "B." A copy of the AACP Housing map is included as Exhibit "C." Agency
referral comments have been included as Exhibit "D." The application has been
included as Exhibit "E."
AACP. The Burlingame parcel was not identified as a potential affordable housing
site in the 1993 AACP. Nevertheless, two adjacent sites which provide some
guidance for this review were identified with the following recommendations:
The Zoline parcel: 1 ("great" rating), deed restricted lots via the growth
management process. If this property ever submits a growth management
application for development this would be an appropriate location for deed
restricted lots.
Pfister (Maroon Creek Club AH): 2 ("good" rating), if in the event the
Development Corporation cannot put the 39 deed restricted units in the location as
approved at the intersection of Stage Road and Highway 82, the location should
be re-evaluated and perhaps units should be dispersed throughout the property in a
less -dense manner.
The Community Plan is broad is scope and advisory in nature. 'While it gives a
direction for the community, it does not give a specific recommendation for this
property. There are goals in the Plan which speak to providing affordable housing
opportunities in the metro area and within walking distance to transit service. There
are goals of providing housing within the community where the users can contribute
to the existing social fabric and not feel isolated. And, there are more neighborhood
specific goals, not necessarily in the AACP, to preserve existing open space and
native landscapes within the town center and the periphery of town. Relative to the
goals of the AACP, the appropriateness of the Burlingame Seasonal Housing proposal
at this location depends upon the philosophical opinions of the various Boards
making decisions. There are goals of the AACP which do support this location.
Berms. Simply -put, staff is concerned the proposed berms will be overwhelming in
size. At their highest point, this landform represents a 28 foot gain in elevation --
higher.than the allowable height limit in all of the City's residential zone districts.
The internal courtyard level is approximately 8 feet below the base level of the
adjacent Maroon Creek Club affordable housing. This modification of the land form
is substantial and could be tempered while still providing an adequate buffer from the
Highway.
The applicant has indicated the berms can be lowered, and staff does not want to give
the perception of a staff/applicant disagreement. But, staff generally believes that
buildings do not necessarily need to be hidden.
3
Architecture. Staff has concerns about the architectural typology being suggested.
The proposal is very modern in appearance and is in a prominent location on the
entrance to Aspen adjacent to a more "barn -like," new rustic architectural style of the
Maroon Creek Club affordable housing.
Gate The proposal calls for a gating be installed at the entrance to the primary
parking area for the facility. The main driving force behind this is explained as the
need to protect the availability of one parking space for each residential unit. A gate
with a parking pass is a simple solution to managing the potential problem. This may
be more of a philosophical discussion, but the concept of a gated community congers -
up a negative connotation about the place and its integration with the larger
community.
Jurisdiction. The Burlingame Ranch property is one undivided interest owned by the
City of Aspen and located in Pitkin County. The entire parcel is proposed for
annexation. Because the property is in the county, all land use actions are subject to
annexation and are essentially considered pre -annexation agreements contingent upon
the property becoming part of the City. If for some reason the property is not
annexed, the land use decisions made by the City for this property would be invalid.
Subdivision. The seasonal housing parcel, or parcel B, has not yet been subdivided or
legally described as separate from the Burlingame Ranch parcel. The applicant will
be applying for a Subdivision concurrent with the application for final PUD.
Zoning. The applicant is considering a few options for the zoning of the property.
As the Commission knows, the AH 1 /PUD was primarily established as an incentive
zone for the private sector. With 100% affordable housing projects, the incentive
.zone is not necessarily needed and there may actually be a zone district which
provides a better "fit" for this parcel. The applicant may be considering the RMF-A
Zone District, with a PUD overlay, as a more appropriate condition.
Transit. The transit conditions are more fully described in Exhibit "A." Generally,
there are future plans for the Highway 82 corridor which affect the transit viability of
this project. Interim strategies are important for an expected 2-3 year period and the
applicant has been asked to provide a detailed plan for the final application.
Ped/Bike Underpass. One of the obligations of the Maroon Creek Club is a
pedestrian and bike underpass near the Highway 82 and Owl Creek Road intersection.
This facility will improve pedestrian movement to and from transit. In fact, the final
placement of the underpass may better benefit the seasonal housing if placed closer to
the Base of Buttermilk. There are, however, some limitations as to how close to the
intersection this facility may be placed considering grade changes and utility
placements.
Airport. The development is proposed just outside of the "Runway Protection Zone."
This is the triangular -shaped delineation on the site plans and is essentially where the
planes are most likely to crash. The applicant will need to apply for an avigation
4
easement with the FAA. The Airport administrator has also suggested the applicant
use noise reduction construction techniques for the residences. A 30 dba reduction
from exterior to interior is a common standard and one which Pitkin County requires
through their land use code. Staff will most likely recommend this as a condition of
the final PUD.
REcomNIENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission pass forward a
recommendation of approval to the City Council for the Burlingame Seasonal
Housing project, with the following conditions:
1. This recommendation and any other City land use action on this application are subject to
annexation. Failure to annex this property shall render an), land use action by the City void.
2. The final PUD application shall include:
a. an application for Final PUD, Subdivision, Rezoning, Special Review, Growth Management,
and Residential Design Standards. A pre -application conference with a member of the
Community Development Departments required prior to submitting an application;
b. delineation of all dimensional provisions to become requirements of the PUD. This includes
all variations;
c. a proposed subdivision plat and a Lot Area analysis of the property for purposes of density
and allowable floor area calculations;
d. a transit plan addressing the interim and long-term conditions for the Summer, Winter, and
Shoulder Seasons;
e. a construction plan delineating minimal areas of construction activity and a plan to protect as
much of the natural vegetation as possible. The plan shall also delineate the any special
provisions for site access and staging, an}, necessary Highway 82 traffic mitigation measures, a
planned route for modular delivery (considering bridge heights), a dust mitigation plan,
provisions for contractor parking and any incentive programs for carpooling;
f. delineation of the short-term and long-term maintenance of the site landscaping There shall
be submitted a plan or documents describing the on -going maintenance of all common areas
and provisions which ensure landscape success for a three-year period;
g. incorporation an appropriate number of planting buffers in the parking areas. The
requirements for said buffers are located in the Special Review section of the Land Use Code.
The final application shall also delineate an appropriate amount of snow storage area.
3. The applicant is encouraged to lower the berm heights to a necessary minimum.
4. The applicant shall investigate the ability to provide temporary vehicular and emergency access
to the center of the proposed courtyard with the Fire Marshall. A member of the City Planning
Department is available to facilitate this discussion if desired.
5. The applicant is encouraged to identify with the City Engineer all reports necessary for a full
evaluation and submit those reports with the final application. Examples of typical information
requested are a soils report and a drainage report.
6. The applicant is encouraged to submit a "mock-up" plat for review, submit with the final
application a draft plat and draft Subdivision Improvements Agreement, and make the
necessary amendments to said documents prior to second reading of the final Ordinance by
City Council.
5
7. The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk
and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In
the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution.
8. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of the recommendation, unless otherwise amended by an entity with the authority to
do so.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to recommend City Council approve this Conceptual Planned Unit
Development for the Burlingame Seasonal Housing project, subject to final
annexation of the property, with the conditions outlined in the Community
Development Department memo dated December 15, 1998."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit B -y Location Map
Exhibit C -- AACP Housing Map
Exhibit D -- Referral Agency Comments
Exhibit E -- Development Application
0
Exhibit A
Burlingame Seasonal Housing
Conceptual PUD
Staff Comments:
A development application for a PUD must comply with the following standards and
requirements:
1. General Requirements:
A. The proposed development shall be consistent A,ith the Aspen Area Community
Plan.
Staff Finding:
AACP. The proposed development site is not specifically identified in the 1993
Community Plan. Nevertheless, two sites which provide some guidance for this parcel
«were identified with the following recommendations:
The Zoline parcel: 1 ("great" rating), deed restricted lots via the growth management
process. If this property ever submits a growth management application for
development this would be an appropriate location for deed restricted lots.
Pfister (Maroon Creek Club AH): 2 ("good" rating), if in the event the Development
Corporation cannot put the 39 deed restricted units in the location as approved at the
intersection of Stage Road and Highway 82, the location should be re-evaluated and
perhaps units should be dispersed throughout the property in a less -dense manner.
The Zoline parcel may not be developed as lots, but there has been presented the
opportunity for a partnership with the City to develop an affordable housing project on a
portion of the Zoline parcel. The Pfister parcel (Maroon Creek Club) was developed in
the original development pattern (not re-evaluated). The affordable housing units were a
mitigation requirement by the County and the property is now within the City of Aspen.
Communit, Vision: The proposed development increases housing opportunities for
seasonal workers in a location close to town and within a short commute. The housing is
somewhat separate from tow and does not contribute well to the town's social fabric.
Communiy' Vitalitj!: The proposed development is 100% affordable, addressing the
comunity' ms desire to provide affordable housing opportunities.
Open Space and Environment: While the proposed development would take place on an
area that is undeveloped, it would be compact and allow for the preservation of open
space at the Aspen Meadows Campus.
Staff Comments 1
The AACP does not provide specific recommendations for this parcel. And, this is
appropriate -- community plans are broad in scope and advisory in nature. This land use
and the expected land users would be more consistent with the community plan if
proposed in a location where they could better be a functioning part of the community's
social fabric.
As many of the elected and appointed officials realize, these user groups have historically
been interspersed throughout the community and this has been a defining characteristic of
the town. There is no question that preserving the opportunities for visiting students and
promoting better living conditions for seasonal workers is a laudable effort. But, locating
this facility in a more central location could better contribute to the sense of place and
would allow the users to be a part of town, and feel less isolated. However, the
opportunities in tovm are limited when there is such a large desire to preserve open areas
and natural sage at the Aspen Meadows Campus.
Thus, there is no clear direction from the AACP. This is an example of needing to
balance competing community goals that have been expressed in the AACP. In general,
staff believes there are goals in the AACP which support this proposal.
B. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land
uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Finding:
Developed to the southeast is affordable housing in several multi -family buildings and
the primary Maroon Creek Club facilities. The parcel is bordered by the highway to the
west and steeply ascends Deer Hill to the immediate north. Across the highway is the
base of Buttermilk Mountain, and there is virtually no development, or potential for
development, to the Southeast of the site. The proposed multi -family affordable housing
development is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the
surrounding area.
Staff Finding:
The immediate area to the west is essentially built -out with the Maroon Creek Club
facilities and their affordable housing. Other lands adjacent to the proposed site are either
unbuildable because of the topography, the flight path, or the proximity to the highway.
The proposed site does not affect the development potential of lands across the highway
at the base of Buttermilk. This site is not expected to adversely affect the development
potential of the remainder of the Burlingame parcel.
D. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which
GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant.
Staff Finding:
If the application is to be approved, it must receive development allotments for 69
affordable residential units. This process is not necessary for the conceptual revieNN% The
Staff Comments 2
Growth Management Commission will consider this case and make a recommendation to
City Council during the Final PUD review process.
2. Density:
A. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying
zone district. Furthermore, densities may be reduced if:
l . There is not sufficient water pressure and other utilities to serve the proposed
development;
2. There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal and road
maintenance to the proposed development;
3. The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of slope,
ground instability, and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls and avalanche dangers;
4. The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural
watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent water pollution;
5. The proposed development will have deleterious effect on air quality in the
surrounding area and the city; or
6. The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the
proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to
critical natural features of the site.
Staff Finding:
There are sufficient utilities to serve this proposal considering the required upgrades and
extensions. The land itself is suitable for development as there are no reported adverse
natural or manmade conditions which cannot be adequately addressed.
The final design for the subdivision (how much land will actually constitute the parcel) is
in a somewhat conceptual stage. The applicant will be proposing a subdivision boundary
line during the final application. Also, the applicant is considering zoning alternatives
between the AH 1 and RMF-A Zone Districts.
Density is a measurement of the number of homes per unit of land. Because the amount
of land to be in the final subdivision has not be finalized, the density number are easier to
discuss in lay terms -- 69 units, 203 beds. The amount of land under those units may vary
between conceptual and final, but the number of units is not expected to change.
Based on the applicant's expected lot size of 3.75 acres and a of AHl-PUD the Zoning
Officer made the following comments:
The number and size of units require approximately 245,030 square feet of Lot Area
(after subtracting slopes) and the applicant would need to seek a density variance
through the Special Review process allowed in the AH1 Zone. (paraphrased)
Under the RMF-A scenario, the applicant would most likely not be requesting a density
variance but may need the flexibility of varying the minimum open space percentage
through the PUD process.
Staff Comments 3
Again, this is more of a technical consideration for the applicant to consider when
locating the lot line and designating the zoning. The density requirement will be more
fully addressed during the final application when a more accurate lot size is provided.
B. Reduction in density for slope consideration.
1. In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide, and avalanche hazards; enhance soil stability; and
guarantee adequate fire protection access, the density of a PUD shall also be reduced in
areas with slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent in the following manor:
a. For lands between zero (0) and twenty (20) percent slope, the maximum density
allowed shall be that permitted in the underlying zone district.
b. For lands between twenty-one (21) and thirty (30) percent slope, the maximum
density allowed shall be reduced to fifty (50) percent of that permitted in the
underlying zone district.
C. For lands between thirty-one (31) and forty (40) percent slope, the density, shall
be reduced to twenty-five (25) percent of that allowed in the underlying zone
district.
d. For lands in excess of forty (40) percent slope, no density credit shall be
allowed.
2. Maximum density for the entire parcel on which the development is proposed shall be
calculated by each slope classification, and then by dividing the square footage necessary
in the underlying zone district per dwelling unit.
For parcels resting in more than one (I) zone district, the density reduction calculation
shall be performed separately on the lands within each zone district.
