Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Letter Report
c c�fc LETTER REPORT Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Blackrock Subdivision Eagle Road and Amity Road Meridian, Idaho Prepared by Brent Norris, E.I.T. Michael G. Woodworth, P.E. 8653 W. o, Idaho83709 P.208.376.8200 F. 208.376.8201 Prepared for Mr. Justin Blackstock Hubble Homes, Inc. 701 South Allen Street, Ste 104 Meridian, Idaho 83642 August 11, 2006 RECEIVED SEP 1 3 2006 SCANNED TO COMPUTER FILE l� COPIED TO PeRuScCT FILE ® COPIED TO: f`oc>.k.. �4 STRaTa GEOTEGHNICAL ENGINEERING & MATERIALS TESTING Zelfr�r�-{-�. Frc wt -1`%ct �rour�c U(' Mr. Justin Blackstock Hubble Homes, Inc. 701 South Allen Street, Ste 104 Meridian, Idaho 83642 91 Dear Mr. Blackstock: September 8, 2006 File: HUBHOM B06167A LETTER REPORT Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Blackrock Subdivision Eagle Road and Amity Road Meridian, Idaho STRATA, Inc. is pleased to present our authorized limited geotechnical engineering evaluation to assist yourself and Bailey Engineering, Inc. to help characterize soil and groundwater conditions at the proposed Blackrock subdivision to be located south and west of the intersection of Amity Road and Eagle Road in Meridian, Idaho. Specifically, we understand the design team is evaluating the subject site relative to subsurface stormwater disposal and groundwater conditions for the subdivision. At this time, our evaluation is limited to providing recommendations for infrastructure development and does not include recommendations for individual lot development. The following letter report presents the results of our field exploration performed to date, and our subsequent geotechnical and hydrogeologic recommendations. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING We understand you plan to develop approximately 242 acres located south and west of the intersection of Amity and Eagle Roads as a residential subdivision. An undetermined number of residential lots are anticipated with associated infrastructure, including streets, utilities, and stormwater disposal facilities. We understand that significant grading may be performed in the southwestern portion of the site, however, at this time no grading plans have been developed. Based on our discussions with Mr. David Bailey of Bailey Engineering, Inc., we understand that stormwater will be retained on -site by subsurface infiltration beds, or drainage swales. Additionally, we understand that significant grading may be performed in the western portions of the site. However, at the time of this report, grading plans have not been developed. Therefore, this report does not include any recommendations for fill placement or other lot grading recommendations. SITE DESCRIPTION The site consists of approximately 242 acres of relatively flat to moderately sloping terrain. The property is bounded on the north by east Amity Road and agricultural/rural residential development, on the east by Eagle Road and Ten -Mile Creek, and on the south and west sides by agricultural and rural residential development. Ten -Mile Creek flows from the IDAHO MONTANA NEVADA OREGON UTAH WASHINGTON WYOMING www.stratageotech.com 8653 W. Hackamore Dr, Boise, Idaho 83709 P.208.376.8200 F,204.3715-92 3'f Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Blackrock Subdivision File: HUBHOM B06167A Page 2 southeast to northwest and forms a portion of the eastern project boundary. Presently, agricultural activities are on -going throughout the majority of the site with irrigated turf grass present in the majority of the southern and central portions of the parcel. The northern portion of the parcel is presently not being utilized for agricultural purposes. In addition, an existing roadway and subdivision development is on -going on the southwestern portion of the overall development area. STRATA has previously performed a geotechnical engineering evaluation, entitled Report Geotechncial Evaluation, Proposed Blackrock Subdivision No. 1, Meridian, .Idaho, dated February 11, 2005. As noted, the site is moderately sloping to relatively flat and slopes from southwest to northeast with approximately 80 feet of topographic change across the parcel. Based on review of existing topography provided by Bailey Engineering, slopes were estimated to be as steep as approximately 5 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical (5H:1V), with steepest slopes present in the southwestern portion of the parcel. Single-family residential structures and associated out -buildings are present fronting Amity Road and Eagle Road, however, they are not included as part of the present project. FIELD EXPLORATION STRATA observed the excavation of 14 test pits on August 8, 2006. Additionally, 16 test pits were advanced across a portion of the site in January, 2005 as part of the previous investigation performed by STRATA. Test pits were excavated to depths of 7 to approximately 12 feet terminating within native granular sediments, or below ground water. Standpipe piezometers were installed in all test pits to allow for continued monitoring of groundwater levels. Approximate test pit locations are provided on Plate 1, Site Plan. Our field engineer visually evaluated the soils encountered referencing the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). A brief explanation of the USCS is presented on Plate 2 and should be used to interpret the terms used on the test pit logs. Test pit logs are included in Appendix A. Select soils were retained for laboratory testing and for classification purposes. At the conclusion of our subsurface evaluation, test pits were loosely backfilled level with the existing ground surface. Test pit locations are documented by the presence of labeled stakes and/or standpipe piezometers. If test pits are located beneath proposed building, pavement, or sidewalk areas, we recommend they be re -excavated to sufficient depth to expose native soil and backfilled with structural fill. SITE GEOLOGY As part of our scope of service, STRATA has reviewed the Geologic Map of the Boise Valley and Adjoining Area, Western Snake River Plain, Idaho. Review of the referenced geologic map indicates that the site has been mapped as sandy alluvium of side -stream valleys and gulches as well as gravel of the Amity Terrace. Amity Terrace gravels are mapped in the western, topographically elevated, portion of the site, with sandy alluvium associated with Ten Mile Creek mapped in the central and eastern, relatively low portions of the site. IDAHO MONTANA NEVADA OREGON UTAH WASHINGTON WYOMING www.stratageotech.com Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Blackrock Subdivision File: HUBHOM B06167A Page 3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Soils encountered within the test pits generally consist of near surface silt and clay overlying silty sand grading to poorly -graded sand and poorly -graded gravel. Vegetation and organics were typically observed within the upper 6 inches of the soil profile. We observed near surface clay and silt to be brown, stiff to hard, and moist, with varying sand content. These soils were not encountered in all test pit locations, however, were noted to extend to depths of approximately 2 to 6 feet where encountered. Underlying clay and silt, where present, tan to brown, medium dense to dense, moist to saturated, silty sand, poorly -graded sand and poorly -graded gravel was encountered. These granular sediments typically become more coarse grained with depth and are noted to extend beyond the termination depths of all explorations. We did not observe gravel in all test pit excavations, however all test pits terminated within poorly -graded sand, silty sand or gravel. Sandy -silt fill material was observed in the vicinity of TP-9, extending to a depth of approximately 4 feet below the existing grade. Fill material exhibited significant organic material including grass clippings associated with the existing turf pile. Based on review of well driller's logs in the area, gravel and sand may extend to depths in excess of 50 feet below existing ground surface. Specific soil contacts and descriptions can be referenced on individual test pit logs in Appendix A. Groundwater was encountered at depths as shallow as approximately 3 to 4 feet below existing grade in the vicinity of Ten -Mile Creek, with groundwater increasing in depth to the west, away from Ten -Mile Creek. Groundwater was not encountered in all test pit locations. Groundwater levels in the vicinity of the project are related to seasonal irrigation and canal leakage in the areas, and are likely near the maximum elevation during the irrigation season. Estimation of seasonal -high groundwater is difficult without long-term monitoring, however STRATA performed groundwater monitoring on August 28th. This monitoring indicates shallow groundwater present in areas fronting Ten -Mile Creek, with groundwater levels observed to be as shallow as 2.9 feet. Groundwater monitoring results are attached as Plate 3 to this report. As requested, STRATA is performing monthly groundwater monitoring of piezometers installed across the site. STRATA will provide the results of monthly groundwater monitoring to Mr. David Bailey of Bailey Engineering. SOIL SURVEY REVIEW A review of the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil loam, Aerie Haplaquepts, Oliga Variant loam Survey of Ada County Area, Idaho, indicates that soil types across the site consist of Abo silt Power silt loam, and Purdam silt loam. Specific soil characteristics, as defined by the USDA, are presented in the following sections. Abo Silt Loam and Oliga Variant Loam: Abo silt loam and Oliga Variant loam is mapped in a portion of the north and central portion of the parcel. These soils exhibit moderate to moderately slow permeability, with slow runoff and slight hazard of erosion. Groundwater may be as shallow as 3 to 5 feet below ground surface during the irrigation season. Additionally, these soils may exhibit low strength and moderate to high frost action potential. Aerie Haplaquepts: Aeric Haplaquepts soils are mapped in the portions of the site near Ten Mile Creek. Specific soils characteristics, as defined by the USDA, for this soil type include IDAHO MONTANA NEVADA OREGON UTAH WASHINGTON WYOMING www.stratageotech.com Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Blackrock Subdivision File: HUBHOM B06167A Page 4 moderately slow to very slow permeability, very slow runoff, and slight hazard of erosion. Groundwater may be as shallow as 18 to 36 inches during the irrigation season. Aeric Haplaquepts soils typically exhibit moderate to high frost action potential. Purdam and Power Silt Loam: Purdam and Power silt loam soils are mapped by the USDA in the western and southern portions of the parcel. Characteristics of these soils, as defined by the USDA include moderately slow permeability, medium runoff, and moderate erosion hazard. Additionally, these soils may exhibit low strength, frost action potential, and high shrink -swell potential LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on select soil samples obtained from our field exploration. Laboratory testing was accomplished referencing ASTM test procedures. Laboratory testing included grain -size analysis and Atterberg limits testing for soil classification and R-value testing for roadway design. Index laboratory test results are presented on individual test pit logs and R-value testing is presented in Appendix B. GEOTECHNICAL OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is our opinion the site is suitable from a geotechnical standpoint for the proposed project, provided the recommendations in this letter are accomplished. At this time, since proposed grading in the western portion of the site is undetermined, our recommendations are limited to subsurface stormwater disposal, general earthwork recommendations, and Pavement design recommendations for the proposed