4. Densin, shall be further reduced as specified in Chapter 26.04, Definition of Lot Area.
Staff Finding:
Because the lot has not been defined yet, the applicant has not provided a Lot Area
analysis. This, again, is for the applicant to consider when locating the subdivision
boundary, line. Areas of steep slopes and areas within dedicated surface easements do not
contribute to this number. The final application will need to delineate the Lot Area for
the purpose of density and allowable floor area, as recommended in the conditions of
approval.
3. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying zone
district. Detached residential units may be authorized to be clustered in a
zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi -family dwelling units shall
only be allo-vied when permitted in the underlying zone district.
Staff Finding:
This conceptual application does not include a proposed Zone District. The property is
actually in Pitkin Count), and zoned AR-2, two acre residential. To answer an obvious
question about jurisdiction, an), approvals granted by the City prior to annexation
essentially become pre -annexation agreements contingent upon final annexation and
rezoning approvals. But, if the property remains in the Count), the City approvals would
be invalidated.
Staff Comments 4
The final application will propose either AH 1 /PUD or RMF-A /PUD, both of which
allow for the uses which are being considered.
4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of
the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted in
the following:
a. Minimum distance between buildings;
b. Maximum height (including viewplanes);
C. Minimum front yard;
d. Minimum rear yard;
e. Minimum side yard;
f. Minimum lot width;
g. Minimum lot area;
h. Trash access area;
i. Internal floor area ratio; and
j. Minimum percent open space.
If a variation is permitted in minimum lot area, the area of any lot may be greater or less than the
minimum requirement of the underlying zone district, provided that the total area of all lots, when
averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum for the zone district. Any variation permitted
shall be clearly indicated on the final plat development plan.
Staff Finding:
The final PUD will establish the dimensional requirements for the lot created. At this
point, the applicant has not requested any variations to the dimensional requirements.
However, depending upon the Zone District proposed, there may be a request in final
review for variation. This could be in the open space requirement of the development.
The reason for asking for such a variance would rest on the applicant's desire to limit the
final size of the property. With very "tight" boundaries, the percentage of open space on
the site would be less even though the final product would primarily be the same as if it
were developed on a larger lot.
The applicant has provided the expected dimensions in the application. Heights,
setbacks, and distance between buildings all seem to be in conformance with either zone
district being considered. These will be confirmed during the final review.
At the time of final PUD, the applicant will propose the dimensional requirements and
any variation. And, the final PUD approval language will be specific to those allowances
and any variations.
5. Off-street parking. The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied
from that required in the underlying zone district based on the following
considerations:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development.
b. The parking need of any nonresidential units.
C. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is
proposed.
Staff Comments 5
d. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including
those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile
disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public
recreational facilities in the city.
Whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the City shall obtain
assurance that the nature of the occupancy will not change
Staff Finding:
The applicant has "suggested 80 parking spaces for the development. This is one space
per residential unit (69) and I I "guest" spaces. The applicant has consulted with the
property manager at the Marolt Housing project in considering the number of parking
spaces that should be provided as a minimum.
As many elected and appointed officials realize, there is a concerted effort by the City to
minimize the reliance on the automobile in all land use decisions. This has the obvious
consequence of balancing the desire for a "no car town" and the more realistic needs of
people who will live and have a car here. The Marolt project was an effort in providing
fewer spaces than "what the market would dictate." Their parking supply is roughly 1
space for every two residential units (4-6 beds), but their property manager has reported
the parking issue as an on -going problem.
Staff divides the parking issue into car storage and car use. In almost any scenario, the
overwhelming desire is to limit the reliance on the automobile in everyday life. There
exists, and there will continue to exist, a need to have a car even if use is infrequent. So,
while there may be an opportunity to use a car less, there is still a need to store the car
while it is not being used.
Staff has a concern about this parcel becoming a parking lot with an accessory housing
development and is, thus, appreciative of the applicant seeking to limit the availability of
parking to a practical minimum. In either zoning scenario being contemplated, parking
for affordable housing can be reviewed under the Special Review provisions by the
Commission. Staff is in agreement with the proposed parking scenario. If, however,
there are Commission concerns about parking, those concerns should be raised and
discussed to give the applicant an opportunity to address those concerns with the final
application.
Staff is concerned with the lack of parking buffers to break-up the extent of asphalt.
There are specific standards for planting buffers which may be varied by the Commission
through the Special Review procedures. The applicant should be aware of these
standards for the final application.
6. Open Space. The Open Space requirement shall be that of the underlying
zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be
permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the
proposed PUD, and if the proposed development shall include open space for
the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD through a
Staff Comments 6
common park or recreation area. An area may be approved as a common
park or recreation area if it:
a. Is to be used and is suitable for scenic, landscaping, or recreation purposes; and
b. Is land which is accessible and available to all dwelling units or lots for whom
the common area is intended.
A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas shall be deeded in
perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the planned unit development (PUD), together
with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development.
Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a legal instrument which ensures the
permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and communally owned
facilities.
Staff Finding:
The final application will need to demonstrate how the common areas are maintained and
the manner in which they are owned. The applicant will most likely remain the owner
and operator of the facility. However, this may not always be the case and the continual
maintenance of these areas will need to be defined and ensured.
7. Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final development
plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior
spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant
species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate.
,Staff Finding:
The Conceptual Development Plan includes a Landscape Plan that specifies an
appropriate treatment. The final application should explain the treatment for the bermed
area (to ensure landscape success for at least three years) and the expected maintenance of
the entire property grounds.
S. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the final
development plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural
consistency with the proposed development, architectural character, building
design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City. It is not the
purpose of this review that control of architectural character be so rigidly
enforced that individual initiative is stifled in the design of a particular
building, or substantial additional expense is required. Architectural
character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon
appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and
proportion of the buildings with each other and surrounding land uses.
Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and
maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage
and reduce soil erosion.
Staff Finding:
Building envelopes have been placed appropriately considering the natural terrain and
surrounding land uses. Likewise, the proportions and massing of the buildings seem to
be appropriate, however some one-story elements may provide relief and visual interest.
Staff Comments 7
Staff has concerns about the architectural character of the development. While staff
understands that the intent of this provision is not to "control [the] architectural
character' or "stifle the design," the primary concern, and reason for raising the issue, is
compatibility with the adjacent development and the visual entrance to town. While the
very modern typology is consistent with the Meadows Campus, it is very different from
the more "barn -like," new rustic character of the Maroon Creek Club Housing.
This concern about the architecture may not be shared by the Commission or by Council;
however, if there is a concern it should be raised during this review so the applicant has
an opportunity to respond.
9. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or
hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands.
Staff Finding_
Lighting should be downcast and no up -lighting of landscape elements or architectural
features should be allowed. The applicant has, in concept, agreed to these requests and
would probably, from staff's understanding, light the project in an appropriate manner
without such a request. Staff has recommended the final application specify how the
project will be lighted. Compliance with the criteria will be recommended condition of
final approval.
10. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged.
Staff Finding:
The development has been appropriately clustered.
11. Public facilities. The proposed development shall be designed so that
adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed
development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no
net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings
shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergence
vehicles.
Staff Finding:
The applicant has received comments from many of the utility agencies during the
referral process. The costs of the utility upgrades will be the responsibility of the
applicant unless specific waivers are granted. The applicant's waiver requests will be
considered by Council during the final PUD review.
One primary concern of staff is the review and construction schedule the applicant is
pursuing. Very early in the process, the applicant submitted an aggressive time line and
staff has made every effort to accommodate that schedule. To that end, staff is
suggesting a few time strategies for the applicant.
Plat and SU The applicant should submit a plat "mock-up" for review during this
conceptual review process -- the earlier, the better. The final application should include a
Staff Comments 8
draft plat and draft Subdivision Improvements Agreement. These documents can be
reviewed with the final PUD, amended, and resubmitted for the final hearing with the
City Council.. This could save up to 4-6 weeks.
The applicant should determine the requirements for each utility agency and provide
letters of intent or letters of agreement with the final application if possible. This could
save up to 2-4 weeks.
Building permits. The applicant should meet with the Building Department to review all.
criteria for pre -built structures (off -site construction), all criteria for utility work and site
preparation that can be done without a building permit, and any state housing
requirements for modular construction. The applicant should fully understand all utility
installation timing requirements (the Fire Marshall may want all fire suppression
infrastructure in -place prior to the modulars arriving, etc.).
Another concern of staffs relates to the road cut for emergency access. This is the
graded area to the north of the buildings. A cut like this may visually separate the
building site from the base of Deer Hill. Staff has expressed a desire for the emergency
access to be incorporated in the courtyard area by widening the sidewalks. This could
eliminate the need for the cut, reduce maintenance needs, and provide the ability for
residents to drive in the interior on "move -in day." Staff is recommending the applicant
investigate this alternative tAith the Fire Marshall for the final application. Staff can
facilitate that discussion, if needed.
The Water Department expressed a concern about the applicant's base mapping
information. The applicant should clarify the existing conditions with this department.
The Parks Department has expressed concerns about the proximity of the trail to
Highway 82, the affects of highway snow removal, and drainage across the trail. Also,
the final application should delineate construction activity areas which will protect as
much of the native vegetation as possible.
The final application will need to include a PM10 mitigation plan and a dust control plan
for the construction phase. .
The Sanitation District will require a line extension, a collection system agreement, and
possibly shared service agreements. Also, the existing house has a manhole near the front
steps. An easement to access this manhole should be granted to the ACSD.
12. Traffic and pedestrian circulation.
a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the planned unit development (PUD)
shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a
pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use.
b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with
controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
Minor streets within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall not be connected to
streets outside the development so as to encourage their use by through traffic.
Staff Comments 9
C. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not create traffic congestion
on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such
surrounding collector and arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be
adversely affected.
d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway
or drive providing access to a public street.
e. All nonresidential land use within the planned unit development (PUD) shall have direct
access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on
any street.
f. Streets in the planned unit development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or
retained under private ownership. Said streets and associated improvements shall
comply with all pertinent city regulations and ordinances.
Staff Finding:
The proposed street appears to meet the City's requirements. Each dwelling unit will
have access to the private road which connects to the public road system.
Not all of the residential buildings will be within 60 feet of the roadway (criteria d). In
fact, some units are as far as 260 feet from the roadway. Providing an access drive, even
on a temporary basis, could address this concern and provide an easier method in moving
furniture, etc. The non-residential commons building does have direct access to the
proposed roadway. Staff is recommending the applicant consider this internal driveway
option.
The street should be retained in private ownership without becoming a City -maintained
facility.
The Planning Department has concerns about the number of "unbroken" parking spaces
without intervening planting
which buffers. There exists a parking buffer requirement for multi-
family housing wh the Commission can vary through Special Review. As currently
proposed, there is little to visually break-up the parking and provide shade. Staff is
recommending the applicant consider the planting buffer requirement.
Traffic. The applicant has submitted a full traffic report to the City's Transportation
Planner. The report analyzes the intersection performances before and after the trip
generation from the proposed project and finds no significant deterioration of those
capabilities resulting from the project.
Transit. There is currently a downvalley bus shelter across from Buttermilk and an
upvalley bus shelter at the Inn at Aspen. Currently, the only way to access the upvalley
stop is running between highway traffic, which is not acceptable to staff.
There is planned a future pedestrian/bike underpass traversing Highway 82 and a
signalized intersection at West Buttermilk Road. These improvements will make "getting
to the transit" much simpler and safer. The transit concerns break down to Summer and
Winter and short-term and long-term, as follows:
Staff Comments 10
Summer
Winter
Short -Term Long -Term
MAA shuttle
MAA shuttle
services
services
No Plan
Transit from
Provided
Buttermilk
For summer use, the MAA has indicated they will be seeking a service arrangement with
RFTA as part of their summer loop. For the most part, the MAA students will be on a
regular schedule of going into town in the morning and returning after the day's events.
This condition is not expected to change with the long-term improvements in the
immediate area, and the service arrangement would be expected to continue.
The winter condition is vastly different. The long-term solution works fairly well.
Upvalley, do«rnvalley, and Highlands service will be easy to access with the signalized
crossing. And, those employed at Buttermilk will not need the use of transit to get to
work.
The short-term condition needs some system other than people running across Highway
82 to catch a bus. This is not a solution, it is a dangerous condition and one that should
not be allowed. The applicant recently met v"ith the City's Transportation Planner and a
representative from RFTA. There are some ideas to address the interim transportation
condition that, in concept, sound feasible and appropriate. Staff remains confident that a
reasonable solution will be presented during the final review.
There is one other time frame -- the "shoulder seasons." Both expected user groups have
a rather defined season but there may be off-season users who lease the facility. Their
transit needs are less defined but should be considered. Again, the long-term condition is
more accessible and may not need an}, special transit provisions. The short-term
condition is less desirable and may need additional transit service, depending upon the
user group(s) who may lease the facility.
The applicant will need to provide a transit plan that addresses the Winter, Summer, and
"shoulder seasons" for both the interim and long-term Highway 82 crossing scenarios.
"Running across the road" is not an acceptable option.
Staff Comments 11
� V •
\� �\ �}� ���.��" \` ,�\\'\\'�� '/.1Y•� N
i1'X'"*
JCSA� Vf\�r \ l _�\1. •♦
US WEST � \• \ �, l
GRIMju
t, "ND TRUS
39 ACRES �;// ,1 O' ����� ,; 1♦ ,�' ?'� �..y. ° ���;�h 1
,,,./ / �i . � �/" ` 1�`. / is , � \ .J.�,•j. r ' " �. \. J ?• 'V w�� ..� .;.•. I \ �.
' if � J �/ ,�j�t '• / \\ '`\.� .1\11 1 �il� I�` �.' -`♦ .� �i!��. y� : �' J � ` % �' �~ • S 4 •� ♦ R I J.
�:aAFMl
PARCELt, 1 y, {� 11'1 I
[ � r.�r. / '/ 90 ACRES _ •,r •� 1 !' \ r
.�.���� .�� ,. .�'\♦ � �_ _- _ -� :���...r} 1 1-• t•-'� ~�,-' 1�-Tft
� .� � .1 � •� II�� 1 � /:� 1 li.��7/�- i �) }\ 1 \ �,, {V`�':1��� \\ � s 't^�-- _ __, _ o.^ �(1. � j( ' •�,`�,�•�r'X-{���'•"+u' i��
)�_�,1� t � /. ' I'! � ! � ' J.'.'•` J y\ ''� `�\ (/ \\ \\\�\��.:••` ����� .J `\ ' , `,\\ � __� _-- _� :1� t J �:r_'t �J►�T.� 'j��{�yT\(t%:•` IT
\v\ VICINITY MAP
ZOLIN
IT
's.-
Q `t. J,''''2` •i f �'�1: e�pn�nSo`uRo'n` r;;;\;
� , \ \� .' /1 / 1' 1,�;t s + SOLDNER % ♦ , / :1 - lam. \C ~ • \ \ _� { \ \
ISERVAT70M l 15 ACRES \ / %'UN
' `\ � v-.....- ® �'��, _ ,1%'t/, �D•,� �� `/ ` \� � /' �. `` \ � �/•Its �-~ ��`U QQ fQ�! _ '�� i � r'
\ .• • \" •..-.' ___ STAGE ACAD. -A
Pow Mr.I Rei I- - • � <
9n �MARC; t�CREEK
W.&mermI Road � Cq��e'FAC,aT'FS
♦ \ l :�.\ V=.\\�_ "' Poteno>Li Rea•+ �+--! (�'� ��� / 1\ ���,, i ` / `�
LrT
\\\ TRAHPT \\\ i_� 1 \ -.':�'\ ZOLINE r-
\ v w K: v ��'.,; \ 4 C+p` C, ) 32 ACRES ✓ 1
♦ `� - >'�� •, ^\�:j �i) MAROON REEK
r t iil
EEK CLUB' _ I
•\ •�� '� � �♦\_- - �,��-•��GOLF COURSE ' � �� -} � .. �� 't' ' \�� � \�'
INN AT
(ASPEN �•� \ ��'��.♦\\ �/ �� - ��-
6
Note Zwwtg b Mr porthon
' \ B MILKdHq..eye82egeumR0W to be
SKI
,) AREA ` /. I \♦ \ \ eme.eo u M ra.,q ! ifs
itgq eoen roes of the h"ayl la
vw -ay
BURLINGAME SEASONAL HOUSING
CONTEXT AND ZONING MAP
MAROONCREEK CLUB
GOLF COURSE ' + ` ` \ \ 0 300 600 750 1500
E"
` r \
�\ 1 `♦• 1 JOEDE SCHOESERLEIN • SITE PLANNING OCTOBER 16,1998
MAROON CREEK
BRIDGE
N A R R Y T E A G U E A R C H I T E C T S
�oCuii�n
t.
Cozy Point 0
Lk-
3—
Ti
6E
,e� r-_�— --- i
A
N
-Z.
Red Mountain
HOUSING (Metro Area)
Aspen Area Community P1
Legend
Potential Affordable
Housing Sites
Aspen Citv Limits
White River
National Forest bound
P10 7�E;
7
M
11 Smuggler Mountain
8
AsWn
Mour;wn 13 14
---------------------------
0
White River
National Forest
co
to
1993 A,-eu Cw,m�nf-k� `Flcw,
MEMORANDUM
To: Chris Bendon, Planner
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer
From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer e f,
Date: November 23, 1998
Re: Burlingame Seasonal Housing -- Conceptual P.U.D.
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their
November 11, 1998 meeting, and we have the following comments: .
l . P.U.D. Plat - The application includes a number of drawings, many of which may not be needed
to be included in the final plat. Rather, certain information may need to be transferred to plat
sheets. The final plat needs to meet the requirements of Code §26.88.040.D. La and 2.a. The entire
parcel must be shown and the subdivided portion. The subdivided portion must be fully
monumented: In addition to the certificates specified in the above referenced Code section, also
include certificates for the Parks Department, Environmental Health, Fire Marshal, Airport
Administrator, and each of the utilities. Be sure that the surveyor states that all easements of record
as indicated on title policy number , dated [within past 12 months] are shown on
the plat. Include the avigation easement. Note that information shown on any sheet of the final plat
must be consistent with the same information appearing on any other sheet.
The final plat (and the subdivision improvements agreement) should be submitted
concurrently with the final PUD application in order to reduce critical path time elements to
construction and occupancy.
The existing conditions map should include any glacially deposited boulders larger than 5'
that are on the surface, and, if there are any, they should be preserved and indicated on the
landscaping plan.
2. Pa_ rking - The project appears to provide sufficient vehicle parking spaces to accommodate the
needs.
3. Construction Phase - Item number 11 below discusses an environmental protection plat sheet
that shows construction delivery, staging, storage and parking areas.. It should be a condition of.
approval that the majority of construction workers leave their vehicles at park and rides and travel
to the jobsite by RFTA bus or by shuttle vans or buses provided by the project contractor. For the
current Highlands construction, the County has granted permission for construction workers to park
at the airport intercept lot. The applicant should obtain such permission from the County before the
final PUD application.
A temporary access permit will be required from CDOT for the construction phase.
4. Site Drainage - The site development approvals need to include the requirement of meeting
runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f and Engineering
Department's interim design and construction standards. The final plat should include drainage
mitigation plan (24"06". size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan), as well as a temporary
sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. These and a report must be
signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado. The drainage plan must be
reviewed and accepted by the City Engineer prior to signing the final plat.
5. Trash & Utilities - All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be
installed on the applicant's property and not in the public right-of-way. For pedestals and
transformers, easements must be provided and should be indicated on the final plat. Meter
locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage. Any units that
may be condominiumized must have separate utility service connections and meters.
The applicant indicated that existing overhead utilities along the southwesterly property will
be undergrounded in conjunction with the proposed development. This is consistent .with other
developments in the City.
6. Environmental Health Department - The application did not include a PM-10 mitigation plan
for the increased traffic nor a fugitive dust control plan for the construction phase. These must be
reviewed and approved prior to signing the final plat.
Another requirement of the project mitigation will be to provide bicycle racks. These should
be shown in the final plat.
7. Fire Protection District - Various fire protection details are not yet clear on the draft plat and
need to be remedied for the final plat. These will relate to access around the perimeter, hose
lengths, hydrant locations, sprinklering, turning radii, turn arounds. Any gates across emergency
access routes must be locked with Knox box or lock.
Emergency access width is required to be 20 feet and to be maintained and drivable, free of
snow and obstructions, on a year round basis. This should be documented in the project approvals,
subdivision improvements agreement and any other agreements, such as declarations or covenants,
that may be drafted for the project.
8. Cite Water Department - The project will be subject to well development charges. The
proposed water utility engineer has good knowledge of the City system and requirements. The
applicant needs to consult with the Water Director concerning connection and looping
requirements.
Cautionary: Backflow preventers require a large amount of space. Be sure to provide
sufficient space in utility rooms.
2
Water line easements must be 10' on each side of the centerline of the water line as
constructed for a total width of 20. The easements must be conveyed by plat amendment at the
time of acceptance by the Water Department of the water lines, which must be prior to acceptance
of any building permit applications.
There is concern about the conceptual water plan that the system is not correctly planned to
accommodate the proper location of fire hydrants and perhaps other fire protection requirements.
The .proposed Highway 82 underpass that is discussed in the application will require the
relocation of a 30" water line. The Water Department will need to know the timing of underpass
construction..
9. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District - Although the District was unable to be represented, a
standard comment is that the applicant needs to meet with ACSD to determine project. requirements
and performance standards.
10. Parks Department - The trail alignment along Highway 82 needs to be further from the
highway, beyond the limits of highway snow removal impacts. Trails must be built to City trail
standards with 10' wide, 6" thick concrete, and 2' shoulders that are roadbased, topsoiled and
seeded.
The site is located on _;one of the quickest disappearing eco-system types. A separate sheet
for the plat should be provided, titled environmental assessment plan, or similar title, that clearly
reflects the preservation intent, and should show protective measures, including Type R fencing, to
prevent disturbance outside of approved building and construction activity envelopes. (The plan
should also show proposed material delivery and staging locations, parking for cranes and concrete
trucks, concrete truck clean out locations, construction parking, and so on.)
The site restoration plan will require specific grass seed mixes that need to be approved by
the Parks Department.
11. Building Department - Regarding the request for expedited construction schedule on page 10,
item 2, of the application, it will be the applicant's responsibility to ensure that all design work with
engineers and utilities proceeds in an orderly manner so that each utility company will have
necessary service agreements and design work completed to permit signing the plat and meeting the
City Engineer's approval. In addition to fast tracking the final plat so that the building process is
not slowed down, the applicant should also be preparing the subdivision improvements agreement
for the same reason.
The water system, including fire protection capabilities, will need to be in place before the
foundation permit is issued.
On page 11, item 6 discusses a license for grading and landscaping on adjacent City owned
land. This could be approved during the PUD process and conveyed on the final plat.
12. Airport Administrator - Proposed construction within 20,000 feet from the nearest point of a
runway must file a notice with the FAA. Construction may not extend vertically into a plane of
100:1 slope within that zone.
3
At this time, there is no FAA regulation regarding noise attenuation in construction practices
within the above stated zone area.
(The PUD process allows local governing authorities to condition land use approvals as
deemed reasonable and advisable. Since the local airport authorities and the FAA recommend 30
dba reduction doors and windows, this should be entered as a condition of approval.)
13. Planning Office - The Planning Office will compile all comments. At this time, there are
some preliminary observations. The proposed berm along Highway 82 is too high. The proposed
gate is not consistent with community policies to avoided gated conditions. There are too many
parking spaces in a row without being broken up by trees or other landscaping. There needs to be
sufficient light (down cast) in the parking lot for comfort and safety without resulting in light
pollution. There may be some opportunity for the applicant's to improve the revenue stream by use
of rooms by non-profit organizations during shoulder seasons.
14. Snow Storage - The applicant needs to designate snow storage areas on the final PUD site
plan.
15. Improvement Districts - The applicant should be required to agree to join any improvement
districts that are formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent public rights -of -
way and to provide a signed and notarized agreement with recording fees prior to the final building
inspection.
16. Work in the Public Right-of-,*vay - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as
follows:
The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-5080) for design of
improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120)
for vegetation species, and streets department (920-5130) for mailboxes , street and alley cuts, and
shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights -of -
way from the city community development department.
DRC Meeting Attendees
Staff: Phil Overeynder, Nick Adeh, Stephen Kanipe, Ed VanWalraven, Scott Smith, Betsy Kipp,
John Krueger, Stephen Ellsperman, Chris Bendon, Mitch Haas, Stephanie Millar, Chuck Roth
Applicant's representatives: Jim Curtis, Michael Hassig, Tom Baker
98NI191
El
MEMORANDUM
To: Chris Bendon, Community Development Department
From: Betsey Kipp, Environmental Health Department
Date: November 30,1998
Re: Burlingame Seasonal Housing - Conceptual Review
REGAe
f RFD
Nov �
com AS _J Q 1998
"'c,�/�K oe; lly
CopMe4'r
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the land use submittal under authority of the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, and has the following comments.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION: Section 11-1.7 :
"It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any building used for residence or business purposes within the city to construct or
reconstruct an on -site sewage disposal device."
The plans to provide wastewater disposal for this project through the central collection lines of the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District (ACSD) meet the requirements of this department. The ability of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District to handle the increased flow for the project should be determined by the ACSD. The applicant must provide
documentation that the applicant and the service agency are mutually bound to the proposal.
At detailed submission, the applicant must provide a letter of intent from ACSD that they
will provide wastewater service for the Burlingame housing project.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS: Section 23-55:
"All buildings, structures, facilities, parks, or the like within the city limits which use water shall be connected to the municipal water utility
system."
The provision of potable water from the City of Aspen system is consistent with Environmental Health policies
ensuring the supply of safe water. The City of Aspen Water Department needs to determine if adequate v,,ater is
available for the project. The City of Aspen water supply meets all standards of the Colorado Department of Health
for drinking water quality. A letter of agreement to serve the project must be provided.
A letter of agreement from the Water Department must be provided at detailed submission.
WATER QUALITY IIyiPACTS: Section 11-1.3:
"For the purpose of maintaining and protecting its municipal water supply from injury and pollution, the city shall exercise regulatory and
supervisory jurisdiction within the incorporated limits of the City of Aspen and over all streams and sources contributing to municipal eater
supplies for a distance of five (5) miles above the points from which municipal water supplies are diverted."
A drainage plan to mitigate the water quality impacts from drive and parking areas will be evaluated by the City
Engineer. This application is not expected to impact down stream water quality.
1
There is no condition of approval.
AIR OUALiTY: Sections 11-2.1:
"It is the purpose of [the air quality section of the Municipal Code] to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity possible b�- requiring
the use of all available practical methods and techniques to control, prevent and reduce air pollution throughout the city..." The Ladd L,e
Regulations seek to "lessen congestion" and "avoid transportation demands that cannot be met" as well as to "provide clean air by protectmg
the natural air sheds and reducing pollutants".
The municipal code requires developments to achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity by using all
available practical methods to reduce pollution and utilize automobile disincentive measures.. Standards used for trips
generated by new development are the trip generation rates and reductions from the'Pitkin County Road Standards'
which are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Report, Sixth Edition. Rental
apartments are assigned 6.47 vehicle trips per day which means that approximately 446 trips per day could be
generated by the proposed project of 69 units. A reduction for residential units located within one-half mile of a transit
stop is only applied when access is not difficult for the commuters.