subdivision. No recommendations for lot fill or individual lots have been provided at this time. The subsurface conditions may vary at the project site and this variation may not be known until construction. Variations in soil and groundwater conditions may impact construction plans and/or costs. Earthwork We recommend test pits be relocated in the field prior to earthwork construction. Any test pit backfill located beneath a future pavement, sidewalk, or building area should be re - excavated to sufficient depth to expose native soil and compacted to structural fill criteria, as described below. We recommend soil with vegetation and root matter be stripped beneath all planned pavement and sidewalk areas to a minimum depth of 6 inches below ground surface. In some areas increased stripping depths may be required to ensure removal of vegetation and root matter. It is our opinion that this stripped material is unsuitable for reuse as structural fill. We recommend that this material be disposed of or stockpiled on -site for use in landscaping areas. The stripped subgrade in pavement and sidewalk areas should be proofrolled with a minimum of 5 passes with a vibratory roller with a drum weight greater than 5 tons. If any weaving or pumping is observed,.those areas should be removed to firm soil and replaced with structural fill. Once a stable subgrade has been achieved, structural fill can commence to the desired site grades. STRATA should observe all proofrolling and site preparation procedures to verify no soft or pumping areas exist before placing structural fill. 7-7 IDAHO MONTANA NEVADA OREGON UTAH WASHINGTON WYOMING www.stratageotech.com Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Blackrock Subdivision File: HUBHOM B06167A Page 5 Structural fill should be free from vegetation and organics and be moisture -conditioned sufficiently to achieve compaction requirements. All structural fill (imported or reused on -site soil) should be classified as sand and gravel (SP, SW, SM, GP, GW, GM or ML) in accordance with the USCS. All structural fill should have cobbles less than 6 inches in diameter. Silty soils (SM, GM, or ML) may be used for structural fill; however, these soils must be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content during placement. Additionally, during periods of extended wet or cold weather, silt soils may be difficult to Utilize as structural fill. On -site native soil meeting the requirements outlined above may be used as structural fill, however, clay should not be utilized as structural fill. Structural fill should be placed to the subgrade elevation in uniform, maximum 8-inch- thick, loose lifts, and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density of the soil, as determined by ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor). This assumes heavy compaction equipment, such as rollers, with a minimum drum weight of 5 tons is used. The maximum loose lift thickness should be reduced where smaller and/or lighter compaction equipment is used. STRATA must be retained to perform field density testing of structural fill to verify contractor compliance with the above minimum compaction criteria. Note that these earthwork recommendations are applicable to roadway areas only and earthwork recommendations for individual lots are not included in our scope of services, as proposed grading plans have not been developed. Wet Weather/Wet Soil Conditions We recommend site construction be undertaken during dry weather conditions. if site construction, particularly grading, is undertaken during wet periods of the year, the on -site clay, clayey sand, or silt will be susceptible to pumping or rutting when subjected to heavy loads from rubber -tired equipment or vehicles which exert a point load. Wet weather earthwork should be performed by low pressure, track -mounted equipment that spread and reduce the vehicle load. Work should not be performed immediately after rainfall. All loose and disturbed areas should be excavated to undisturbed soil or recompacted to structural fill requirements. Compaction of the fill should be sufficient to preclude pumping of the underlying soil. In summary, careful construction procedures are paramount to the successful grading operation if the on -site soil is wet. Additional precautions should be taken if subgrade soils are to be exposed to freezing temperatures. STRATA should be contacted to provide recommendations prior to initiating or delaying construction during wet or cold weather in order to improve earthwork efficiency, achieve a stable subgrade and to help mitigate frost conditions. Pavement Areas Recommendations outlined in the Earthwork section of this report should be accomplished in all pavement areas. The pavement subgrade is anticipated to be at a depth of approximately 12 to 18 inches below existing grades, and is anticipated to consist of lean clay, silty sand, or sandy silt, depending on location. STRATA has performed R-value testing on sandy silt soil collected from a depth of 1.5 to 2.0 feet in the vicinity of TP-8. An R-value of 65 was obtained for this soil. IDAHO MONTANA NEVADA OREGON UTAH WASHINGTON WYOMING www.Stratageotech.com Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Blackrock Subdivision File: HUBHOM B06167A Page 6 Additionally, STRATA has previously performed R-value testing on near surface soils for Taconic Drive, located in the central portion of the site. An R-value of 14 was obtained for clayey sand soil collected from depths of 2.0 to 2.5 feet in TP-16, advanced in January, 2005. Clay soils were observed at or below anticipated pavement subgrade elevations in several test pits advanced throughout the site, although silt soils may also be exposed in several areas. STRATA has assumed an R-value of 10 for the pavement subgrade to reflect the presence of clay soil and variable conditions. We recommend the following flexible asphalt pavement section be utilized. Local Roadways - Flexible Pavement (TI=6.0) 2.5"- Type III asphalt concrete top course 4.0"- 3/-inch-minus, crushed sand and gravel base course 12.0"- Pit -run sand and gravel subbase course Collector Roadways - Flexible Pavement (TI=8.0) 3.0"- Type III asphalt concrete top course 6.0"- 3/-inch-minus, crushed sand and gravel base course 15.0"- Pit -run sand and gravel subbase course STRATA recommends that we be retained to visually inspect pavement subgrade soils and verify the subgrade soils prior to placement of structural subbase. Additionally, once grading has been determined, STRATA is available to provide additional consultation and identify areas where, based on anticipated subgrade soils, the recommended pavement sections may be modified to reflect actual subgrade soil conditions. The above -recommended flexible pavement section is based on a maximum 20-year design life and a traffic index (TI) of 6.0 assuming local roads and 8.0 assuming collector roads. If the subgrade is wet at the time of construction, we recommend a woven geotextile such as Contech C200 be considered over silt or clay soils prior to placing the subbase course. The subbase should consist of 6-inch-minus, well -graded sand and gravel consistent with Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction (ISPWC) Section 801 and with less than 10 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. The base course should consist of 3/4-inch-minus, well - graded, crushed sand and gravel with less than 9 percent passing the No. 200 sieve and consistent with ISPWC Section 802. The subbase and base course should be compacted in accordance with the Earthwork section of this report. The asphalt concrete for the flexible pavement area should have material properties as specified in ASTM D 3515 and have a mix design with a maximum aggregate size between 3/4 and 3/8 inch. The asphalt concrete should be compacted as required by ISPWC Sections 809 and 810. We recommend crack maintenance be accomplished in all pavement areas as needed and at least every three to five years to reduce the potential for surface water infiltration into the pavement section and underlying subgrade. IDAHO MONTANA NEVADA OREGON UTAH WASHINGTON WYOMING www.stratageotech.com Limited Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Blackrock Subdivision File: HUBHOM B06167A Page 7 Stormwater Disposal Infiltration Rates All runoff from impermeable areas and other large volumes of stormwater should be directed and maintained away from the proposed structures and not be allowed to infiltrate the subgrade soil beneath paved areas. All drainage should be directed to an approved discharge and/or collection facility, such as seepage beds or drainage swales, located no closer than 25 feet away from anticipated. building foundations. Percolation tests were performed in various test pits within uncemented poorly -graded gravel soils encountered during the field investigation. Of the soil types encountered within the test pits, silt and clay soils typically exhibit long-term infiltration rates of less than 2 inches per hour. In filtration rates within non -cemented silty sand typically range from 4 to 12 inches per hour, while infiltration rates for poorly -graded gravel and sand encountered at depth in test pits are estimated at greater than 40 inches per hour. STRATA recommends infiltration facilities be extended a minimum of 1 foot into poorly - graded sand or gravel soil encountered at depths as shallow as 1.5 feet to greater than 11 feet. Depth to sand and gravel was observed to increase in the western, topographically elevated portions of the site. However, based on previous exploration performed in this area under the direction of STRATA, native sand and gravel soils are anticipated to be encountered at depth. We recommend that infiltration facilities be designed utilizing an allowable infiltration rate of 8 inches per hour. As previously discussed, groundwater was encountered at depths as shallow as approximately 3 to 4 feet below existing ground surface. The extent to which groundwater levels vary throughout the year is undetermined at this time, however STRATA has installed standpipe piezometers in each test pit location and is presently monitoring groundwater levels on an approximate monthly basis. STRATA will continue to monitor groundwater levels and is able to provide groundwater information following extended monitoring. Note that depending on time of year of construction and type of infiltration facility, infiltration facility excavation dewatering may be required. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED SERVICES This evaluation has been provided based on limited laboratory tests and analysis. Further, the project concept and proposed grading has not been fully developed at the time of this report. As such, this evaluation should not be considered comprehensive. STRATA must be retained to review final construction plans and specifications to verify our geotech must recommendations. Additionally, once grading plans have been developed, STRATA shoul nical retained to determine if additional analysis is required and to providd be specifically relating to proposed grading, particularly in the western porte recommendations ion of the proposed development. IDAHO MONTANA NEVADA OREGON UTAH WASHINGTON WYOMING www.stratageotech.com Limited Geotechnica) Engineering Evaluation Blackrock Subdivision File: HUBHOM B06167A Page 8 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING We recommend STRATA be retained to observe the exposed soil surface prior to structural fill placement to verify site stripping, unsuitable soil removal and excavation has been accomplished in accordance with this report. In addition, we recommend STRATA be retained to observe that infiltration facilities have been excavated into the above recommended soil. STRATA can also provide construction materials testing of concrete, reinforcement, and asphalt. If we are not retained to perform the recommended services, we. cannot be responsible for related construction errors or omissions. The recommended services are not included in this evaluation and would be billed on a time and expense basis EVALUATION LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared to provide limited geotechnical services for infrastructure improvements the proposed Blackrock Subdivision located in Meridian, Idaho. This report does not provide evaluation or earthwork recommendations for individual lot development. Our services consist of professional opinions made in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices as they exist at the time of this report and in Southwest Idaho. This acknowledgement is in lieu of all express or implied warranties. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you on this project. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, IX BED 1 0 8 3 0 Brent Norris, E.I.T. 3 Field Engineer ar- Michael G. Woodworth, P.E. Project Engineer AM/MGW/kf Enclosures: Plate 1: Site Plan with Test Pit Locations Plate 2: Groundwater Monitoring Data Plate 3: R-Value Test Data Appendix A: Exploratory Test Pit Logs and Unified Soil Classification System cc: Mr. David Bailey, Bailey Engineering, Inc. (3 copies) IDAHO MONTANA NEVADA OREGON UTAH WASHINGTON WYOMING www.stratageotechxom \ / | . � �. _ }�} / I N m n R-VALUE IDAHO T-8 Project: Proposed Black Rock Lewis Subdivision Lab Number: B61-1630E Client: Hubble Homes File Name: HUBHOM B06167A Sample ID: Subgrade Soil Date Sampled: 7/31/06 Location: TP - 8 @ 1.5 - 2.0 ft. Sampled by: BN/Strata Soil Description: Silty Sand with Gravel (Caliche) Date Received: 8/14/06 Tested by: tc/Strata I—_ R VALUE DATA Percolation: Trace Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Exudation, PSI 119 159 279 Dry Density, PCF 92.7 92.8 93.5 Moisture Content, % 24.7 24.3 23.9 Exp. Pressure, PSI 0.09 0.22 0.31 SOIL CONSTANTS R VALUE: 65 0 0 1 m GRADATION: AASHTO T-11, T27 o SCREEN AS RECEIVED AS TESTED � `"' - o SIZE %PASSING %PASSING C6 0 0 o Co 4" � 3" x t,-j - -0 o 0 2" (` a q o(n 3/a" 100 100 IL t i 0 � 0 1/2" n 3/8" tl c�i a` No.4 0 � o 3 No.8 m •- \ 0 m No. 16 u'� o `r No.30 O No. 50 t- 0 o o No. 100 No. 200 L. 0 0 0 0 N O T I p l 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 O> co !` Co t1) 0 " tt O R value Note: This report covers only material as soil from this layer or source. represented by this sample and does not necessarily cover all Reviewed by: .yKT f:-Cl'Ffltuf3._r_I:GIIFERiMi:d evr=_F'�s rey;r.la y 'oun'i Uf, CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM EXPLORATORY TEST PIT #1 Project: Black Rock Subdivision File: BLAROC B05006A DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 — 2.0 CH Fat CLAY with Sand (Native) — brown, very stiff, moist. Some vegetation and organics observed to 12" below ground surface. Pocket penetrometer: 2 to 2.5 tsf 2.0 — 20.5 SM Silty SAND — tan, medium dense, moist. Moderately cemented with calcium carbonate (CaCO3) from 3 to 16 feet below ground surface. Moisture Density.- 37.8% at 5 feet below ground surface. Dry Density: • 68.9 pcf at 5 feet below ground surface. Excavated on January 21, 2005. No groundwater encountered. Test pit terminated at 20.5 feet below existing ground surface. Ring sample taken at 4 feet below ground surface. Baggie sample taken at 5 feet below ground surface. Excavation Equipment: DEERE 225C LC Logged by: AM/klb i01.i S TRaT� E"dQ"'E'F RI'I n r1A1'ER IA 5 "r_.. }llr. Plate: Al Client No: BLAROC B05006A EXPLORATORY TEST PIT #2 Project: Black Rock Subdivision File: BLAROC B05006A DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 — 2.0 CH Fat CLAY with Sand (Native) — brown, stiff to very stiff, moist. Some vegetation and organics observed to 12 inches below ground surface. Pocket penetrometer: 2 to 3 tsf; at 1.5 feet At 1.5 feet LL= 55, Pl= 36 2.0 — 3.5 SM Silty SAND (Caliche) — tan, very dense, moist. Strongly cemented from 2 to 3.5 feet below ground surface. 3.5 — 21.0 SP Poorly -graded SAND — tan, medium dense, damp. Dry Density: 88.8 pcf at 6.5 feet below ground surface. Silty sand nodules from 3 to 12 inches in diameter observed throughout sand layer. Iron oxide staining observed from 7 to 21 feet below ground surface. Direct Shear test performed on 6.5 to 7 feet sample. Angle of internal friction: 33' Cohesion Intercept: 110 psf Excavated on January 21, 2005. No groundwater encountered. Test pit terminated at 21 feet below existing ground surface. Baggie samples taken at 1.5 and 16 feet below ground surface. Ring sample taken at 6.5 feet below ground surface. Excavation Equipment: DEERE 225C LC Logged by: AM/klb io c G.,';,.,:;i^r.;, s.:•ua!:vra=r:irx> : Far,rr:ru�, „� ~� ) �-� c u%c•I tip-. iota. NL Client No: BLAROC 1305006A EXPLORATORY TEST PIT #3 Project: Black Rock Subdivision File: BLAROC B05006A DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 — 1.0 CH Fat CLAY with Sand (Native) — brown, stiff. Some vegetation and organics observed to 12 inches below ground surface. Pocket penetrometer: 2 tsf 1.0 — 17.0 SM Silty SAND — tan, dense, moist. Some gravel observed throughout soil profile. Iron oxide staining observed throughout soil profile. Moderately cemented with calcium carbonate (CaCO3) from 1 to 10 feet below ground surface. Moisture Density: 29.4% at 3 feet below ground surface. Dry Density: 91.4 pcf at 3 feet below ground surface. Moisture Density: 31.9% at 5 feet below ground surface. Dry Density: 69.7 pcf at 5 feet below ground surface. Medium dense from 10 to 17 feet below ground surface. Excavated on January 21, 2005. No groundwater encountered. Test pit terminated at 17 feet below existing ground surface. Baggie samples taken at 3 and 5 feet below ground surface. Excavation Equipment: DEERE 225C LC Logged by: AM/klb 04 STRa-ra, ,E::'TECHNIr::: F'iPii3liaEeRlf;G 8 ;aTpalA1 TF:.'. Plate: A3 Client No: BLAROC 805006A EXPLORATORY TEST PIT #4 Project: Black Rock Subdivision File: BLAROC B05006A DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 — 2.0 CH Fat CLAY with Sand (Native) — brown, very stiff, moist. Trace vegetation and organics observed to 12 inches below ground surface. Pocket penetrometer: 2 to 2.5 tsf 2.0 — 4.0 SM Silty SAND (Caliche) — tan, very dense, moist, strongly cemented. Iron oxide staining observed from 2 to 20 feet. Strongly cemented. 4.0 — 20.0 SP Poorly -graded SAND —tan, medium dense, damp. Silty sand nodules from 3 to 12 inches in diameter observed throughout sand layer. Excavated on January 21, 2005. No groundwater encountered. Test pit terminated at 20 feet below existing ground surface. Baggie sample taken at 17 feet below ground surface. Excavation Equipment: DEERE 225C LC Logged by., AM/klb sTRa-ra GE,7;'EI' "!„ I-=NGiNEERI`lG K MATERkm •;, -'_!S" Ir•;G Irt-lc.rc�y��:(-y rrC.itl-Flr��. EJ�'t�c�vl cf t�t>- Plate: A4 Client No: BLAROC B05006A EXPLORATORY TEST PIT #5 Project: Black Rock Subdivision File: BLAROC B05006A DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 - 2.0 CH Fat CLAY with Sand (Native) — brown, stiff, moist. Some vegetation and organics observed to 12 inches below ground surface. Pocket penetrometer: 1.75 to 2 tsf 2.0 — 3.5 GP - GM GRAVEL with Silt and sand — tan, very dense, moist. Strongly cemented from 2 to 3.5 feet below ground surface. 3.5 — 19.5 SM Silty SAND — tan, dense, moist. Sand layer observed at 4.5 to 6 feet below ground surface. Excavated on January 21, 2005. No groundwater encountered. Test pit terminated at 19.5 feet below existing ground surface. Ring sample taken at 5 feet below ground surface. Baggie sample taken at 7 feet below ground surface. Excavation Equipment: DEERE 225C LC Logged by: AM/klb 04i IS Y -r a CE- �r_cr;•,ic:.,.. a_�c,;rir_eF<:: G Plate: A5 Client No: BLAROC B05006A EXPLORATORY TEST PIT #6 Project: Black Rock Subdivision File: BLAROC B05006A DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 — 1.0 ML SILT (Native) — brown, firm, moist. Some vegetation and organics observed to 12 inches below ground surface. Pocket penetrometer: 0.5 tsf 1.0 — 3.0 SM Silty SAND (Caliche) — tan, very dense, moist. Strongly cemented at 1 to 4 feet below ground surface. 3.0 — 14.0 GP GRAVEL with Sand — tan, dense to very dense, damp. Cobbles observed throughout soil profile. Moisture Density: 4.6% at 6 feet below ground surface. DryDensity: 118.8 pcf at 6 feet below ground surface. Test pit began caving in at 10 feet below ground surface. Excavated on January 21, 2005. No groundwater encountered. Test pit terminated at 14 feet below existing ground surface. Bulk samples taken at 5.5 and 8 feet below ground surface. Excavation Equipment: DEERE 225C LC Logged by., AM/klb GECJ"c::HNY_Ai.. �P1G'iiF"ERWG & hd.';fE�a-^.1.5 TE$T;Ni; r Plate: A6 Client No: BLAROC B05006A EXPLORATORY TEST PIT #7 Project: Black Rock Subdivision File: BLAROC B05006A DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 — 1.0 ML SILT (Native) — brown, firm, moist. Some vegetation and organics observed to 12 inches below ground surface. Pocket penetrometer.- 0.5 tsf 1.0 — 4.0 SM Silty SAND (Caliche) — tan, very dense, moist. Strongly cemented from 1 to 4.5 feet below ground surface. 4.0 — 13.5 GP GRAVEL with Sand — tan, dense to very dense, damp. Some cobbles observed throughout gravel profile. Moisture Density: 5.3% at 6.5 feet below ground surface. Dry Density: 112.6 pcf at 6.5 feet below ground surface. Test pits began caving in at 10.5 feet below ground surface. Excavated on January 21, 2005. No groundwater encountered. Test pit terminated at 13.5 feet below existing ground surface. Bulk sample taken at 6 feet below ground surface. Excavation Equipment: DEERE 225C LC Logged by: AM/klb 0 i S T F-1 al- a, PY, C., ,.._'tl+; It'4cCI-; _, 6IATE--I. , _ ALa'?TdE%ii s U,,^ Plate: A7 Client No: BLAROC B05006A EXPLORATORY TEST PIT #8 Project: Black Rock Subdivision File: BLAROC B05006A DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 — 1.5 ML SILT (Native) — brown, firm, moist. Trace vegetation and organics observed to 12 inches below ground surface. Pocket penetrometer: 0.5 tsf 1.5 — 12.0 GP GRAVEL with Sand — tan, medium dense to dense, damp. Strongly cemented from 1.5 to 4 feet below ground surface. Soil sandier from 4 to 7 feet below ground surface. Cobbles observed throughout gravel profile. Iron oxide staining observed from 4 to 7 feet below ground surface. Moisture Density: 5.7% at 6 feet below ground surface. Dry Density: 98.3 pcf at 6 feet below ground surface. Test pit began caving in at 6 feet below ground surface. Excavated on January 21, 2005. No groundwater encountered. Test pit terminated at 12 feet below existing ground surface. Bulk sample taken at 6.5 feet below ground surface. Excavation Equipment.- DEERE 225C LC Logged by: AM/klb s -r- FR a-r a, GE')TF.CHNICA! FiJGi1I:'FR1,',1G & MATFRI-L� ?F'STIF;.^ Ur Plate: A8 Client No: BLAROC B05006A EXPLORATORY TEST PIT #9 Project: Black Rock Subdivision File: BLAROC B05006A DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 — 1.5 ML SILT (Native) brown, soft to firm, moist. Trace vegetation and organics observed to 12 inches below ground surface. Pocket penetrometer: 0.5 tsf 1.5 — 9.0 SP-SM SAND with Silt — tan, medium dense, damp. Fine to medium coarse sand. Excavated on January 21, 2005. No groundwater encountered. Test pit terminated at 9 feet below existing ground surface. Baggie sample taken at 4 feet below ground surface. Excavation Equipment: DEERE 225C LC Logged by: AM/klb 4 s:.�'r' FR a-ra C . EFiGI E?EMIG & m,14 t-_rtiAiS "r S f=PIG rule: Hy Client No: BLAROC B05006A EXPLORATORY TEST PIT #10 Project: Black Rock Subdivision File: BLAROC B05006A DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 — 1.0 ML SILT (Native) — brown, firm, moist. Trace vegetation and organics observed to 12 inches below ground surface. 1.0 — 8.0 GP GRAVEL with Sand — tan, dense, damp. Weakly cemented from 1 to 1.5 feet below ground surface. Cobbles observed from 1 to 6.5 feet below ground surface. 