The applicant has submitted a traffic impact study which was prepared by MK Centennial in anticipation of a required
mitigation plan. A number of measures are proposed that have the potential to successfully reduce the use of
automobile use . These measures include: a security gate for access to the 69 parking spaces provided; assessment of
$50/month for use of a parking space; providing bicycles; exercising rental preference for employees who do not
have automobiles. This department agrees that eventually this project will be transit -oriented when the pedestrian
underpass at the Old Stage Road area and the signalized crosswalk for pedestrians at Buttermilk are constructed.
These two features will enable pedestrians to cross the highway safely to access bus service into to\N n. However, at
this time no date has been confirmed for construction of the underpass and the signalized intersection is not planned
for completion until the fall of 2000. Therefore, more aggressive interim measures need to be used to enable the
residents at Burlingame to travel easily in the Aspen area without the use of a car. This department has discussed with
a member of the consultant team a number of additional options such as dial -.a -ride service to Aspen; a dedicated bus
stop on a year-round basis; one bicycle/unit with bike racks. A reduction in rent has also been mentioned as a possible
incentive for tenants without automobiles. A meeting with the consultant team and staff has been scheduled for the
first week in December to discuss the mitigation and traffic management plan which must be finalized for detailed
submission.
A condition of approval should be that the applicant provide a PNI10 mitigation plan for approval
from the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department prior to detailed submission..
FIREPLACEMOODSTOVE PERMITS The applicant must file a fireplace/woodstove permit with the
Environmental Health Department before the building permit will be issued. Although it does not appear from the
floor plans that fireplace devices are planned, the applicant needs to be aware that in the metropolitan area, buildings
may have two gas log fireplaces or two certified woodstoves (or 1 of each) and unlimited numbers of decorative gas
fireplace appliances per building. New homes may NOT have wood burning fireplaces, nor may any heating device
use coal as fuel.
There is no condition of approval at this time.
FUGITTVE DUST A fugitive dust control plan is required which includes, but is not limited to fencing, watering of
haul roads and disturbed areas, daily cleaning of adjacent paved roads to remove mud that has been carried out, speed
limits, or other measures necessary to prevent windblown dust from crossing the property line or causing a nuisance.
Dust control will be crucial for this project.
A fugitive dust plan must be approved by the Environmental Health Department prior
to any excavation.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
NOISE ABATEMENT: Section 16-1:
"The city council finds and declares that noise is a significant source of environmental pollution that represents a present and increasing threat
to the public peace and to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Cite of Aspen and it its visitors ...... Accordingly, it is the policy
of council to provide standards for permissible noise levels in various areas and manners and at various times and to prohibit noise in excess of
those levels."
During construction, noise can not exceed maximum permissible sound level standards, and construction cannot be
done except between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.
It is very likely that noise generated during the construction phase of this project will have some negative impact on
the neighborhood. The applicant should be aware of this and take measures to minimize the predicted high noise
levels.
9
MEMORANDUM
TO: . Chris Bendon, City Planner
FROM: Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer
RE: Burlingame Seasonal Housing - Conceptual Review
DATE: December l , 1998
The Burlingame Seasonal Housing project mill be reviewed as a PUD which allows for
the dimensional requirements, with the exception of maximum allowed floor area and
permitted density, to be established through the PUD process. A topographic survey and
slope analysis for the subject parcel will need to be provided by the applicant in order for
staff to provide an accurate determination of lot area, density and allowed floor area.
Staff does not feel that the proposed floorplans of the units meet the definition of
"dormitory" in that each of the units contains separate bathroom and kitchen facilities and
are entirely self-sufficient. The units do however meet the definition of dwelling unit.
The AH 1-PUD zone district requires the following minimum lot area per dwelling unit
for multi -family dwellings on a lot subdivided from a parcel of more than 27,000 square
feet:
1 bedroom: 1,250
2 bedroom: 2,100
3 bedroom: 3,630
Based on the proposed 66 three bedroom units, 2 two bedroom units and 1 one bedroom
unit, a minimum of 245,030 of net lot area is required. The subject parcel contains
approximately 163,350 square feet of gross lot area, without taking the required slope
reduction into account. The applicant will therefore have to receive a density variance
through the special review process.
Until an accurate determination of lot area is provided, staff does not have adequate
information to calculate the permitted floor area for the parcel.
All dimensional requirements will be verified at time of building permit application as the
information provided in this packet does not contain adequate detail for this level of
review.
Traffic Impact Study for the
Burlingame Ranch Seasonal Housing Project
Music Associates of Aspen
October 27,1998
Prepared for: Jim Curtis
Curtis and Associates
300 E. Hyman
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Prepared by: Stephen G. Pouliot, P.E.
Joseph R. Gellings, E.I.T.
MK Centennial
15000 West 64th Avenue
Arvada, Colorado 80001
Traffic Impact Study for the
Burlingame Ranch Seasonal Housing Project
October 27, 1998 Music Associates of Aspen
Table of Contents Page
Introduction.................................................................. I
Description of the Burlingame Ranch Seasonal Housing Project ......................... 1
Background Traffic ............................................................3
Seasonal Housing Project Traffic Generation ........................................ 6
Seasonal Housing Project Traffic Assignment ....................................... 8
Roadway Laneage and Traffic Control Assumptions .................................. 8
Level of Service Analysis ....................................................... 8
Adjustments to Traffic Generation due to Transit Incentives ........................... 13
Conclusions ................................................................. 13
1
u.
Es
Traffic Impact Study for the
Burlingame Ranch Seasonal Housing Project
E October 27, 1998 Music Associates of Aspen
List of Figures Page
Figure1-Study Area..........................................................2
Figure 2 - Summer AMIPM Peak Hour Total Background Traffic ........................ 4
Figure 3 - Winter AM/PM Peak Hour Total Background Traffic ......................... S
Figure 4 - Summer AM/PM Peak Hour Site Generated Traffic .......................... 9
3
i
Figure S - Winter AM/PM Peak Hour Site Generated Traffic ........................... 10
! Figure 6 - Forecasted Summer AM/PM Peak Hour Total Traffic ........................ 11
Figure 7 - Forecasted Winter AM/PM Peak Hour Total Traffic ......................... 12
List of Appendices
Appendix A - Preliminary Burlingame Ranch Seasonal Housing Parking Management Plan
Appendix B - New Stage Road Level of Service Calculations
Appendix C - Intersection Level of Service Analysis Computer Reports
ii
Traffic Impact Study for the
Burlingame Ranch Seasonal Housing Project
October 27, 1998 Music Associates of Aspen
Introduction
This report has been prepared to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed Burlingame Ranch
Seasonal Housing Project in Aspen, Colorado. The study area is located approximately one mile
northwest (downvalley) of downtown Aspen in an area already developed with affordable housing
units. Figure 1 shows the location of the approximately 3.7 acre site (Burlingame Ranch Parcel B)
with respect to State Highway 82, the Maroon Creek C" llib Golf Course, and Buttermilk Ski Area.
Unless new road connections are made, all of the site -generated traffic will utilize New Stage Road
and the Stage Road underpass to access State Highway 82.
This traffic impact study evaluates the seasonal housing project separately from all other potential
development on the Burlingame Ranch Property that would impact traffic on New Stage Road and
the Stage Road underpass.
The primary purpose of this study is to determine the long-term traffic impacts of site -generated
traffic on the area roadways and intersections. The study addresses the following items:
• Background traffic
• Estimated site generated traffic
• Forecasted traffic on local roadways
• The level of service associated with background traffic on New Stage Road and area
intersections and,
• The level of service associated with forecasted traffic on New Stage Road and area
intersections.
Description of the Burlingame Ranch Seasonal Housing Project
The Burlingame Ralch Seasonal Housing Project will be occupied by Music Associates of Aspen
(MAA) music students in the summer from June to August and a mix of winter season employees
from November to April. The winter season employees include general resort employees, Aspen
Skiing company employees, and Roaring Fork Transit Agency employees. The project consists of
68 dormitory -style units (66-3 bedroom, 2-2 bedroom ADA). Each unit contains bedrooms for two
or three individuals, a kitchen, a bathroom, and a common sitting area. Each unit is approximately
750 square feet. Additionally, there is one 1-bedroom property manager's unit. The total number
of beds in the project is 203.
There are 80 proposed parking spaces for the project. Each of the dormitory units, including the
property manager's unit, will be granted one parking space per unit in a gated main lot containing
69 spaces. Eleven (11) visitor spaces will be maintained outside of the gated parking area. A remote
control gate will manage the access to the main gated lot of 69 spaces.
Page 1
IRFr
e is
Arep
WE
} .. ..
El-
Traffic Impact Study for the
Burlingame Ranch Seasonal Housing Project
October 27, 1998 Music Associates of Aspen
A preliminary parking management plan is being proposed as part of the project. This parking
management plan is aimed at reducing the number of vehicles in the project and limiting the number
of vehicle trips in and out of the project. The following list highlights a few of the parking
management strategies to reduce vehicle trips in and out of the project.
• Parking will be limited to one space per unit with restricted access.
• MAA students and winter employees who arrive in Aspen without cars will be given
occupancy priority.
• Bus service is available to the project. Direct pedestrian access will be provided from the
project to the adjacent transit stops.
• Parking will be assigned and registered and will be charged a monthly parking fee.
• There will be an on -site property manager to manage the housing and parking.
The Preliminary Burlingame Ranch Seasonal Housing Parking Management Plan is attached as
Appendix A for reference.
Background Traffic
Background traffic reflects traffic that is present at the time the project is completed. The
background traffic exists on the roadway system regardless of whether or not the seasonal housing
project is developed.
The summer and winter peak hour traffic volumes developed as background traffic are shown in
Figures 2 and 3. This traffic is associated with both existing development and future development
that has been approved (does not include this project). The developments are on both sides of State
Highway 82 and include the proposed housing on Tiehack Road south of the Stage Road underpass.
The traffic data was estimated using trip generation rates and informa ion submitted by the Maroon
Creek Club in its subdivision application to Pitkin County. No f old traffic counts have been
conducted by MK Centennial as part of this report.
The Maroon Creek Club Golf Course and club house is currently a large generator of traffic in the
study area, especially in the summer. It is located west of New Stage Road near the intersection with
Old Stage Road. Older homes exist within and around the site on Old Stage Road, but their numbers
are small and their current traffic generation is small in comparison. Other affordable housing
developments on Stage Court Road and town homes on New Stage Road are also generating traffic
on the existing roadway network.
The following table (page 6) shows developments and/or traffic generators (existing and approved)
that were included in the background traffic estimations for Old Stage Road, New Stage Road, .and
Tiehack Road.
Page 3
State Highway 82
Level of Service
ABCDEF
Figure 2:
Summer AM/PM Peak Hour
Total Background Traffic
63/174 B 174/63 B
1
New Stage Road
6/17 A
/57/157
17/6 A
4/6 A
157/57 A r4
WA
61/41 A
218/98 A
00/772 A
Page 4
45/67
67/45 Tiehack Road
45/ 73 A 11 t 73/45 A
New Stage Road
4/7 A
41/66A
7/4 A
A 4/6 A
State Highway 82 G .
8/13 A 66/41 A
61/41 A
A 127/82 A
490/630 A
Figure 3:
Winter AM/PM Peak Hour
Total Background Traffic
Page 5
45/67
67/45 '`
Tiehack Road
Traffic Impact Study for the
October 27. 1998 Burlingame Ranch Seasonal Housing Project
Music Associates of Aspen
Trip Generation for Background Traffic
Generator Rate Units
Traffic Generated
(vehicles/day/unit) (vehicles per da )
Tiehack Road Lot 13 7 vpd/u 12 single family units 84 vpd
2 vpd/ps 50 parking spaces 100 vpd
Pfister Drive 7 vpd/u 27 single family units 189 vpd
vpd/u 6 v P
P 29 multi -family units 174 vpd
Tiehack Road Lot 16 7 vpd/u 1 single family unit 7 vpd
P
Pfeifer Place 10 vpd/u 4 single family units 40 vpd
Pfeifer Driveway 7 vpd/u 3 single family units 21 vpd
P
Powder Panda Ski School 200 vpd N/A
200 vpd
Maroon Creek Club 6 vpd/u 42 multi -family units 252 v d
vpd/ps Employee Apartments 3 v P
P P 14 employee parking 42 vpd
Clubside Town Homes 6 vpd/u 8 multi -family units 48 vpd
P
New Stage Road Golf 7 vpd/u 5 single-family units 35 vpd
Course 42 vpd/court 13 courts
546 vpd
8 vpd/ps 159 parking spaces 1272 vpd
8 vpd/rm 12 lodge rooms 96 vpd
The background traffic volumes used for State Highway 82 were taken from
forecasts in the Entrance to Aspen Final Environmental Impact Statement. These
Centennial
from 1994 estimates and reflect the zero traffic growth policy resolved b the Aspen City Coo are
Y p y Council.
For the background traffic estimates, peak hour volumes were assumed to be 10 percent of the daily
volumes. The traffic assignment assumed that 90 percent of the trips were oriented upvalley and 10
percent were oriented downvalley. Morning and evening peak hours were assumed to be the
opposite of each other with respect to volume and direction. Figures 2 and 3 also show the level of
service (LOS) associated with the background traffic at each intersection and on each road affected
by the project.
Seasonal Housing Project Traffic Generation
The proposed project consists of 68 dormitory units and 1 property manager's unit. The project will
contain a total of 203 beds. The traffic generation for the seasonal housing is based on two different
trip generating patterns: summer and winter.
Page 6
Traffic Impact Study for the
Burlingame Ranch Seasonal Housing Project
Music Associates of As
October 27, 1998
Summer
The first pattern is for the summer use of the project by music students. There are no availableabout the
P
generating standards for this type of use. The trips were estimated based on assumptions in vehicle at any
age of the students and how likely they were to drive a vehicle or be not personal vehicles. The
time during the day. Music students, in general, can be expected to P
following assumptions were made about summer trips in and out of the project.