8.0 — 11.0 SP-SM SAND with Silt — tan, medium dense, damp Fine to medium coarse sand. Iron oxide staining observed from 9.5 to 11 feet below ground surface. Excavated on January21, 2005. No groundwater encountered. Test pit terminated at 19 feet below existing ground surface. Baggie sample taken at 10 feet below ground surface. Excavation Equipment: DEERE 225C LC Logged by: AM/klb Sr:acri�crrc,�.A. �T a Up Plate: A90 Client No: BLAROC B05006A EXPLORATORY TEST PIT #11 Project: Black Rock Subdivision File: BLAROC B05006A DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 — 1.0 ML (Topsoil) SILT with Sand (Native) — brown, very stiff, moist. Trace vegetation and organics observed to 12 inches below ground surface. Pocket penetrometer: 3 tsf 1.0 — 19.5 SM Silty SAND — tan, medium dense to dense, moist. Moderately cemented with calcium carbonate (CaCO2) from 2.5 to 4 feet below ground surface (Caliche). Some small gravel observed throughout soil profile. Moisture Density: 21.6% at 5.5 feet below ground surface. Dry Density: 79.8 pcf at 5.5 feet below ground surface. Infiltration test performed at 11 feet below ground surface. Infiltration rate = 1.5 in/hr (1.06 x 10-3 cm/sec) measured. Soil became very dense at 16 feet below ground surface. Excavated on January 21, 2005. No groundwater encountered. Test pit terminated at 19.5 feet below existing ground surface. Baggie sample taken at 5 feet below ground surface. Excavation Equipment: DEERE 225C LC Logged by: AM/klb 04 • FRa-� ENGiNEeRJ.NG 2 F.iATEP;IAL.S TEfi TlFiG Up. ria[e: Al client No: BLAROC 1305006A EXPLORATORY TEST PIT #12 Project: Black Rock Subdivision File: BLAROC B05006A DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 — 1.0 ML SILT (Native) — brown, stiff, moist. Some vegetation and organics observed to 12 inches below ground surface. Pocket penetrometer: 2 tsf 1.0 — 5.0 GP -GM GRAVEL with Silt and Sand — tan, medium dense to dense, damp. Weakly cemented from 1 to 4 feet below ground surface. Cobbles to 12 inch diameter observed from 3 to 10 feet below ground surface. Moisture: 7.1 % at 3 feet below ground surface. Dry Density: 103.0 pcf at 3 feet below ground surface. R-value: 56 at 3 to 3.5 feet below ground surface. 5.0 — 21.0 SP SAND with Silt and Gravel — tan, medium dense to dense, damp without gravel from 10 to 21 feet below ground surface. Test pit began caving in at 10 feet. Excavated on January 21, 2005. No groundwater encountered. Test pit terminated at 21 feet below existing ground surface. Baggie samples taken at 3, 6 and 11 feet below ground surface. Bulk sample taken at 3.5 feet below ground surface. Excavation Equipment: DEERE 225C LC Logged by: AM/klb rac:rae.LR'MG a r i VERI Us r Pl2te: Al2 Client No: BLAROC BC50c6A EXPLORATORY TEST PIT #13* Project: Black Rock Subdivision File: BLAROC B05006A DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 — 1.0 ML SILT with Sand (Native) — brown, firm, moist. Trace vegetation and organics observed to 12 inches below ground surface. Pocket penetrometer: 1 tsf 1.0 — 6.0 SM Silty SAND — tan, medium dense to dense, damp. 6.0 — 14.0 GP -GM GRAVEL with Silt and Sand — tan, medium dense to dense, damp. Weakly cemented from 6 to 11 feet below ground surface. Moisture Density: 11.7% at 6 feet below ground surface. Dry Density.- 88.3 pcf at 6 feet below ground surface. 14.0 — 21.0 SP-SM SAND with Silt and Gravel — tan, medium dense, humid. Cobbles to 12 inch dieameter observed in sand layer. Infiltration test performed at 15 feet below ground surface. Infiltration rate = >40 in/hr (>28.2 x 10-3 cm/sec) measured. Infiltration rate = 45 in/hr (32.4 x 10-3 cm/sec) calculated. Gradation analysis performed on 14.5 to 15.5 feet sample. Percent passing: #200 = 6.6% *Standpipe piezometer installed to 18 feet below ground surface. Test pit began caving in at 11 feet below ground surface. Excavated on January 21, 2005. No groundwater encountered. Test pit terminated at 21 feet below existing ground surface. Baggie sample taken at 6 feet. below ground surface. Bulk sample taken at 14.5 feet below ground surface. Excavation Equipment: DEERE 225C LC Logged by., AM/k1b �_-_-_ S T R ,a,-r ,7 +t�f:-Y�r'r:{r t=i-vwt-l�lc..-- LTrGcr+1ci li'� , iatc. ,y 10 Client No: BLAROC B05006A EXPLORATORY TEST PIT #14 Project: Black Rock Subdivision File: BLAROC B05006A DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 — 1.0 ML SILT with Sand (Native) — brown, stiff, moist. Trace vegetation and organics observed to 12 inches below ground surface. Pocket penetrometer: 1.25 tsf 1.0 — 5.0 SM Silty SAND with Gravel— tan, medium dense, moist with calcium cementation. Moisture Density: 25.3% at 2.5 feet below ground surface. Dry Density: 79.9 pcf at 2.5 feet below ground surface. Excavated on January 21, 2005. No groundwater encountered. Test pit terminated at 5 feet below existing ground surface. Baggie sample taken at 3 feet below ground surface. Bulk sample taken at 3 feet below ground surface. Excavation Equipment: DEERE 225C LC Logged by: AM/klb Plate: A14 Client No: BLAROC B05006A EXPLORATORY TEST PIT #15 Project: Black Rock Subdivision File: BLAROC B05006A DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 — 0.5 ML SILT with Sand (Native)— brown, stiff, moist. Trace vegetation and organics observed to 6 inches below ground surface. Pocket penetrometer: 1.75 tsf 0.5 — 3.5 SM Silty SAND with Gravel — tan, medium dense, moist with calcium cementation. Moisture Density: 19.2% at 2 feet below ground surface. Dry Density: 95.1 pcf at 2 feet below ground surface. 3.5 — 5.0 GP -GM GRAVEL with Silt and Sand — brown, medium dense to dense, damp. 5.0 — 11.5 GP Well -graded GRAVEL with Sand — brown, medium dense to dense, damp. Sand was coarse. Infiltration rate = 1148 in/hr (8.1 X 10-1 cm/sec calculated) Standpipe piezometer installed to 9.5 feet below ground surface. Gradation analysis performed on 7.5 to 8 feet sample. Percent passing: #200 = 1.6%. Test pit began caving in at 7.5 feet below ground surface. Excavated on January 21, 2005. Groundwater encountered 7 feet below ground surface. Test pit terminated at 11.5 feet below existing ground surface. Baggie sample taken at 2.5 feet below ground surface. Bulk samples taken at 2 and 7.5 feet below ground surface. Excavation Equipment: DEERE 225C LC Logged by: AM/klb GEOTEt:.FI�ErsCR �� c EEF?IFiG R 11U.S TE!',1 �i�yl�'�-T�jri:/�, I-�rnKt ik.c C7rc:und uF rlale: Alb Client No: BLAROC B05006A EXPLORATORY TEST PIT #16 Project: Black Rock Subdivision File: BLAROC B05006A DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 — 0.5 ML SILT with Sand — brown, stiff, moist. Trace vegetation and organics observed to 6 inches below ground surface. Pocket penetrometer: 1.5 tsf 0.5 — 3.0 SM-SC Silty Clayey SAND with Gravel — brown, dense, moist. Moisture Density: 22.5% at 2.0 feet below ground surface. Dry Density: 106.1 pcf at 2.0 feet below ground surface. R-value: 14 at 2 to 2.5 feet below ground surface. At 2 feet LL = 22, PI = 6 3.0 — 4.0 GP -GM GRAVEL with Silt and Sand — tan, medium dense to dense, moist. 4.0 — 5.5 GW Well -graded GRAVEL with Sand — brown, medium dense to dense, moist. Excavated on January 21, 2005. No groundwater encountered. Test pit terminated at 5.5 feet below existing ground surface. Baggie sample taken at 2 feet below ground surface. Bulk sample taken at 2 feet below ground surface. Excavation Equipment: DEERE 225C LC Logged by: AM/klb 0 b-ot, S =T ��,1�:�c�►T ia► ..0 K•f��-Sri-Fy �r<:o�.( dcc• <�rnu�t�d^LI N_' Plate: A16 Client No: BLAROC B05006A USCS Description W g J W C O o ` - -� I 0 REMARKS o M y N a s N o a _ Note: BGS —Below Ground a� z 0 o a E Surface Poorly —Graded GRAVEL with GP Silt and Sand (Fill) — brown, �: Moderate vegetation dense, moist. and organics observed to 6 inches BGS. 2 Poorly -Graded GRAVEL with GP Sand (Native) — tan, dense, 3 0 moist to saturated. 4 Q_ 5 - 6 7 - 0: Test pit terminated at 7.5 = feet BGS due to caving 8 Stand Standpipe iolezometer conditions. instal t7.5 feet BGS. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Client: HUBHOM Test Pit Number: TP-3 EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG S T R aT a GEGiECMNiGLL ErvGi�RIHG 6 KiFli Vu.S T£STNG Sheet 1 of 1 Project: B06167A Date Excavated: 8-7-2006 Backhoe: CASE 580 SUPER Bucket Width: 2' Depth to Groundwater: 7.4' Logged By: BN ^ = W C" CDN � = i REMARKS USCS Description N w U2 (n (n ' � M _= o N N u Y o c> LO o o Note: BGS = Below Ground 0- E Surface Lean CLAY (Native) — brown, CL stiff to very stiff, moist. Moderate vegetation and organics observed 1.5-2 to 6 inches BGS. 1 Sandy SILT — ton, very stiff, ML slightly moist. 3 Silty SAND — tan, dense, SM e • moist. 4 o e e (8-28-86) r" o o o a o 0 0 e 'e I ly--I uuou k Fcmv�_ witn GP Sand —tan, dense, moist to saturated. 6 L • C 7 0: •DC Test pit terminated at 8 feet BGS due to caving conditions. 9 f 10 i I 1 11 I 12 I 13 14 15 Client: HUBHOM Test Pit Number: TP-4 Project: B06167A Date Excavated: 8-7-2006 Backhoe: CASE 580 SUPER Bucket Width: 2' Depth to Groundwater: 4.3' Logged By: BN 2-2.5 Standpipe piezometer installed to 8 feet BGS. EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG STFR l-a GEGTE[.tWif E+IGINELwvG6\KIERI.LLS T£SiI,�G 4'--J UF- Sheet 1 of 1 USCS Description a- N m a N> w REMARKS o N �a a v Note: BGS = Below Ground Lean CLAY (Native) — brown, a Surface stiff to very stiff, moist. CL Moderate vegetation and organics observed 1 BG to 6 inches BGS. Sandy SILT — tan, very stiff ML to hard, slightly, moist_ FLK Weakly cemented from m 2 1.5 to 4.5 feet BGS. 3 BG 4 Silty SAND — tan, dense, SM • • moist. • e 5 •°e ' l •e. ®• FBG 6 0®• a e • e ' e a 7 •`e • • • • e • • • 8 e'® o ® o a o � e 9 e ® e ® e � I • e 0 e • ® e a 10 ` e • • o 0 • J • a o 1 Test pit terminated at 11 ® feet BGS. 1 12 i 13 14 15 Client: HUBHOM Test Pit Number: TP-8 Project: B06167A Date EXPLORATORY Excavated: 8-7-2006 Backhoe: CASE 580 SUPER Bucket Width: 2' s "j" T TEST PIT LOG Depth to Groundwater: N/A Logged By: BN R �G�CIENGpIFfANG6IU ERN S■1ESilNG �"'Y t�4.4•ne vP Sheet 1 of 1 J W C o v� N , -- ' REMARKS USCS Description I— N `` �' U LO "' n m n- a a- °' M ' "� In N> ° � �— � o -� 'o v � m a, Note: BGS = Below Ground L0 cQn Z � o E Surface SILT (Fill) — brown, firm, ML Moderate vegetation slightly moist. With grass clippings. and organics observed to 4 feet BGS. 1 rBG 2 3 Sandy SILT (Native) — tan, ML firm, slightly, moist. BG Moderate cementation observed from 5 to Silty SAND — tan, dense, SM e • • moist. o o ° 6.5 feet BGS. o • e • e e Silty SAND with Cobbles — SM e ton, dense, moist. ° • ° o ° e o • ° 7 • • o m e 8 ° • ° Maximum cobble size ° e ° 12 inch diameter. 0 0 Poorly —Graded SAND with SP ° r, ° Cobbles — tan, dense, moist. ° 9°o a a a o a a m s Test pit terminated at 10 feet BGS. 11 12 13 14 15 Client: HUBHOM Test Pit Number: TP-9 EXPLORATORY T TEST PIT LOG S ■ R aT a GEOTECHNiCnL ENGM2FAING ¢UtTLrt 9TESTING s�+y"-f,'" K — 71—ldUp Sheet 1 of 1 Project: 806167A Date Excavated: 8-7-2006 Backhoe: CASE 580 SUPER Bucket Width: 2' Depth to Groundwater: N/A Logged By: BN REMARKS USCS Description S a (.n N `� Jp J� D -� a ` - Note: BGS Below Ground _ r Q N o z o ° o Surface v � Clayey SAND (Native) — Sc • s e 4.5+ Moderate vegetation brown, dense, moist. �' • and organics observed • e ° to 6 inches BGS. s • s • e • •e • 19 18.5 1.5-1.0 Atterberg Limits: e • gig LL=37, P1=18 Lean CLAY with Sand — tan, CL stiff, moist. 3 FBG] Silty SAND with Gravel — tan, SM • • dense, moist. ® • • e • e 5 • e e e • ° • 6 •'. •°e • ° e e ° e ] • e • • • s • • e 8 • ° s • e • a o e e ° e • g 's° • • o a e s e ° • 10 • 0 ° e • • • e o • o � o Test pit terminated at 11 Standpipe piezometer feet BGS. installed to 11 feet BGS. 12 13 14 15 Client: HUBHOM Test Pit Number: TP-10 EXPLORATORY 0-4 TEST PIT LOG T S ■ FR aT a Project: B06167A Date Excavated: 8-7-2006 Backhoe: CASE 580 SUPER Bucket Width: 2' GEGTECHNrt%L EtGiMtJYrvG t 10.TER WS TESTING s""5"'r1`1—�' °F Sheet 1 of 1 Depth to Groundwater: N/A Logged By: BN J Uj ET REMARKS USCS Description �' U "' a] M LL n. a- a � E cV > >- °' o o C o '� z a 0 cL _ Note: BGS — Below Ground Surface c o E SILT with Sand (Native) — ML Moderate vegetation tan, hard, moist. and organics observed to 6 inches BGS. 1 4.5+ Sandy SILT — tan, stiff to ML very stiff, slightly, moist. 