• 202 music students will be using the seasonal housing in the summer.
• All music students will be enrolled in a class that meets daily at an off -site location pvalbe made
• It is probable that all student trips to and from the music school during the peak hour
will using bus service. However, to be conservative, 90 percent of these trips are assumed to be made
using the bus service.
• 75 percent of the music students will leave the project in the evening for various purposes (music
school events, shopping, recreation activities, etc.).
• 75 percent of evening person trips will be made using transit.
• The Peak hour of activity in the project coincides with the peak hour on State Highway 82 and
adjacent roadways.
p It is expected that the summer trip generation rate for this project is about 1.7 vehicle trips per unit
per day or 0.6 vehicle trips per person per day.
Winter
The second tripgeneration pattern is for the winter use of the project by employees of the Aspen b ki
T
Company,RFTA, and general resort employees. The characteristics of this use were assumed tothe
similar to the Apartments land use code in the ITE Trip Generation Manual - 6th Edition using
number of vehicles in the project as the independent variable.
The following assumptions were made about the winter trips in and out of the project. These
assumptions are made with respect to the availability of insit to the project.
• It is probable that all work trips during the peak hour w k it be made using bussur servi However, to
be conservative, 90 percent of these trips are assumed to be made using the b
75 percent of all non -work trips are personal trips (e.g. shopping and recreational activities).
• 50 percent of personal trips (non -work) are made on transit.
Thetrip
rate for the wintertime is based on the number of vehicles allowed in the project. The trip
rate for the wintertime is about 7 vehicle trips per unit per day or a little more than 2 vehicle trip
per person per day.
Below
is a summaryof the estimated summer and winter traffic generation associated with the
project.
Page 7
t
t
s _
Traffic Impact Study for the
Burlingame Ranch Seasonal Housing Project
October 27, 1998 Music Associates of Aspen
t Trip Generation for Summer and Winter Patterns
Two -Way Vehicle Trips Two -Way Vehicle Trips Peak Hour
} per Unit per Day per Day
% Vehicles
Summer 1.7 115 20% 23
F Winter 6.8 467 10% 47
t
Based on 69 units with a total of 203 beds
Seasonal Housing Project Traffic Assignment
Traffic characteristics for the project were assumed to be similar to the background traffic
characteristics. The project traffic assignment assumed a 20 percent peak hour volume for the
summer and a 10 percent peak hour volume in the winter. Assignment of the project -related traffic
assumed that 90 percent of the person trips are oriented upvalley and 10 percent are oriented toward
the Aspen Airport Business Center (AABC) and Snowmass Village. Morning and evening peak
hours were assumed to be the opposite of each other with respect to volume and direction. Once trip
generation was calculated, the site generated traffic was distributed onto the roadway network for
AM and PM peak hour periods in summer and winter as shown in Figures 4 and 5.
The traffic generation for the project is added to the background traffic to obtain the total summer
and winter AM and PM peak hour traffic. These total peak hour traffic volumes are shown in
Figures 6 and 7.
Roadway Laneage and Traffic Control Assumptions
State Highway 82 is assumed to be a four -lane highway (2 general traffic lanes and two bus -only
lanes) with deceleration lanes at the Stage Road underpass (New Stage Road and Tiehack Road).
Stage Court Road, Old Stage Road, and Tiehack Road are assumed to be two-lane roadways. The
underpass road is assumed to have shared turn lanes (right and left) at its intersection with Tiehack
Road and with New Stage Road. The underpass road is stop -controlled at New Stage Road and
Tiehack Road.
Level of Service Analysis
The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM - Transportation Research Board Special Report 209, 1994)
and the associated highway capacity software (HCS) was used to model the traffic operations within
the study area by determining the level of service (LOS) of four area intersections and New Stage
Road. The intersections analyzed are New Stage Road and the underpass road, New Stage Road and
State Highway 82, Tiehack Road and State Highway 82, and Tiehack Road and the underpass road.
Page 8
Traffic Impact Study for the
Burlingame Ranch Seasonal Housing Project
October 27, 1998 Music Associates of Aspen
2/21 0/0
Old Stage Road
Summer AM/PM Peak Hour Tiehack Road
Site Generated Traffic
(Parcel B - 203 Beds
Music Associates of Aspen)
Page 9
I
Traffic Impact Study for the
Burlingame Ranch Seasonal Housing Project
October 27, 1998 Music Associates of Aspen
F!
5/42 0/0
�.w.., Old Stage Road
Winter AM/PM Peak Hour Tiehack Road
Site Generated Traffic
(Parcel B - 203 Beds
Seasonal Employee Housing)
Page 10
84/176 B tit 176/84 B
New Stage Road
6/19 A
/78/157 A a
19/6 A
4/6 A
State Highway 82 10l25 A 157/78 A
61 /41 A
R�
A 218/119 A
600f772 A
Level of Service
A B C 0 E F
Figure 6:
Forecasted Summer AM/PM
Peak Hour Total Traffic
19/6 A 6/4
J4
78/157 A 741/61
61/41AA
A
45/67
67/45 Tiehack Road
Page 11
State Highway 82
Level of Service
ABCDEF
Figure 7:
Forecasted Winter AM/PM
Peak Hour Total Traffic
New Stage Road
79ROA, ,R
61/41 A
4/6 A
41 /61 A
Page 12
45/67
6714
\\ Tiehack Road
Traffic Impact Study for the
Burlingame Ranch Seasonal Housing Project
October 27, 1998 Music Associates of Aspen
An estimation of LOS for New Stage Road was developed based on criteria in the HCM and the
traffic generation and assignment for the project. A special note should be made about the
calculation of the LOS on New Stage Road. The LOS for New Stage Road was evaluated based on
the density of cars operating at 25 mph in the given section. The criteria used for determining LOS
is consistent with the HCM.
Traffic operations were analyzed and compared between no -build and build -out scenarios. The
scenario containing only background traffic was analyzed as the no -build scenario, while the total
traffic, including the fully -built seasonal housing project was analyzed as the build -out scenario.
Figures 2, 3, 6, and 7 indicate the level of service for turning movements, for overall intersection
operation, and for New Stage Road. In one case, the LOS for a turning movement is different for
the AM and PM peak hours. The northbound right turn movement onto State Highway 82 operates
at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS C during the PM peak hour in the summer for both the
no -build and build -out scenarios. More detailed LOS analysis results can be found in the
Appendices B and C.
Adjustments to Traffic Generation due to Transit Incentives
The volume of traffic generated on New Stage Road by the seasonal housing project reflects the use
of transit incentives and parking restrictions as identified in the Parking Management Plan in
Appendix A. It is difficult to quantify the exact impact these items will have on New Stage Road
and the surrounding roadway network. However, it is certain that these items will help to encourage
transit use and reduce the traffic generated by the project. These items will work best in concert with
other traffic management programs offered by the City of Aspen. Given this scenario, it is not
unreasonable to assume that the majority of trips generated by the project will be made using the
transit system. The assumptions made about the trip generation of the project reflect a commitment
to transit use for oth the project and the community.
Conclusions
The trip generation calculations show that about 75 daily one-way trips will be generated by the
seasonal housing project in the summer and about 426 daily one-way trips will be generated in the
in the winter. A LOS B is maintained on New Stage Road for both peak hours in the winter and
summer. Overall intersection operation is maintained at LOS A at all four intersections for both
peak hours in winter and summer. The impact of the project on New Stage Road is outlined in the
table below. The table identifies the percent increase in traffic on New Stage Road as a result of the
project.
The table shows that the seasonality of the project traffic fits nicely with the seasonality of the
Maroon Creek Club's traffic on New Stage Road. During the summer, when the Maroon Creek
Page 13
Traffic Impact Study for the
Burlingame Ranch Seasonal Housing Project
October 27, 1998 Music Associates of Aspen
Club's traffic is the heaviest, the project traffic is lightest and increases the total traffic volume by
approximately 10 percent. During the winter, the Maroon Creek Club's traffic is light and the
project traffic becomes heavier, increasing traffic volumes by approximately 40%. The LOS of New
Stage Road and the Stage Road underpass does not change during the summer when the Maroon
Creek Club is experiencing the highest volume of traffic. During the off season, New Stage Road
will operate at a LOS already acceptable to the Maroon Creek Club.
Percent Increase in New Stage Road
Peak Hour Two -Way Traffic Volumes
Two -Way Traffic Volume and LOS
Scenario Percent Increase
Before After
Summer 237 (B) 260 (B) 10%
Winter 118 (A) 165 (B) 40%
W:\CEIDAT\TPLAN\189400\MAA\PARCELB\MAA FNAL.WPD
Page 14
Traffic Impact Study for the
Burlingame Ranch Seasonal Housing Project
October 27, 1998 Music Associates of Aspen
FAN v W 10 10-1
Burlingame Ranch Seasonal Housing
Preliminary Parking Management Plan
Burlingame Ranch
Seasonal Housing
Preliminary Parking Management Plan
Project: the Burlingame Seasonal Housing project consists of 68 dormitory units and 1 one -bedroom
property manager unit for a total of 203 beds. Each dormitory unit will accommodate three people
with each person having a small, individual, private bedroom and sharing a common kitchen, bath,
and living room area. Each unit is approximately 750 sq. ft.
Parking: Based on the 10 years of experience from operation at Maroit Ranch, Burlingame par; ng
has been designed based on one (1) "gated" space per unit and 11 v sitor/guest spaces as follows:
69 "gated spaces" @ 1 space/unit for 68 dormitory units
@ 1 space/unit for the property manager unit
11 visitor/guest spaces
80 spaces total
5 spaces optional: parking or snow stacking as decided by property manager
The physical operation of the 80 parking spaces will be the following:
• A remote control gate will restrict access to the main parking lot of 69 spaces.
• One parking space will be provided to each of the 69 units (68 dorm units and 1
manager's unit).
• The person who is assigned the parking space will receive a parking sticker for the car;
a remote control device to open the gate (this device will be numbered and registered
with that individual); and a $50 per month parking fee will be charged. The remote
control device will be the responsibility of the user and if lost or damaged the user will
be charged. accordingly.
• Visitor parking will be contained to the 11 parking spaces outside the gated main
parking lot. Visitor parking will be clearly signed and enforced with towing and
booting.
• Direct pedestrian access will be provided from the project to the adjacent transit stops.
• The Property Manager will be a year-round position and the property manager will have
the full authority to manage the parking and housing.
In order to assure that the parking management plan is a success, other steps will be taken by the
ASC, MAA and City of Aspen to control parking, encourage transit use and discourage auto use as
follows:
Page A-1
Winter
• ASC will use Burlingame units to recruit groups of friends from overseas, National
Parks and colleges who can share a unit and car. Recruiting will focus on overseas
employees who arrive in Aspen without a car. Parking passes will be allocated at the
same time jobs and housing are arranged, and preference will be given to person/groups
who arrive in Aspen without a car.
• ASC will use Burlingame units to recruit employees who will be in Aspen for just one
winter and a preference will be given to individuals/group who arrive in Aspen without
a car.
• ASC job matching will be done for Burlingame employees who will work at Buttermilk.
• Free skier shuttles will be available for employee transportation.
• ASC employees can purchase a $40 RFTA punch pass for $5.
• Burlingame tenants will be advised that there is no long-term parking available for
additional cars and that transportation to Aspen and the ski areas can easily be
accommodated by mass transit.
• ASC has a track record of successfully managing seasonal housing and restrictive
parking at the Holiday House which has 50 beds and 16 off-street parking spaces.
Summer
• MAA will allocate the units among students who can share a unit and car.
• Burlingame decals will be issued and if more requests are made than parking available,
the "overflow" parking will use the lower parking lot on the Music School Castle Creek
Campus.
• Student cars will be registered and a registration fee of $50 per month will be charged
to provide an auto disincentive.
• Bus service will be provided among Burlingame, Marolt and the Castle Creek Campus.
• School bicycles will be available to students at no cost.
This parking management plan has been created based on discussions with the Marolt Ranch
property managers and the ASC, MAA and RFTA. Based on the 10 years of experience at Marolt
Ranch, it is our belief that with the one parking space per unit and the management controls outlined
above, the parking plan for the project will be successful.