2 2.0 3 4 5 Silty SAND — tan, dense, SM • moist. e • e e e 7 • � s • • � s e • 8 • e • o � • o � • • 9 • • � e 0 • • e Test pit terminated at 10 Standpipe piezometer feet BGS. installed to 10 feet BGS. i1 12 13 14 15 Client: HUBHOM Test Pit Number: TP-11 EXPLORATORY T T TEST PIT LOG S ■ ■ GEGTE(}NiCs1 ENGNEFRNG 6l1ATERULLS TE.. ING Sheet 1 of 1 Project: B06167A Date Excavated: 8-7-2006 Backhoe: CASE 580 SUPER Bucket Width: 2' Depth to Groundwater: N/A Logged By: BN , -- REMARKS USCS Description Ln N m a N > o� �� Q�� CT N� �� o�� _ Note: BGS Below Ground Surface Lean CLAY (Native) — brown, CL stiff, moist. Moderate vegetation and organics observed to 6 inches BGS. 1 FK 96 17 Atterberg Limits: 2 LL=96, P1=10 Silty SAND — tan, dense, SM • moist. • • • (6 26-06) • s • • 0 • 4 • s • • • • Poorly —Graded GRAVEL with Sand —tan, dense, moist to GP saturated. = p: 6 7 O: $ r>:. Test pit terminated at 9 feet BGS. Standpipe ezometer installed to 9 feet BGS. 10 i 1 11 1 12 13 i 14 15 Client: HUBHOM Test Pit Number: TP-13 EXPLORATORY Project: B06167A � Date Excavated: 8-7-2006 - - TEST PIT LOG S T R e ► r a Backhoe: CASE 580 SUPER Bucket Width: 2' Depth to Groundwater: 2.9' Logged By: BN i GEGiECNNIGFL ENGM�RING 6 gTER WS TESTING s�-.ayFo. �4 o nduP Sheet 1 of 1 REMARKS USCS Description ~ ° W ¢U Cn m T O N N C u U Y o c, N �— a o v} N o a U 2 Note: BGS = Below Ground Z C' o E Surface U Leon CLAY (Native) — brown, CL stiff to very stiff, moist, Moderate vegetation and organics observed to 6 inches BGS. Sandy SILT — tan, firm, ML slightly, moist. 2 3 Silty SAND — tan, dense, SM ° • • moist. 4 s • • 0 ° s 0 s • o • o 0 5 • ° s o ° o • o roorly—Graded GRAVEL with GP Sand — tan, dense, moist to 6 saturated. 7 O. - 8 _ p 9 Test pit terminated feet BGS. Client: HUBHOM Project: B06167A Backhoe: CASE 580 SUPER Depth to Groundwater: 7.7' 11 12 131 I 14 -15 FE Test Pit Number: TP-14 Date Excavated: 8-7-2006 Bucket Width: 2' Logged By: BN Percolation test performed at 6 feet BGS. Infiltration rate =40 in/hr measured. Standpipe piezometer installed to 10 feet BGS. EXPLORATORI S T FR a-r a TEST PIT LOG GEGiECHN�GLL ENGlNEFILNG S �tgT£ny,t31=5i WG -9--4y F fA- e71-1d ur Sheet 1 of 1 USCS Description � LT m w a o N R. � -, REMARKS o c> � T F O m CL d N C s U U N a Note: BGS = Below Ground Surface U � Leon CLAY — brown, hard, CL moist. Moderate vegetation and organics observed to 6 inches BGS. 1 4.5+ Moderate cementation BG observed from 1,5to 4.5+ 3.5feet BGS. Sandy SILT —tan, firm, ML slightly, moist. 3 Silty — an, dense, - M • ° ° Moist. • 4 0 • • • ° s o e • • • 5 • ° • • s • • • e oi I • Sand — tan, dense, moist to 0- saturated. 7 O: C L 8 p: s - (7G Test pit terminated at 10 feet BGS. 11 i 12 13 14 15 Client: HUBHOM Test Pit Number: TP-15 EXPLORATORY Project: B06167A Date Excavated: 8-7-2006 TES T PIT LOG Backhoe: CASE 580 SUPER Bucket Width: 2' S T R c�T a Depth to Groundwater: N/A Logged By BN s �+E F,,�F�n"s'�""G 9- y-o Kd uP Sheet 1 of 1 UNIFIED SOILS CT,AS4TF'T(-ATTn-1J :;VCThniT MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL GRAPH LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES a . .� .. GW Well —Graded Gravel, CLEAN Gravel —Sand Mixtures. GRAVELS GP Poorly —Graded Gravel, GRAVELS _ Gravel —Sand Mixtures. GRAVELS GM Silty Gravel, Gravel — WITH Sand —Silt Mixtures. GC Clayey Gravel, Gravel — COARSE FINES GRAINED Sand —Clay Mixtures. 0 0 00 0 0 06 0 SW Well —Graded Sand, SOILS CLEAN o o O O o G Gravelly Sand. SANDS ° ®• SP Poorly —Graded Sand, SANDS •°°°•& Gravelly Sand. SANDS • • , SM Silty Sand, WITH o ®` . Sand —Silt Mixtures. • • ° ® • • SC Clayey Sand, FINES . •, Sand —Clay Mixtures. ML Inorganic Silt, Sandy SILTS AND CLAYS or Clayey Silt, Inorganic Clay of Low LIQUID LIMIT CL to Medium Plasticity, LESS THAN 50% Sandy or Silty Clay. I I I 1 1 OL Organic Silt and Clay FINE I I I of Low Plasticity. Inorganic Silt, Mica — GRAINED SOILS MH ceous Silt, Plastic SILTS AND CLAYS Silt. CH Inorganic Clay of High LIQUID LIMIT Plasticity, Fat Clay. OH Organic Clay of Medium GREATER THAN 50% to High Plasticity. PT Peat, Muck and Other Highly Organic Soils. Standard 2—Inch OD Split —Spoon Sample California Modified 3—Inch OD Split —Spoon Sample IlRock Core Shelby Tube 3—Inch OD Undisturbed Sample Rr)pif\IG 1 (l(_1 QvkAonl c SOIL CLASiIF('ATInW (-WAFT Groundwater After 24 Hours QGroundwater at Time of Drilling [BG Baggie Sample [E3]K Bulk Sample nRG Ring Sample �I\�_)u vr'�i cr' J I MnULJ f t51 HI I LOG SYMBOLS Ca tic Ck -ti-1 -FF Design Guidelines September 2007 Table of Contents Introduction............................................................................................. 2 DesignGoals............................................................................................ 3 Coving..................................................................................................... TraditionalVillage.......................................................................................................................3 OpenSpace..................................................................................................................................4 Interconnectivity..........................................................................................................................4 Architecture............................................................................................. 5 LegendSeries..............................................................................................................................6 DesignRequirements...............................................................................................................6 CottageSeries............................................................................................................................12 DesignRequirements............................................................................................ VillageSeries.............................................................................................................................19 DesignRequirements.............................................................................................................19 DimensionalStandards......................................................................... 24 LegendSeries........................................................................................................................25 CottageSeries........................................................................................................................25 VillageSeries.........................................................................................................................25 Castle Rock Design Guidelines 1 Introduction The purpose of these design guidelines is to outline the overall look and feel of the Castle Rock community. Castle Rock was created using an integrated design approach that blends open space, trails, and housing to create an overall land plan focused on useable open space and interconnectivity. Specific design concepts were employed, such as, varied setbacks and curved streets to provide for a more interesting street scene and help avoid long rows of housing and garages that are typical in more traditional subdivisions. Three distinct housing types have been included in the development to promote diversity and choice for the prospective residents. Each of these housing types has different options and features that allow the homebuyer to customize the interior and exterior of their home. These design guidelines will establish the minimum criteria for each housing type and clearly define the land planning, and architectural goals of the development. Providence development group and Hubble Homes are proud to bring an affordable and attractive neighborhood to the city of Meridian. Castle Rock Design Guidelines 2 Design Goals Coving The primary land design concept used to create this development was Coving. The Coving concept uses curved streets, varied front setbacks, and increased open space to break up straight rows of houses that are common in more standard subdivisions. Coving calls for larger front setbacks in key locations along the curved streets (see diagram below). These groupings of larger front setbacks create "coves" of open space in front of the homes that are clearly visible to pedestrians and motorists as they navigate through the community. Varying the front setbacks is essential to provide fagade modulation, unique orientation, additional landscaping and to deemphasize the garage of each housing unit. Standard Front Setback Increased -- --- - i Landscaping in Cove 1 1 I t { Traditional Village i tI 1"---------1 Variety of Orientation for Houses Cove Area Increased front setback Flexibility to Meander Sidewalk to Provide More Visual Appeal In addition to the Coving concept Castle Rock also contains a traditional village with alley loaded units focused around a common village green. These units are specifically designed to eliminate the view of the garage from the street, and create a more pedestrian friendly environment. By placing the garage at the rear of the house it allows for more emphasis on front porches, additional variety of setbacks and sitting areas where people can interact and gather. The housing units created for the village are designed to be placed on zero side lot lines to maximize the useable private open space within each lot. The majority of the homes in the village area will have side yards of 16 feet, which will allow for the residents of this area to Castle Rock Design Guidelines 3 enjoy personal open space adjacent to their home and public open space in the large village green embedded within the neighborhood. Open Space Open space is a major emphasis within the Castle Rock community; over 22 percent of the total land area has been set aside for common open space areas totaling over 40 acres. These open spaces provide opportunities for recreation and relaxation within the development so that residents will not have to go off site for these amenities. The centerpiece for open space is the large neighborhood park that will be donated to the City of Meridian. The other open space features are the linear park adjacent to the Beasley Lateral (which will be left open, and improved), and the village green embedded within the alley loaded product in the south portion of the development. Along with these large open spaces the coving concept also creates clusters of housing that adjoin common open space areas and pocket parks. These pocket parks help to define each cluster of housing as unique villages within the development and allow for each housing unit to be within walking distance of a useable open space linking the entire community. Various amenities such as tot lots, basketball courts, picnic tables, and gathering areas are spread throughout the entire community to promote interaction and communication between neighbors and friends. Furthermore a generous landscape buffer is provided around the entire perimeter of the site to create a true sense of community. This landscape buffer will contain a trail system to encourage walking, biking and other pedestrian activities. In addition generous landscaping is provided on both sides of the spine road (Taconic Drive) to provide a landscape buffer to the homeowners adjacent to the spine as well as provide a boulevard appearance. Approximately 70 percent of the housing units in the Castle Rock community adjoin a common open space area. Interconnectivity Another main goal of the overall design is to connect the entire development with a system of trails and pathways. The trails network provides opportunities for hiking, biking and walking throughout the entire development linking the pocket parks, neighborhood park, village green and perimeter landscape areas together. One of the most prominent features in the trail network is a linear park that runs through the north east portion of the site. This linear park adjacent to the Beasley Lateral will serve as a key pedestrian corridor through the development. A major pathway with intense landscaping will also run along the bank of the Ten Mile Drain. This regional pathway will connect to Meridian's overall pathway network that is being developed throughout the city. Walk -ability within this community will help to promote healthy living and a more active lifestyle. Greater awareness of environment through trail ways will focus on conservation of natural resources, water quality protection, and promote improved air quality. Castle Rock Design Guidelines M Architecture The purpose of the architectural guidelines described in this section are to provide specific design criteria and guidance for the development of the various housing types that will be included in the Castle Rock Community. The Legend Series, Cottage Series, and Village Series are three distinct housing styles that have been developed specifically for Castle Rock. Each of these styles will offer multiple floor plans and elevations that will allow the buyer to customize the home to suit their needs. The following guidelines describe specific architectural elements that will be required for each housing series. Some of the main goals of the guidelines are to create a community that is inviting to residents and visitors, avoid a garage dominated streetscape, and provide a housing product that is affordable and attractive. It should be made clear that the following guidelines are only intended as a minimum standard and that Hubble Homes offers various upgrades and enhancements that may not be depicted in these guidelines. Furthermore there are several additional floor plans and elevations that will be offered in this community. The pictures and illustrations included in this document are representative only and solely intended to depict design principles associated with Castle Rock. The developer reserves the right to modify, or enhance any elevation as long as the minimum standards outlined in these design guidelines are adhered to. Castle Rock Design Guidelines 5 _WJW'F-e4A=Z0N >��7 L Z;t 1-7 60 Fr. 2! _ATM,( %*0.Z V-01 Legend Series The Legend series are the largest and most traditional homes offered in the Castle Rock community. These homes range in size from 1200 to 3555 square feet with a total of twelve different floor plans and a minimum of three distinctive elevations offered for each plan. Architectural distinction is established through the use of large front porches, colonial grid windows, and wooden shutters. Key features of this style are floor plans that offer large lofts on the upper floor and master suites with walk in closets and large bathrooms. Design Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the elements of the Legend Series. A. Roof Pitch — Shall be a minimum of five -twelfths (5:12) pitch. B. Roof Material — Roof coverings shall be of materials generally accepted as the industry standard. If the roof covering is asphalt shingles, shingles shall include a minimum warranty of twenty-five (25) years. C. Roof Form — The typical roof type is a combination of gables and sheds. Hip roofs will also be offered as one of the standard elevations. D. Overhangs — All dwelling shall be provided with eaves/overhangs which project not less than sixteen (16) inches beyond the side of the exterior wall. Gable ends will project not less than twelve (12) inches beyond the end wall. E. Wall Surface Treatment — The front surface area of the building shall have balustrades, brick, stone, or stucco accent. Other appropriate wall surface treatments include Castle Rock Design Guidelines on vertical and horizontal siding, board and batten, shingle, shake, hardboard, and stucco. F. Porches — Each dwelling shall contain a front porch, balcony, or courtyard. Porches shall be supported by minimum eight (8) inch architectural columns connected by a balustrade. G. Window Treatment — All windows on the front fagade shall contain an interior grid and be accented by shutters, sills, trim or other architectural features. H. Garages —All garage doors shall be accented by trim and in some cases columns or pop outs that extend beyond the face of the garage door. I. Street Elevation — Two story dwellings shall have architectural features such as but not limited to, roof lines, trim bands, pop -outs, cantilevers, material variations, color variations, or eave "eyebrows", to break up the front wall plane and both the upper and lower levels. Corner Lot Elevations — Any side street elevation on a corner lot shall contain a minimum of two (2) windows and one (1) architectural enhancement, including but not limited to, exterior fireplace, material variations, color changes, trim bands, pop outs, boxed windows, porches, shutters, or varied wall planes with a minimum twelve (12) inch offset. Living area should be oriented toward the side street to avoid garage side walls facing public streets. $d 'Ire*AO #�W+. Castle Rock Design Guidelines 7 ors! �•�-8.�.i�1r11i ^r"+"_'� =—'—T�7 r�—i1rUNllw�iiiia�—�..--_7AVwi1E'r"r iiFM ����-`�TW�� - :awe.. �erari All ice! • '�I�'t�. �\�I' _ � �. y r..1.r NI! "ir it 1' =Itrrp 11 •1 u1 .� 1 • ova ��—r��. —....r.......`+%+?- . 11r•1`b444��I(fl'I(111uµ�}rtllll lP4111i'U171 r, r_ny17��ptr4•!-1`�l - ��• ._moo •��11 ui -_may - ilL1` am _ll 1, 111111 _ j�J I • • ,���7� I �.�ii'll io•i,� .,,. IIlI'A���I�iIIIP I�l'i;:1�1t1�1�1a fit. l .. Castle Rock Design Guidelines 11 11rWL-SION P S*As Co :WOkd.E. ,OCAoPto4j4L-. MtA ft�o V tvX-43LO00) Cottage Series The Cottage Series is a new line of patio homes designed to minimize the visual impact of the garage from the street while maximizing the front porches, patios and living space that have been extended towards the street. These homes range in size from 900 to 2,400 square feet and include a minimum of six floor plans with three distinct exteriors per plan. The key features of this series are well defined front entries, living spaces or porches that dominate the front elevation and extend to or beyond the plane of the garage to create fagade modulations at the street as well as on corner and rear elevations. Design Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the elements of the Cottage Series. A. Roof Pitch — Shall be a minimum of five -twelfths (5:12) pitch. B. Roof Material — Roof coverings of dwellings shall be of materials generally accepted as the industry standard. If the roof covering is asphalt shingles, shingles shall include a minimum warranty of twenty-five (25) years. C. Roof Form — The typical roof type is a combination of gables and sheds. Hip roofs will also be offered as one of the standard elevations. Castle Rock Design Guidelines 12 D. Overhangs — All dwelling shall be provided with eaves/overhangs which project not less than sixteen (16) inches beyond the side of the exterior wall. Gable ends will project not less than twelve (12) inches beyond the end wall. E. Wall Surface Treatment — The front surface area of the dwelling shall have appropriate wall treatments that will include vertical and horizontal siding, board and batten, shingle, shake, scallops, or stucco. F. Porches —All porches are optional and shall extend to or beyond the front plane of the garage and be supported by columns or other architectural details. G. Window Treatment — All windows on the street fagade shall be diverse and will be accented by shutters, sills, trim or other architectural features. H. Garages — All garage doors shall be accented by trim and in some cases overhangs that extend beyond the face of the garage door. I. Street Elevations — Two story dwellings shall have architectural features such as but not limited to, roof lines, trim bands, pop -outs, cantilevers, material variations, color variations, or eave "eyebrows", to break up the front wall plane and both the upper and lower levels. Corner Lot Elevations — Any side street elevation on a corner lot shall contain a minimum of two (2) windows and one (1) architectural enhancement, including but not limited to, exterior fireplace, material variations, color changes, trim bands, pop outs, porches, shutters, or varied wall planes with a minimum twelve (12) inch offset. Living area should be oriented toward the side street to avoid garage side walls facing public streets. Suet ,�4u.l�.p^ f. Castle Rock Design Guidelines 13 K. Rear Facades facing public streets and open spaces — All rear facades facing public streets and open spaces shall contain porches, patio covers, bay windows, varied wall planes with a minimum twelve (12) inch offset, or other architectural features that break up the rear elevation. �sau�rs q�o�C� aim iris �FaI ■.r.IMM rid LEI 2= 7 �4 � 1Z154 CFI P ie- QIftLQ IIlnIriiiiP. . liu"sI�iMISua.��in111' . q ism, f i Sol A If JVL IJ L. Tp*A Castle Rock Design Guidelines 14 IMF' Emma F Iii" Al IF l , Oil �'`�111V do& Kum Ing- .1 ; a. F till fill i A ram~ i � + t r r i 4w y i l t n 'sx Castle Rock Design Guidelines 16 f� fj3 ! i 5 i J Castle Rock Design Guidelines 18 Mon, r J El it 04 Village Series The Village series are an alley loaded product that are specifically designed for the "Traditional Neighborhood" that is embedded within the Castle Rock community. The Village series contains a minimum of six floor plans, with three distinctive exterior treatments, that range in size from 900 to 2200 square feet. This unique product is designed to be placed in a zero lot line configuration, with one side wall placed on the property line adjacent to the neighbor's side yard. This configuration maximizes side yard area and allows for each unit to have a significant amount of private open space adjacent to the main living space, to extend living to the outdoors. Design Requirements The following design requirements and details further define the elements of the Village Series. A. Roof Pitch — Shall be a minimum of five -twelfths (5:12) pitch. B. Roof Material — Roof coverings of dwellings shall be of materials generally accepted as the industry standard. If the roof covering is asphalt shingles, shingles shall include a minimum warranty of twenty-five (25) years. C. Roof Form — The typical roof type is a combination of gables and sheds. Hip roofs will also be offered as one of the standard elevations. Castle Rock Design Guidelines 19 D. Overhangs — All dwelling shall be provided with eaves/overhangs which project not less than sixteen (16) inches beyond the side of the exterior wall. Gable ends will project not less than twelve (12) inches beyond the end wall. E. Wall Surface Treatment — The front surface area of the dwelling shall have appropriate wall treatments that will include vertical and horizontal siding, board and batten, shingle, shake, scallops, or stucco. F. Porches — Each dwelling shall contain a front porch or covered patio with a minimum depth of six (6) feet. Porches shall be supported by columns or other architectural details. G. Window Treatment — All windows on the street fagade shall be diverse and be accented by shutters, sills, trim or other architectural features. H. Garages — All garages shall be oriented towards an alley. I. Street Elevations — All street elevations shall have architectural features such as, but not limited tom roof lines, trim bands, pop outs, and material and color variations. Corner Lot Elevations — Any side street elevation on a corner lot shall contain a minimum of two (2) windows and one (1) architectural enhancement, including but not limited to, porches, exterior fireplaces, material variations, color changes, trim bands, pop outs, or varied wall planes with a minimum twelve (12) inch offset. In all cases living area shall be oriented toward the side street to avoid garage side walls facing public streets. Castle Rock Design Guidelines 20 Castle Rock Design Guidelines 21 .