Page A-2
Traffic Impact Study for the
Burlingame Ranch Seasonal Housing Project
October 27, 1998 Music Associates of Aspen
APPEN'TA B:
New Stage Road
Level of Service Calculations
Street Name:
New Stage Road
Segment:
North of Intersection
Analysis Period:
Summer AM Peak
Condition:
Background Traffic
Direction of Travel:
North/South
File Name:
Traffic Volume E/N =
174
Traffic Volume W/S =
63
Peak Hour Factor =
0.95
Number of Lanes E/N =
1
Number of Lanes W/S =
1
Percent Heavy Vehicles =
0.5
Lane Width =
12
Grade E/N =
0
Grade W/S =
0
Clear Distance E/N =
6
Clear Distance W/S =
6
Parking E/N
N
Parking W/S
N
Peak Flow Rate E/N =
183
Peak Flow Rate W/S =
66
Capacity E/N =
1393
Capacity W/S =
1393
East/North V/C =
0.13
West/South WC =
0.05
Factor =
0.995
(Table 9-6)
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-5)
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-7)
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-7)
Factor =
1.00
(Table 8-5)
Factor =
1.00
(Table 8-5)
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-8)
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-8)
TOTAL
249
TOTAL
2786
TOTAL
Level of Service (Table 8-1)
0.09
B
Street Name:
Segment:
Analysis Period:
Condition:
Direction of Travel:
File Name:
Traffic Volume E/N =
Traffic Volume W/S =
Peak Hour Factor =
Number of Lanes E/N =
Number of Lanes W/S =
Percent Heavy Vehicles =
Lane Width =
Grade E/N =
Grade W/S =
Clear Distance E/N =
Clear Distance W/S =
Parking E/N
Parking W/S
Peak Flow Rate E/N =
Peak Flow Rate W/S =
Capacity E/N =
Capacity W/S =
New Stage Road
North of Intersection
Summer PM Peak
Background Traffic
North/South
63
174
0.95
1
1
0.5
Factor =
0.995
gable 9-6)
12
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-5)
0
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-7)
0
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-7)
6
Factor =
1.00
(Table 8-5)
6
Factor =
1.00
(Table 8-5)
N
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-8)
N
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-8)
66
TOTAL
183
249
1393
TOTAL
1393
2786
East/North V/C = 0.05 TOTAL Level of Service (Table 8-1)
West/South V/C = 0.13 0.09 B
Street Name:
New Stage Road
Segment:
North of Intersection
Analysis Period:
Winter AM Peak
Condition:
Background Traffic
Direction of Travel:
North/South
File Name:
Traffic Volume E/N =
73
Traffic Volume W/S =
45
Peak Hour Factor =
0.95
Number of Lanes E/N =
1
Number of Lanes W/S =
1
Percent Heavy Vehicles =
0.5 Factor =
0.995
(Table 9-6)
Lane Width =
12 Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-5)
Grade E/N =
0 Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-7)
Grade W/S =
0 Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-7)
Clear Distance E/N =
6 Factor =
1.00
(Table 8-5)
Clear Distance W/S =
6 Factor =
1.00
(Table 8-5)
Parking E/N
N Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-8)
Parking W/S
N Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-8)
Peak Flow Rate E/N =
77 TOTAL
Peak Flow Rate W/S =
47 124
Capacity E/N =
1393 TOTAL
Capacity W/S =
1393 2786
East/North WC =
0.06 TOTAL
Level of Service
(Table 8-1)
West/South WC =
0.03 0.04
A
Street Name:
New Stage Road
Segment:
North of Intersection
Analysis Period:
Winter PM Peak
Condition:
Background Traffic
Direction of Travel:
North/South
File Name:
Traffic Volume E/N =
45
Traffic Volume W/S =
73
Peak Hour Factor =
0.95
Number of Lanes E/N =
1
Number of Lanes W/S =
1
Percent Heavy Vehicles =
0.5 Factor =
0. 5
(Table 9-6)
Lane Width =
12 Factor =
1.0
(Table 9-5)
Grade E/N =
0 Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-7)
Grade W/S =
0 Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-7)
Clear Distance E/N =
6 Factor =
1.00
(Table 8-5)
Clear Distance W/S =
6 Factor =
1.00
(Table 8-5)
Parking E/N
N Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-8)
Parking W/S
N Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-8)
Peak Flow Rate E/N =
47 TOTAL
Peak Flow Rate W/S =
77 124
Capacity E/N =
1393 TOTAL
Capacity W/S =
1393 2786
East/North V/C = 0.03 TOTAL
Level of Service
(Table 8-1)
West/South V/C = 0.06 0.04
A
Street Name:
New Stage Road
Segment:
North of Intersection
Analysis Period:
Summer AM Peak
Condition:
Parcel B Generated Traffic on Background Traffic
Direction of Travel:
North/South
File Name:
Traffic Volume E/N =
176
Traffic Volume W/S =
84
Peak Hour Factor =
0.95
Number of Lanes E/N =
1
Number of Lanes W/S =
1
Percent Heavy Vehicles =
0.5
Factor =
0.995
(Table 9-6)
Lane Width =
12
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-5)
Grade E/N =
0
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-7)
Grade W/S =
0
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-7)
Clear Distance E/N =
6
Factor =
1.00
(Table 8-5)
Clear Distance W/S =
6
Factor =
1.00
(Table 8-5)
Parking E/N
N
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-8)
Parking W/S
N
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-8)
Peak Flow Rate E/N =
185
TOTAL
Peak Flow Rate W/S =
88
274
Capacity E/N =
1393
TOTAL
Capacity W/S =
1393
2786
East/North V/C =
0.13
TOTAL
Level of Service (Table 8-1)
West/South V/C =
0.06
0.10
B
Street Name:
Segment:
Analysis Period:
Condition:
Direction of Travel:
File Name:
Traffic Volume E/N =
Traffic Volume W/S =
Peak Hour Factor =
Number of Lanes E/N =
Number of Lanes W/S =
Percent Heavy Vehicles =
Lane Width =
Grade E/N =
Grade W/S =
Clear Distance E/N =
Clear Distance W/S =
Parking E/N
Parking W/S
Peak Flow Rate E/N =
Peak Flow Rate W/S =
Capacity E/N =
Capacity W/S =
New Stage Road
North of Intersection
Summer PM Peak
Parcel B Generated Traffic on Background Traffic
North/South
84
176
0.95
1
1
0.5
Factor =
0.995
(Table 9-6)
12
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-5)
0
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-7)
0
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-7)
6
Factor =
1.00
(Table 8-5)
6
Factor =
1.00
(Table 8-5)
N
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-8)
N
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-8)
88
TOTAL
185
274
1393
TOTAL
1393
2786
East/North V/C = 0.06 TOTAL Level of Service (Table 8-1)
West/South V/C = 0.13 0.10 1 B
Street Name:
New Stage Road
Segment:
North of Intersection
Analysis Period:
Winter AM Peak
Condition:
Parcel B Generated Traffic on Background
Traffic
Direction of Travel:
North/South
File Name:
Traffic Volume E/N =
78
Traffic Volume W/S =
87
Peak Hour Factor =
0.95
Number of Lanes E/N =
1
Number of Lanes W/S =
1
Percent Heavy Vehicles =
0.5
Factor =
0.995
(Table 9-6)
Lane Width =
12
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-5)
Grade E/N =
0
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-7)
Grade W/S =
0
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-7)
Clear Distance E/N =
6
Factor =
1.00
(Table 8-5)
Clear Distance W/S =
6
Factor =
1.00
(Table 8-5)
Parking E/N
N
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-8)
Parking W/S
N
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-8)
Peak Flow Rate E/N =
82
TOTAL
Peak Flow Rate W/S =
92
174
Capacity E/N =
1393
TOTAL
Capacity W/S =
1393
2786
East/North V/C =
0.06
TOTAL
level of Service
(Table 8-1)
West/South V/C '=
0.07
0.06
B
Street Name:
Segment:
Analysis Period:
Condition:
Direction of Travel:
File Name:
Traffic Volume E/N
Traffic Volume W/S =
Peak Hour Factor =
Number of Lanes E/N =
Number of Lanes W/S =
Percent Heavy Vehicles =
Lane Width =
Grade E/N =
Grade W/S =
Clear Distance E/N =
Clear Distance W/S =
Parking E/N
Parking W/S
Peak Flow Rate E/N =
Peak Flow Rate W/S =
Capacity E/N =
Capacity W/S =
New Stage Road
North of Intersection
Winter PM Peak
Parcel B Generated Traffic on Background Traffic
North/South
87
78
0.95
1
1
0.5
Factor =
0.995
(Table 9-6)
12
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-5)
0
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-7)
0
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-7)
6
Factor =
1.00
(Table 8-5)
6
Factor =
1.00
(Table 8-5)
N
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-8)
N
Factor =
1.000
(Table 9-8)
92
TOTAL
82
174
1393
TOTAL
1393
2786
East/North WC = 0.07 TOTAL Level of Service (Table 8-1)
West/South V/C = 0.06 0.06 B
Traffic Impact Study for the
Burlingame Ranch Seasonal Housing Project
October 27, 1998 Music Associates of Aspen
APPENDIX C:
Intersection Level of Service
Analysis Reports
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 1SAMBKGD.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) new stage rd (E-W) underpass road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information ......... summer am peak, background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC's (o)
SU/RV' s (0-6)
CV's (%)
PCE's
0 1 < 0
N
157 61
.95 .95
0
0 > 1 0
N
57 6
.95 .95
0
1.10
----------------
Adjustment Factors
0 > 0 < 0
4 17
.95 .95
0
1.10 1.10
--------------
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf )
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 1SAMBKGD.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
--------------------------------------------------------
WB
EB
Conf licting Flows: (vph)
197
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1100
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1100
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.98
E
Step 2: LT from Major Street
--------------------------------------------------------
SB
NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
229
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1333
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1333
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.95
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.95
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
--------------------------------------------------------
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
263
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
746
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor: .
0.95*.
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.95
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.95
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
709
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg.
950
Flow Move Shared Total
Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay
Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh) (veh)
(sec/veh)
WB L 4 709 >
1007 3.7
0.0 A
3.7
WB R 20 1100 >
SB L 66 1333 2.8
0.0 A
2.6
Intersection Delay =
0.8 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 1SPM13KGD.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) new stage rd - (E-W) underpass road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst. jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information ......... summer pm peak, background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
- Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
-
No. Lanes 0 0 0
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC' s ( o )
SU/RV' s ( o )
CV's (o)
PCEIs
0 1 < 0
N
57 41'
.95 .95
0
0 > 1 0
N
157 17
.95 .95
0
1.10
---------------
Adjustment Factors
6 6
.95 .95
0
1.10 1.10
--------------
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf )
-----------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
I HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1d 1SPMBKGD.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1. RT from Minor Street
WB
EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
82
E,
E Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1258
E,=
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1258
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.99
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 2 : LT from Major Street
SB
NB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
103
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1531
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1531
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.88
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue -Free State:
0.88
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
WB
EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
264
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
745
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.88
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.88
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.88
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
655
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95 0
Flow Move Shared
Total Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh)
(veh)
(sec/veh)
WB L 7 655 >
861
4.3 0.0 A
4.3
WB R 7 1258 >
SB L 182 1531
2.7 0.4 A
2.4
Intersection Delay = 1.7 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 1WAMBKGD.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) new stage rd (E-W) underpass road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information ......... winter am peak, background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC' s ( a )
SU/RV's (o)
CVIs M
PCEIs
0 1 < 0
N!
66 61
.95 .95
0
0 > 1 0
N
41 4
.95 .95
0
1.10
----------------
U U V
Adjustment Factors
0 > 0 < 0
4 7
.95 .95
0
1.10 1.10
--------------
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1d 1WAMBKGD.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
WB
EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
101
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1231
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1231
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.99
I - Step 2: LT from Major Street
SB
NB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
133
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1482
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1482
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.97
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.97
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
WB
EB
----------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
148
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
869
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.97
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.97
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.97
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
841
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared
Total Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh)
(veh)
(sec/veh)
WB L 4 841 >
1066
3.4 0.0 A
3.4
WB R 8 1231 >
SB L 47 1482
2.5
Intersection Delay =
0.0 A 2.3
0.8 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 1WPMBKGD.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
----------------------------
Streets: (N-S) new stage rd - (E-W) underpass road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst. jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information ......... winter pm peak, background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
-
No. Lanes 0 0 0
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC's ( o)
SU/RV's {)
CV's ( o)
PCE's
0 1 < 0
N
41 41
.95 .95
0
0 > 1 0
N
66 7
.95 .95
0
1.10
---------------
Adjustment Factors
6 4
.95 .95
0
1.10 1.10
--------------
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time ( tf )
---------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2*.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
qi
t. F_
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 1WPMBKGD.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
WB
EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
64
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1285
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1285
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
1.00
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: LT from Major Street
SB
NB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
86
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1560
E Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1560
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.95
k TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue -Free State:
i
0.95
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
WB
EB_
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
140
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
879
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.95
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.95
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.95
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
836
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg.
95%
Flow Move Shared Total
Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay
Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh)
(sec/veh)
WB L 7 836 >
958 3.8
0.0 A
3.8
WB R 4 1285 >
SB L 76 1560 2.4
0.0 A
2.2
Intersection Delay =
1.2 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 2SAMBKGD.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets (N-S) new stage road (E-W) hwy 82
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst. .......... jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information ......... summer am peak, background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 0 1
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCI s (o)
SU/RV I s ( )
CVIs (o)
PCEIs
0
0
0
NI
0 2 1
N
600 218
.95 .95
0
----------------
Adjustment Factors
10
.95
0
1 1.10
---------------
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
---------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
3.40
' HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release
2.1d 2SAMBKGD.HCO
Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
---------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
316
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
958
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
E
958
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
i
0.99
Intersection
Performance Summary
r
Avg.