+ 11 � cJi' - ��_� : � i ull Li17 :i 1141161 I'4f I7l1 d►+il i- Ff �'�.b- �ErIl0� - s �-j�lsrr�irir� p + `ssr�:e+s.i.. c �!1'►arY+f,�+�w. rlr�v' y+. ii7 111 1II fltLilill+ � � I� I - � I �j— ��li!)�it 1 ai �a .ti " 1611�iilIrllNiat�ill I 1 �^lIll ti-i.'.H:1Ilt'I�.tli+us+•n.. �11' 4 11 neon 1. I{ ��i 1 ��r,1' 11ti11117(�I7 ��i��41 �-�7 f�■ 6��1 � it l.�ll Iti 1i jl!i7l" �:>• r>*�I ,III■ "11 i Aim* 3 4 i I? e Castle Rock Design Guidelines 23 Dimensional Standards The following table and diagrams define the dimensional standards and building orientations of typical lots within the Castle Rock community. Some minor modifications to underlying zoning designation are necessary due to the unique design styles and land planning that was implemented in this development. These variations are clearly outlined in the table and diagrams below. Castle Rock Dimensional Standards Legend Cottage Village Street Setback* Living 10 10 10 Garage 20 20 N/A Alley Setback`* Living N/A N/A 10 Garage N/A N/A 20 Side Setback 5 5 0/10*** Rear Setback 12 12 N/A Minimum Lot Size 4200 3800 3100 Minimum Living Area Square Footage 1400 1000 900 Minimum Lot Frontage (measured at garage front setback line) 50 46 40 Minimum Lot Frontage measured at the street) 30 30 40 *Measured from back of walk ** Measured from edge of alley pavement *** No adjacent zero lot lines shall be allowed, a minimum of 10 feet shall be maintained between all alley units. Special Requirements for Zero Lot Lines Maintenance and Drainage Easements: A perpetual easement related to maintenance, eaves, and drainage of at least five feet shall be provided on the lot adjacent to the zero lot line property line which, with the exception of walls and/or fences, shall be kept clear of structures. This easement shall be shown on the face of the final plat map and incorporated into each deed, or by separate recorded document, when transferring title on the property. The building wall along the zero lot line shall be maintained in its original color and treatment unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the two affected lot owners. 2. Eaves: Eaves along a zero lot line may project a maximum of 18 inches over the adjacent property line. 3. Privacy: In order to maintain privacy, no windows, doors, air conditioning units, or any other types of openings in the walls along a zero lot line shall be allowed except where such openings do not allow for visibility into the side yard of the adjacent lot, such as a clerestory skylight or opaque window. Castle Rock Design Guidelines 24 Legend Series Key Features • Variations in setbacks will provide variety and articulation of the street scene; • All corner lots will have living space oriented towards the side street; • In most cases porches extend to or beyond the plane of the garage toward the street; • Corner elevations will contain a minimum of two windows, material variations, or exterior fireplaces to break up any blank side facades facing public streets; • Rear of housing oriented towards open space with porches, patios, or pop outs such as fireplaces or bay windows. Cottage Series Key Features • Ten foot setback to living area or porch from back of sidewalk deemphasizes the garage and provides an interesting streetscape; • All corner lots will have living space oriented towards the side street; • Side street elevations on corner lots with varied wall planes or other architectural features to break up any blank side facades facing public streets; • Living space or porch extends to or beyond the plane of the garage toward the street; • Rear yards oriented towards open space will contain porches, patios, or pop outs such as fireplaces or bay windows. Village Series Key Features • Ten foot setback to living area from back of sidewalk and edge of alley pavement; • 40 foot wide lots with minimum 10 foot side yards; • All corner lots will have living space oriented towards the side street; • Side street elevations on corner lots with varied wall planes, wrapped porches or other architectural features; • 16 foot paved alleys will be located within 20 feet of right-of-way; • 20 foot paved parking pads (driveways) will be provided behind each alley unit. Castle Rock Design Guidelines 25 CASTLE ROCK RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared for Hubble Homes 701 Allen Street, Suite 104 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Prepared by G Wanhini ton Group International Integrated Engineering, Construction, and Management Solutions Washington Group International 720 Park Boulevard, P.O. Box 73 Boise, Idaho 83729-0073 (208) 386-5000 September 13, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY ........................ ................................................................................................. I INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................4 PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENT.................................................................................................................4 STUDY AREA CONDITIONS..................................................................................................................4 STDY AREA............................................................................................................................................A LAND[ SI................................................................................................................................................... 4 CURRI:Nt' STUDIES IN TIIE AREA...............................................................................................................4 EXISTINGCONDITIONS.........................................................................................................................7 TRAFFICVOLUMES....................................................................................................................................7 ROADSYSTEM...........................................................................................................................................7 STUDYPERIOD.........................................................................................................................................7 PROJECTEDTRAFFIC............................................................................................................................7 SITETRAFFIC.............................................................................................................................................7 BACKGROUNDTRAFFIC...........................................................................................................................10 BUILDOur TRAFFIC................................................................................................................................1.0 TRAFFICANALYSIS..............................................................................................................................15 CAPAffI`Y ANALYSIS AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE......................................................................................15 ROADWAYCAPACPCY..............................................................................................................................16 SITEACCESS AND CIRCULATION .............................................................................................................17 AI; CERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION STRATI;GIES......................................................................................17 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEI S.............................................................................................................18 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................................19 Washln on Group International Cistle Rock US Integrated Engineering, Construction, and Management Solutions EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed Castle Rock subdivision is a residential development located west of Eagle Road between Amity Road and Lake Hazel Road in Meridian, Idaho. The total project area is designed to include 855 single-family residential units plus over 40 acres of parkland and open space. The following are the principal conclusions of the traffic analysis for the Castle Rock development. 1.) The proposed development is projected to generate an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 8,182 vehicles of which the a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic is 641 and 864 vehicles per hour respectively. 2) As a result of the site build -out, traffic on the area roadways is expected to increase in the vicinity. Traffic on Eagle Road may increase by 6,546 trips per day north of the site and 1,636 trips per day south of the site. Eagle Road traffic may increase by 5,564 trips per day north of Amity Road and 982 trips per day south of .Lake Hazel Road. Traffic on Amity Road may increase by 327 trips per day east of Eagle Road and 655 trips per day west of Eagle Road. Lake Hazel Road traffic may increase by 245 trips per day east of Eagle Road and 409 trips per day west of Eagle Road. 3) The site has the potential to reduce traffic volumes by up to 10%. There is over 40 acres of parks and open space for retaining recreational trips. The site plan includes a bws turnout and shelter at the Taconic Drive/Eagle Road intersection for supporting transit trips. The site is located within convenient bicycling distance (three miles) of major employment and commercial developments on Eagle Road. The site abuts one of the City of Meridian's major pathway corridors. 4) The Ada County Highway District has recently conducted a South Meridian Transportation Study that includes the area of the Castle Rock development. The South Meridian Transportation Study has not been adopted but includes a land use plan that includes the development of the Castle Rock site. The study recommendations have not yet been finalized, but are expected to include a range of access management strategies plus corridor and intersection and corridor improvements. 5) The intersection of Amity Road and Eagle Road is currently a four-way STOP without any additional turn lanes on any approach. This intersection currently operates below capacity at level of Service (LOS) C for the existing traffic volumes and intersection geometry. The intersection is forecast to operate at LOS F for the Year 2016 background condition.. The background condition reflects regional growth in the area but not the traffic from the Castle Rock site. Improvements are needed to accommodate the background traffic volumes. The addition of separate left turn lanes on all approaches results in traffic operations at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Further improvements are needed to accommodate the background traffic volumes. The intersection will require a traffic signal, widening to provide two through lanes on Eagle Road, and added right turn lanes on all approaches to operate at LOS D in. the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. For the build -out condition, the intersection is forecast to operate at LOS D with the traffic signal and the additional traffic lanes. The build out condition reflects regional growth in the area plus the traffic from the Castle Rock site. No additional site -related improvements are needed to support the build out traffic volumes. Approximately 26% of the peak hour traffic volumes are attributed to the Castle Rock development under build out traffic conditions. 