9 5 0
Flow Move Shared
Total
Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay
Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)
(sec/veh)
(veh)
(sec/veh)
3.8
SB R 12 958
3.8
0.0 A
Intersection Delay = 0.0 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 2SPMBKGD.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) new stage road (E-W) hwy 82
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information ......... summer pm peak, background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
IEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R I L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCI (o)
SU/RV' s ( o )
CV's ( o)
PCEIs
0 0 0
1A
NI
772 98''
.95 .95
0
---- ---- ----1
0 0 0
Adjustment Factors
0 0 1
23
.95
0
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time ( t f )
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
3.iO
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1d 2SPMBKGD.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
406
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
862
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
862
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.97
Intersection
Performance Summary
Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared
Total Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)
-------- ------ ------ ------
( sec/veh) (veh)
-------------- -----
(sec/veh)
---------
4.3
SB R 26 862
4.3 0.0 A
Intersection Delay = 0.1 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 2WAMBKGD.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) new stage road (E-W) hwy 82
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed ... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information ......... winter am peak, background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
-------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC' s ( o )
SU/RVIs (o)
CVIs (o)
PCEIs
0
0
0
N'
0 2 1
N
490 127'
.95 .95
0
----------------
Adjustment Factors
0 0 1
8
.95
0
1 1.10
---------------
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time ( t f )
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1d 2WAMBKGD.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
258
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1025
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1025
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.99
Intersection
Performance Summary
Avg. 9501
Flow Move Shared
Total Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)
( sec/veh) (veh)
(sec/veh)
3.5
SB R 9 1025
3.5 0.0 A
Intersection Delay = 0.0 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 2WPMBKGD.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets (N-S) -new stage road (E-W) hwy 82
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst. jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information ......... winter pm peak, background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
__------------------------------------
IEaszbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R I L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC' s ( % )
SU/RV' s ( o )
CV's 00
PCE's
---
0 0 0
�i
0 2 1
N
630 82
.95 .95
0
000 __�
Adjustment Factors
0 0 1
13
.95
0
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
3.40
E
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1d 2WPMBKGD.HCO Page 2
i
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
---------------------------------------------------------
Step l: RT from Minor Street
E--------------------------------------------------------
NB
SB
E Conflicting Flows: (vph)
332
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
940
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
P Y=
940
I Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.98
Intersection
Performance Summary
I
!
r
Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared
Total Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)
( sec/veh) (veh)
(sec/veh)
3.9
SB R 15 940
3.9 0.0 A
Intersection Delay = 0.1 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 3SAMBKGD�HCO__-Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) tie hack road (E-W) hwy 82
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information ......... summer am peak, background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Eastbounds Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 0 O 1 n 0 0
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC' s (%)
SU/RV ° s (0-5)
CV' s ( % )
PCEIs
0 2 1
N
1115 23
.95 .95
0
U
V
v
---------------
N
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap ( tg )
Time ( t f )
----------
-------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1d 3SAMBKGD.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
587
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
698
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
698
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.84
E Intersection
Performance Summary
Avg. 9 5 0
Flow Move Shared
Total Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)
( sec/veh) (veh)
(sec/veh)
j-------- ------ ------ ------
-------------- -----
---------
6.2
NB R 113 698
6.2 0.6 B
Intersection Delay = 0.5 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 3SPMBKGD.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets (N-S) tie hack road (E-W) hwy 82
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst. jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information ......... summer pm peak, background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Niorthbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC' s ( o )
SU/RV I s ( o )
CVIS (a)
PCEIs
0 2 1
N
1430 10
.95 .95
0
0
0
0
N---------------
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time ( t f )
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
3.40
C' -
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1d 3SPMBKGD.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
---------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conf licting Flows: (vph)
752
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
576
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
576
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.56
e Intersection
Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared
Total Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)
-------- ------ ------
( sec/veh) (veh)
------- -----
(sec/veh)
---------
------
E
-------
11.1
NB R 252 576
11.1 2.5 C
Intersection Delay = 1.5 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 3WAMBKGD.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) tie hack road (E-W) hwy 82
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst. .......... jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information ......... winter am peak, background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound- Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
- -
No. Lanes 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC' s (0-0)
SU/RV' s (o )
CV's MO.)
PCE I s
0 2 1
N'
910 13
.95 .95
0
U
U
V
---------------
N
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf )
---------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1d 3WAMBKGD.HCO Page 2
4
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
3 Step 1: RT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
479
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
792
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
792
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
E--------------------------------------------------------
0.88
Intersection
Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared
Total Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)
--------
(sec/veh) (veh)
(sec/veh)
------ ------ ------
-------------- -----
---------
5.2
NB R 95 792
5.2 0.4 B.
Intersection Delay = 0.4 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 3WPMBKGD.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: -(N-S) tie hack road (E-W) hwy 82
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information ......... winter pm peak, background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
------------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCIs M
SU/RVIs (o)
CVIs (%)
PCEIs
0 2 1
N!
1170 8
.95 .95
0
0
0
0
N
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap ( t g )
Time ( t f )
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
3.40
"s3 _
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1d 3WPMBKGD.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
NB
SB
f--------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
616
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
675
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
675
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.78
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared
Total Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)
-------- ------ ------ ------
(sec/veh) (veh)
-----
(sec/veh)
---------
--------------
6.8
NB R 147 675
6.8 0.9 B
Intersection Delay = 0.7 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 4SAMBKGD.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) tie hack road (E-W) underpass road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst. jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information ......... summer am peak, background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound �'astbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 0 0
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC' s ( o )
SU/RVIs (o)
CV s (%)
PCEIs
0 > 1 0
N
4 41
.95 .95
0
1.10
0 1 < 0
N
6 17
.95 .95
0
---------------
0 > 0 < 0
57 61.
.95 .95
0
1.10 1.10
----------------
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
---------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Miner Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffi Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
I -
IICS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 4SAMBKGD.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
15
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1361
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1361
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.95
Step 2: LT from Major Street
SB
NB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
24
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1670
I Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1670
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
1.00
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
F RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue -Free State:
1.00
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
WB
EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
62
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
975
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
1.00
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
1.00
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
973
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg.
95%
Flow Move Shared Total
Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay
Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh)
(veh)
(sec/veh)
EB L 66 973 >
1140 3.6
0.4 A
3.6
EB R 70 1361 >
NB L 4 1670
RM
Intersection Delay =
0.0 A 0.2
2.3 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 4SPMBKGD.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) tie hack road (E-W) underpass road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst. .......... jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information ......... summer pm peak, background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound - Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ----
No. Lanes p 0 n n n
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCI (%)
SU/RV ° s ( o )
CV' s (0
PCEIs
0 > 1 0
N
6 61
.95 .95
0
1.10
0 1 < 0
N
4 6
.95 .95
0
---------------
0 > <
157 41
.95 .95
0
1.10 1.10
---------------
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time ( t f )
---
--------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
F€
t
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d
4SPMBKGD.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
WB
EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conf licting Flows: (vph)
7
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1373
z Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1373
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.97
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: LT from Major Street
SB
NB
--------------------------------------------------------
d
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
10
1 Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1696
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1696
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
1.00
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl )
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
1.00
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
WB
EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
77
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
956
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
1.00
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
1.00
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
952
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg.
95%
Flow Move Shared Total
Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay
Length
LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh)
(veh)
(sec/veh)
EB L 182 952 >
1016 4.6
1.0
A 4.6
EB R 47 1373 >
NB L 7 1696 2.1
0.0
A 0.2
Intersection Delay =
3.3 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 4WAMBKGD.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets (N-S) tie hack road (E-W) underpass road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst. jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information ......... winter am peak, background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 n n n
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCI M
SU/RVIs (%)
CV's (o)
PCEIs
0 > 1 0
N
4 41
.95 .95
0
1.10
0 1 < 0
N
6 7'
.95 .95
0
0 > 0 <
41 61
.95 .95
0
1.10 1.10
---------------
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------
Lef t Turn Major F ad
5.00
2.10
Right Turr Minor toad
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn ""'inor Road
6.50
3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 4WAMBKGD.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
--------------------------------------------------------
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
10
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1369
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1369
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.95
Step 2: LT from Major Street
--------------------------------------------------------
SB
NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
13
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1690
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1690
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
1.00
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
1.00
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
WB
EB
----------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
56
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
983
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
1.00
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
1.00
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
981
Intersection Performance
Summary
Avg.
95 0
Flow Move Shared Total
Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay
Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh)
(veh)
(sec/veh)
EB L 47 981 >
1181 3.4
0.3 A
3.4
EB R 70 1369 >
NB L 4 1690
2.1
Intersection Delay =
0.0 A 0.2
2.2 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 4WPMBKGD.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) Tie hack road (E-W) underpass road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information ......... winter pm peak, background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Estbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC' s ( o )
SU/RV' s
CV's (a)
PCEIs
0 > 1 0
N
6 61
.95 .95
0
1.10
0 1 < 0
N
4 4
.95 .95
0
0 > 0 < 0
66 41
.95 .95
0
1.10 1.10
-----------------
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf )
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.06
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 4WPMBKGD.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
E
--------------------------------------------------------
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
6
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1375
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1375
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.97
Step 2: LT from Major Street
--------------------------------------------------------
SB
NB
r Conflicting Flows: (vph)
8
I Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1699
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1699
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
1.00
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
1.00
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
--------------------------------------------------------
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
76
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
957
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
1.00
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
1.00
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
953
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg.
95%
Flow Move Shared Total
Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay
Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) ( sec/veh)
(veh)
( sec/veh)
EB L 76 953 >
1080 .3.8
0.4 A
3.8
EB R 47 1375 >
NB L 7 1699 2.1
0.0 A
0.2
Intersection Delay =
2.3 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 1SAMPARB.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) new stage road (E-W) underpass road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information......... am peak hour, summer, parcel b traffic
on background
Two-way Stop -controlled !tintersection
Northbound- Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 0
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC's (o)
SU/RV's (0-6)c�1' s (0-6)
PCE's
0 1 < 0
N
157 61
.95 .95
0
0 > 1 0
N
78 6
.95 .95
0
1.10
Adjustment Factors
0 > <
4 19
.95 .95
0
1.10 1.10
--------------
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf )
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Le f t Turn laj or Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 1SAMPARB.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
197
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1100
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1100
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.98
x Step 2 : LT from Major Street
SB
NB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
229
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1333
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1333
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.93
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue -Free State:
0.93
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
WB
EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
285
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
724
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.93
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.93
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.93
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
675
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg.
95%
Flow Move Shared
Total
Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay
Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh)
(sec/veh)
WB L 4 675 >
1003
3.7
0.0 A
3.7
WB R 22 1,100 >
SB L 90 1333
2.9
0.1 A
2.7
Intersection Delay = 1.0 sec/veh
Release 2 ld 1SPMPAR.B.HCO Page 1
HCS--Unsignalized-Intersections--------------®-----------______________
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets - (N-S) New stage road - -- (E-W) underpass road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98 summer, parcel b traffic
Other Information......... pm peak hour,
on background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC' s ( % )
SU/RV's (o)
CV's (o)
PCEIs
0 1 < U
N
78 41
.95 .95
0
---------------
U ' 1 v
N
157 19
.95 .95
0
1.10
Adjustment Factors
6 6
.95 .95
0
1.10 1.10
---------------
Critical
Follow-up
Vehicle
Gap (tg)
Time (tf )
Maneuver
----------------------------
-----------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5 G10
'
2.10
2.0
Right Turn Minor Road
6.0�
3.30
Through Traffic Minor Road
.00
6.50
3.40
Left Turn Minor Road
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1d
1SPMPARB.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
I--------------------------------------------------------
step 1: RT from Minor Street
--------------------------------------------------------
WB
EB
i Conflicting Flows: (vph)
104
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1226
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1226
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.99
step 2: LT from Major Street
--------------------------------------------------------
SB
NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
125
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1495
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1495
j Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.88
! TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue -Free State:
---------------------------------------------------------
0.88
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
---------------------------------------------------------
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
288
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
721,
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.88
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.88
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.88
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
632
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared
Total Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay Length LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh)
(veh)
(sec/veh)
WB L 7 632 >
834 4.4
WB R 7 1226 >
SB L 182 1495 2.7
0.0 A 4.4
0.4 A 2.4
Intersection Delay = 1.6 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 1WAMPAR.E.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets (N-S) new stage road (E-W) underpass road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst. jrg
Date of Analysis........... 10/27/98
Other Information......... am peak hour, winter, parcel b traffic
on background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No . Lanes 0 1 < 0 0 > 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 > 0 < 0
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC's (o)
SU/RVs ( a )
CV's (%)
NI
70 61
.95 .95
0
79 8
.95 .95
0
4 8
.95 .95
C
-----------------------------------------
PCE's I 11.10 11.10 1.10
__________________________
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap(Lg)
Time ( tf )
----------
--------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.0
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
b.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1d 1WAMPARB.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
--------------------------------------------------------
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
106
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1224
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1224
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
[: --------------------------------------------------------
0.99
Step 2: LT from Major Street
-----
SB
NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph) -
138
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1473
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1473
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.94
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.94
j-- Step 4: LT from Minor Street
F
--------------------------------------------------------
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
197
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
814
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.94
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.94
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.94
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
763
Intersection Performance
Summary
Avg. 9 5 0
Flow Move Shared
Total Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh)
(veh)
(sec/veh)
WB L 4 763 >
1032
3.5 0.0 A
3.5
WB R 9 1224 >
SB L 91 1473
2.6
Intersection Delay =
0.1 A 2.4
1.1 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 1WPMPARB.HCO Page-1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets (N-S) new stage road (E-W) underpass road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst. jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information......... pm peak hour, winter, parcel b traffic
on background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound v Eastbc°,nd Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes - ri 0 0 0> 0 < 0
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC's (o)
SU/RV's (o)
CV's (a)
PCE's
0 1 < 0
N
79 41
.95 .95
0
0 > 1 0
N
70 8
.95 .95
0
1.10
---------------
Adjustment Factors
6 8
.95 .95
0
1.10 1.10
---------------
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap ( tg )
Time ( t f )
------------------c-------------------------
Left Turn Major Read
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1d 1WPMPARB.HC0 Page 2
WorksheetforTWSCIntersection
-----------
- --
F%
I Step 1: RT from Minor Street
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
104
F Potential Capacity: (pcph)
122G
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
122G
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.99
e--------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: LT from Major Street
SB
NB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
12G
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1493
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1493
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.95
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue -Free State:
-----------------------------------------
0.95
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
--------------------------------------------------------
---------------
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
18G
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
82G
Maj or LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.95
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.95
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.95
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
781
Intersection Performance
Summary
Avg. 950,
Flow Move Shared
Total Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh)
(veh)
(sec/veh)
WB L 7 781 >
981
3.7 0.0 A
3.7
WB R 9 122G >
SB L 81 1493
2.5 0.0 A
2.3
Intersection Delay = 1.1 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 2SAMPARB.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets (N-S) new stage road (E-W) hwy 82
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst. jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information......... am peak hour, summer, parcel b traffic
on background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes _ ____ ---- - 0 0 0 0 0 1
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCI (o)
SU/RV' s ( o )
CV's (%)
PCEIs
0
0
0
---------------
N
U L �.
N
600 218
.95 .95
0
---------------
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)'
-------------
---------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1d 2SAMPAR13.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
--------------------------------------------------------
NB
SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
316
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
958
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
958
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.99
Intersection
Performance Summary
Avg. 9501
i Flow Move Shared
Total Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)
------ ------
(sec/veh) (veh)
-----
(sec/veh)
---------
------
--------------
3.8
SB R 12 958
3.8 0.0 A
Intersection Delay = 0.0 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 2SPMPARB.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets (N-S) new stage roads (E-W) hwy 82
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information......... pm peak hour, summer, parcel b traffic
on background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound e _ Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
-
No. Lanes 0 0 0 1
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC' s ( o )
SU/RV' s ( o )
CV's (o)
PCE's
0
0
0
N'
0 2 1
N
772 119
.95 .95
0
---------------
Adjustment Factors
25
.95
0
1 1.10
---------------
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time ( tf )
----------..------------------------------------------
Left Turn major Road
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1d
2SPMPARB.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
406
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
862
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
862
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
E -----------------------------------------------------
0.97
E.
t
Intersection
Performance Summary
Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared
Total Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay Length
LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)
-------- ------ ------ ------
(sec/veh) (veh)
--------------
(sec/veh)
--------------
4.3
! SB R 29 862
4.3 0.0
A
Intersection Delay = 0.1 sec/veh
HCS. Unsignalized Intersections Release 2_1d _®2WAMPARB_HCo--_Page -1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) new stage road s (E-W) hwy 82
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information......... am peak hour, winter, parcel b traffic
on background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection ®�
Eastbound ®Westbound s >;orthbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes _ -®- _--- --- 0 0 0 0 0 1
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCI (o)
SU/RVIs (a)
CV's (%)
PCEIs
0
0
o
---------------
N
0 2 1
N
490 131
.95 .95
0
---------------
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Gap (tg)
Time ( tf )
Maneuver
-_
Left Turn Major Road
5.50
2.10
2.60
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
3.30
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.40
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1d
2WAMPAR13.HC0 Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
---------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
NB
SB
---------------------------------------
E Conflicting Flows: (vph)
---------
- -------
258
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1025
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1025
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
------------------------------------------------
0.99
Intersection
Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared
Total Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay Length
LOS Delay
I Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)
(sec/veh) (veh)
(sec/veh)
3.6
SB R 14 1025
3.6 0.0
A
Intersection Delay = 0.1 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d®_ 2WPMPARB.HCOPage -1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets (N-S)anew stage road e (E-W) hwy 82
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information......... pm peak hour, winter, parcel b traffic
on background
Two-way _Stop -controlled -Intersection
___-
IEastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCI (%)
SU/RV I s ( a )
CV's (%)
PCE's
0 0 0
PA
-0 2-- -1
NJ
630 120'
.95 .95
0
Adjustment Factors
0 0 1
14
.95
0
1.10
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
Maneuver
--
Left Turn Major Road
5.50
2.10
2.60
Right Turn Minor Rc ad
5.50
3.30
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.40
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
E _
[ U
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1d 2WPMPARB.HCO
Page 2
E
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
--------------------------------------------------------
NB
SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
332
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
940
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
940
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
_ --------------------------------------------------------
0.98
t
r Intersection
Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared
Total Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)
( sec/veh) (veh)
(sec/veh)
3.9
SB R 17 940
3.9 0.0 A
Intersection Delay = 0.1 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 3SAMPARB.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) tiehack road (E-W) hwy 82
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information......... am peak hour, summer, parcel b traffic
on b -°ground
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Eastbound I Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R I L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC' s ( o )
SU/RVIs (o)
CV's (%)
PCEIs
---- ---- ----
0 2 1
NI
1115 25'
.95 .95
0
Q1
Adjustment Factors
0 0 0
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lef t Turn Major Rc Ad
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor !Dad
5.50
2 . `'J
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
3.40
E _
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1d 3SAMPARB.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
---------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
587
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
698
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
698
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.80
Intersection
Performance Summary
Avg. 950
Flow Move Shared
Total Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)
-------- ------ ------
(sec/veh) (veh)
-------------- -----
(sec/veh)
---------
------
6.4
NB R 138 698
6.4 0.8 B
Intersection Delay = 0.6 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 3SPMPARE.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets:-(N-S) tiehack road (E-W) hwy 82
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information......... pm peak hour, summer, parcel b traffic
on background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
I---------=====Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R I L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 0
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCI s (%)
SU/RV' s ( o )
CVIs (a)
PCEIs
N
1430 10
.95 .95
0
NI
Adjustment Factors
0
218
.95
1.10
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time ( tf )
------------------a-------------------------------------------
Lef t Turn Major F,�ad
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
E{t
Release 2.1d 3SPMPARB.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
---------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
752
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
576
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
576
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.56
Intersection
Performance Summary
Avg. 9506
Flow Move Shared
Total Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)
( sec/veh) (veh)
(sec/veh)
11.1
NB R 252 576
11.1 2.5 C
Intersection Delay = 1.5 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 3WAMPARB.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets. (N-S) tiehack road (E-W) hwy 82
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information......... am peak hour, winter, parcel b traffic
on background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC' s ( o )
SU/RV's (%)
CV' s (0-6)
PCE's
0 2 1
N
910 14
.95 .95
0
0
o
u
---------------
N
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time ( t f )
----------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.50
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1d 3WAMPAR13.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
j- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
--------------------------------------------------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----------
NB
SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
479
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
792
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
792
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.82
Intersection
Performance Summary
Avg. 9501
Flow Move Shared
Total Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)
(sec/veh) (veh)
(sec/veh)
5.5
NB R 139 792
5.5 0.7 B
Intersection Delay = 0.6 sec/veh
HCS. Unsignalized Intersections Release 2_ld---_3WPMPARB.HCO--_Page d
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets (N-S) tiehack road _ (E-W) hwy 82
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information......... pm peak hour, winter, parcel b traffic
on background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Eastbound Westbound _ Nc;xthbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -O- 0 0 1 0 0 0
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC' s ( % )
SU/RV' s ( o )
CV's (o)
PCEIs
0 2 1
N
1170 12
.95 .95
0
U
V
�
---------------
N
Adjustment Factors
131
.951
0
1.10
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
Maneuver
----
---------
Left Turn Major Road
5.50
2.10
2.60
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
3.30
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.50
3.40
Left Turn Minor Road
7.00
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1d 3WPMPARB.HCO Page 2
i
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
---------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
f;
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
616
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
675
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
675
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.77
Intersection
Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared
Total Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
I
Delay Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)
( sec/veh) (veh)
(sec/veh)
-------- ------ ------ ------
-------------- -----
---------
6.9
NB R 152 675
6.9 1.0 B
Intersection Delay = 0.7 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 4SAMPARB.HCO Page 1
CenterForMicrocomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N-S) tie hack road e (E-W) underpass road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information......... am peak period, summer, Parcel B traffi
c on background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes - 0 0 0 0> 0 < 0
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC' s ( o )
SU/RV' s ( o )
CVIs (o)
PCEIs
0 > 1 0
N
4 41
.95 .95
0
1.10
0 1 < 0
N
6 19
.95 .95
0
---------------
Adjustment Factors
78 61
.95 .95
0
1.10 1.10
---------------
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap, (tg)
Time (tf )
-
Left Turn Major Road
.00
2 .10
Right Turn Minor Road
_ 5C•
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.0-
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
[7
Release 2.1d
4SAMPARB.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
--------------------------------------------------------
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
43
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
s
1317
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1317
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
EEE(
0.95
t --------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: LT from Major Street
--------------------------------------------------------
SB
NB
Conf licting Flows: (vph)
26
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1666
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1666
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
1.00
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
1.00
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
--------------------------------------------------------
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
63
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
974
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
1.00
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
1.00
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
972
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg.
95%
Flow
Move
Shared
Total
Queue
Approach
Rate
Cap
Cap
Delay
Length
LOS Delay
Movement (pcph)
-------- ------
(pcph)
(pcph)
( sec/veh)
(veh)
-------
(sec/veh)
--------------
WB L 90
------
972
------
>
-------
1098
3.8
0.5
A 3.8
WB R 70
1317
>
NB L 4
1666
2.2
0.0
A 0.2
Intersection Delay = 2.6 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 4SPMPARB.HCO Page_1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets (N-S) tie hack -road- - (E-W) underpass road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst. jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information......... pm peak period, summer, Parcel B traffi
c on background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
--------------
Northbound
Southbound Eastbc°._nd Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes - 0 0 0 0> 0 < 0
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC, s (%)
SU/RV I s ( o )
CV's (o)
PCEIs
0 > 1 0
N
6 61
.95 .95
0
1.10
v 1 �
N
4 6
.95 .95
0
---------------
Adjustment Factors
157 41
.95 .95
0
1.10 1.10
---------------
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap(tg)
Time (tf)
----------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d
4SPMPARB.HCO Page 2
E Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
--------------------------------------------------------
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
64
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1285
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1285
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.96
Step 2. LT from Major Street
--------------------------------------------------------
SB
NB
I Conflicting Flows: (vph)
10
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1696
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1696
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
1.00
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
1.00
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
--------------------------------------------------------
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
77
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
956
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
1.00
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
1.00
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
952
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg.
9516
Flow Move Shared Total
Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay
Length
LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh)
(sec/veh)
WB L 182 952 >
1005 4.6
1.0
A 4.6
WB R 47 1285 >
NB L 7 1696 2.1
0.0
A 0.2
Intersection Delay =
3.4 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 4WAMPARB.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets (N-S) tie hack road e (E-W) underpass road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst. jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information......... am peak period, winter, Parcel B traffi
c on background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound e Eastcound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 0 0> 0 < 0
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCI s ( o)
SU/RV's (%)
CVIs (%)
PCEIs
0 > 1 0
N
4 41
.95 .95
0
1.10
---------------
U 1 < u
N
6 8
.95 .95
0
----------------
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Critical
Maneuver
Gap ( tQ )
------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5 . O G
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
79 61
.95 .95
0
1.10 1.10
Follow-up
Time (tf)
--------------------
2.10
2.60
3.30
3.40
€. HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1d
4WAMPARB.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
---------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
-------------------------------------------------
WB
EB
}
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
43
4 Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1317
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1317
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.95
Step 2: LT from Major Street
--------------------------------------------------------
SB
NB
Conf licting Flows: (vph)
14
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1688
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1688
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
1.00
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
1.00
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
---------------------------------------------------------
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
57
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
981
"Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
1.00
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
1.00
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
979
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg.
95 0
Flow
Move
Shared
Total
Queue
Approach
Rate
Cap
Cap
Delay
Length
LOS Delay
Movement (pcph)
-------- ------
(pcph)
(pcph)
(sec/veh)
(veh)
(sec/veh)
WB L 91
------
979
------
>
-------
-------
--------------
1102
3.8
0.6
A 3.8
WB R 70
1317
>
NB L 4
1688
2.1
0.0
A 0.2
Intersection Delay = 2.7 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1d 4WPMPARB.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets:-(N-S) tie hack -road (E-W) underpass road
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... jrg
Date of Analysis.......... 10/27/98
Other Information......... pm peak period, winter, Parcel B traffi
c on background
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCIs (%)
SU/RV' s ( o )
CV's (o)
PCEIs
0 > 1 0
N
6 61
.95 .95
0
1.10
---------------
0 1 < 0
N.
4 8'
.95 .95'
0
----------------
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Critical
Maneuver
Gap ( t g )
----------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Roy. d
S.00
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
0 > 0 < 0
70 41
.95 .95
0
1.10 1.10
--------------
Follow-up
Time (tf )
-------------
2.10
2.60
3.30
3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1d
4WPMPARB.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
i -
---------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
WB
EB
------------------------------
Conflicting Flows. (vph)
64
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1285
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1285
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.96
-----------------------------
Step 2. LT from Major Street
----------------
SB
NB
------------------------------
Conflicting Flows.(vph)
12
Potential Capacity: P y: (pcph)
1692
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1692
' Prob. of Queue -Free State:
1.00
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
1.00
Step 4. LT from Minor Street
WB
EB
--------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
78
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
954
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
1.00
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
1.00
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
950
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg.
950-.
Flow
Move
Shared
Total
Queue
Approach
Rate
Cap
Cap
Delay
Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph)
---
(pcph)
------
(pcph)
(sec/veh)
(veh)
(sec/veh)
WB L 81
950 >
------
-------
------- -----
---------
1051
3.9
0.4 A
3.9
WB R 47
1285 >
NB L 7
1692
2.1
0.0 A
0.2
Intersection Delay = 2.3 sec/veh
CA
WITNESS LIST*
Co nk-r� ;F-20A4 (46-1qq
AGENDA ITEM:
NAME OF WITNESS:
1• �----� i �a�_�!y�-Staff Person
2.
3.
s. ��� 10—r— M,9," C�h'AQVWI�
6. _ � vu.: �n1�-�-5 c� 1� u49-e4 m- +, ,
9. A41u
10.
tti-t, !-MA (�i<
12. �Al L
13.
14.
15.
16.
* Includes staff persons, but excludes staff attorney and board members.
NAME OF PROJECT:
CITY CLERK: 3-At*t E L,*,44
STAFF: C. A-Pu S
WITNESSES: (1) JI M (2,tA p J LA LI
(2) RA_p4
�fA SIG
(4) Lc PO 0 L" I +1 AR" `
(5) B 1 LL KP�/`I E
' )
EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report (v) (Check If Applicable)
2 Affidavit of Notice ( ) (Check If Applicable)
3 Board Criteria Sheet ( ) (Check If Applicable)
4 5 Li t)(� sf.�o Vl
5 VA<kt ouS ?HCmS S n-r=� M ArvO6 V 5 u A L.S
MOTION: Ronk E-7 IZl C4<s04 TU geco N( H w —m Cn c6u hjC! L 4. jS
Oj-b�.. 41.
VOTE: YES NO Z
4R-Q- GE RirTvrrY E SN O
ROBERT BLAICH YES NO
RON ERICKSON YES NO
JASMINE TYGRE YES NO l'
TIMOTHY MOONEY YES NO
STEVEN RUETTOW YES _j/ NO
TIM SEMRAU . YES V NO