6) The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Eagle Road is currently a four-way STOP without any additional turn lanes on any approach. `Phis intersection currently operates below capacity at LOS B for the existing traffic volumes and intersection geometry. The intersection is forecast to operate at LOS F for the Year 2016 background condition. Improvements are needed to accommodate the background traffic volumes. The addition of separate left turn lanes on all approaches result WAShingt i1 Group Into tational 1 Castle Rock TIS Integrated Engineering, Construction, and Management Solutions in traffic operations at LOS E during the a.m, and p.m. peak hours. Further improvements are needed to accommodate the background traffic volumes. The intersection will require a traffic signal, widening to provide two through lanes on Eagle Road and added right turn lanes on all approaches to operate at LOS C during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. For the build -out condition, the intersection is forecast to operate at LOS D with the traffic signal and the additional traffic lanes. No additional site -related improvements are needed to support the build out traffic volumes. Approximately 101/6 of the peak hour traffic volumes are attributed: to the Castle Rock development. 7) The site plan shows a new public street intersection (Taconic Drive) with Eagle Road. For the 201.6 build out condition, the Taconic Drive approach is forecast to operate at LOS F in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours if it is developed as a STOP controlled intersection. The through traffic on Eagle Road is not delayed. Only the Taconic Drive approach. will require a STOP sign. A northbound left turn lane is warranted on Eagle Road at the new site access intersection. Also, the new Taconic Drive roadway should be designed with sufficient width to allow simultaneous left and right -turning exiting traffic. A southbound right turn lane is warranted on southbound Eagle Road at the new site access intersection. The left turning traffic volumes on Eagle Road. and the Taconic Drive approach are large enough to warrant (Warrant 3, Peak Hour Volume) a traffic signal at the new site access intersection. The Taconic .Drive intersection location also meets the ACHD proposal for access management on a principal arterial because it's location is very close to the desirable half -mile spacing. With the addition of a signal and separate left turn lanes on the Eagle Road approaches, the traffic signal will improve operations to LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Traffic signal improvements are needed to accommodate the build out traffic volumes. Based upon Warrant 3 (Peak Hour) the traffic volumes are expected to meet the minimum volume at approximately 48% of the build out traffic volume. This equates to approximately 400 homes. 8) The forecast daily Year 2016 build -out tragic volumes for the segment of Eagle Road north of Amity Road exceed the planning development thresholds of a two-lane rural arterial. Eagle Road may require widening north of Amity Road prior to Year 2016 forecast conditions. 9) The forecast daily build -out volumes (Year 2016) for all other roadways in the vicinity of the project are lower than the planning development thresholds. The other area's roadways do not require any capacity improvements to accommodate the site generated traffic volumes. 10) The forecast daily build -out volumes (Year 2030 from the COMPASS Communities in Motion Land Use Model)) for the segment of Amity Road and Lake Hazel Road exceed the planning development thresholds of a two-lane rural arterial. Amity Road and Lake Hazel Road may require widening prior to Year 2030 forecast conditions. 1 1) Internally, all of the subdivision streets in the southern portion of the project with front -on - housing have projected ADT volumes less than 1,000 vehicles per day. 12) Internally, all of the subdivision streets in the northern portion of the project with front -on - housing have projected ADT volumes less than 1.,000 vehicles per day. 13) This project site will generate approximately $2,172,555 in transportation impact fee revenue to the Ada County Highway District (Ordinance 202). For the purposes of mitigating the impacts from the Castle Rock site, the impact fees generated from this project might be allocated to the following projects: a) Signal installation and intersection improvements at the Eagle Road/Amity Road intersection. b) Signal installation and intersection improvements at the Eagle Road/Lake Hazel Road intersection. Washington Group International Castle Rock TIS Integrated Engineering, Construction, and Management Solutions c) Widening Eagle Road from the site access intersection (Taconic Drive) north to Overland Road. Following are the transportation -related improvements needed to accommodate the traffic volumes generated by the Castle Rock development: Construct a traffic signal at the new site access intersection with Eagle Road. Provide sufficient width on the east -west collector roadway (Taconic Drive) to accommodate separate left and right turning traffic. A southbound right turn lane and a northbound left turn lane are warranted on. southbound Eagle Road at the northern site access intersection. No other traffic -related improvements have been identified with this analysis. M 3 TT Washington Group International Castle Rock TIS Integrated Engineering, Construction, and Management Solutions INTRODUCTION Washington Group International (Washington Group) has been retained to prepare a traffic impact study for the proposed Castle Rock residential development located west of South Eagle Road between Amity Road and Lake Hazel Road in Meridian, Idaho. Figure 1 shows the location of the project and its vicinity. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the traffic impacts resulting from the proposed development in the vicinity of the project. This analysis will make recommendations for improvements to the transportation system, which will mitigate any potentially adverse impacts of the development. This report is prepared in conformance with the requirements of a major traffic impact study. In particular, the scope of the study includes the following: • Trip generation of the proposed development; • Trip distribution and traffic assignment of the site generated traffic; • Roadway capacity impacts on Amity Road, Lake Hazel Road, and Eagle Road in the project vicinity; • Impacts of a.m./p.m. peak hour site generated traffic at the intersections of Eagle / Amity, and Eagle / Lake Hazel, • Impacts of the site generated traffic on the new site access intersection with Eagle Road, and • Any potential transportation mitigation measures. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Castle Rock project is a proposed residential development with approximately 855 single-family units with over 40 acres of parkland and open space. The proposed preliminary site plan for the project is shown in Figure 2. This transportation study assumes the development will be completed by the Year 2016. STUDY AREA CONDITIONS Study Area The area of influence will be the South Meridian area. The area of primary impact will be along Amity Road, Lake Hazel Road, and .Eagle Road in the project vicinity. The intersections considered for impacts are the existing Eagle/Amity and Eagle/Lake Hazel intersections. The new site access intersection with Eagle Road is also considered for impacts. See Figure 2 for site access intersections. Land Use The project area is currently zoned for rural uses. A 44-lot residential subdivision (Blackrock No.1) has already been. approved west of the project site. This subdivision (see Appendix) will use the main site's collector road (Taconic Drive) access to Eagle Road. The traffic volumes from this development have been included in the traffic analysis. Current Studies in the Area The Ada County Highway District has recently conducted a South Meridian Transportation Study that includes the area of the Castle Rock development. The South. Meridian Transportation Study has not been adopted but includes a land use plan that includes the development of the Castle Rock site. The study recommendations have not yet been finalized, but are expected to include a range of access management strategies plus corridor and intersection and corridor improvements. 4 Washington Group International Caste Rock Tts �'�� Integrated Engirieerng, Construction, and Management Solutions rN� Washington Group International Integrated €noneering, Construction, and Management solutions Castle Rock I'ls t Washington Group International Castle xoc'tr6 >< Integrated Engineemig, Construction, and Management Solutions EXISTING CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes Existing average daily traffic (A.DT) volumes and the a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning volumes were obtained. by on -site counts, from the recent South Meridian Transportation Study and from the Ada County Highway District's on-line data. The existing daily and peak hour traffic counts near the site are summarized in Figure 3. Road System The road system in. the site vicinity is described as follows: • Eagle Road is a north -south, two-lane facility that is classified as a principal arterial north of Lake Hazel Road and as a minor arterial south of bake Hazel Road. Eagle Road is posted with a speed limit of 50 mph between .Lake Hazel Road and Amity Road. • Amity Road is an east -west, two lane facility that is classified as a minor arterial. Amity Road is posted with a speed limit of 50 mph between Meridian Road and Eagle Road. Mary McPherson Elementary is located on Amity Road between Meridian Road and Locust Grove Road. In addition to the existing school flasher and two school crosswalks, a school speed limit of 20 mph is posted on Amity. • Lake Hazel Road is an east -west, two-lane facility that is classified as a principal arterial. Lake Hazel Road is posted with a speed limit of 50 mph between Meridian Road and Eagle Road. The existing intersections in the site vicinity are described below: • The intersection of Eagle/Amity is all -way stop controlled. Each approach has a single lane, There are no added turn lanes. • The intersection of Eagle/Lake Hazel is all -way stop controlled. Each approach has a single lane. There are no added turn lanes. STUDY PERIOD The build -out year for this study will be 2016. This date was selected to allow full build out of the project. Both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour periods were analyzed for site impacts. Typically the a.m. peak hour occurs between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. The p.m. peak hour typically occurs between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. Table 1: Trip Generation mmary PROJECTED TRAFFIC Site Traffic Trip Generation Site traffic generation is normally estimated by procedures recommended in the latest edition of the Trip Generation Manual (7's Ed) published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). "Trip rates estimated in the manual are based on actual driveway traffic measurements performed on different land uses nationwide, particularly in metropolitan areas. Table 1 presents the summary of the site trip generation used in this report. . � � T.. r Number of Lots 856 Trip Generation Rate 24-hr daily rate 9.57 am peak hour rate 0.75 pm peak hour rate 1.01 Total Trips Generated 24-hr daily rate 8,182 8,182 new 8,182 8,182 linked 0 am peak hour trips 641 641 new 641 641 linked 0 pm peak hour rate 864 864 new 864 864 linked 0 Source: Trio Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 7th Edition. Washington Grow International 7 P Castle Rock'I'IS Integrated Engineering, Construction, and Management Solutions Washington Group International Castle Rock TIS Integrated Engineering, Construction, and Management Solutions The site trip generation is obtained by applying the trip rates from the Trip Generation Manual to each of the uses of the site development. The proposed development is projected to generate an ADT of 8.182 vehicles, of which the a.m. peak hour traffic is 641 vehicles per hour. and the p.m. peak hour traffic is 864 vehicles per hour. The site has the potential to reduce traffic volunies by up to 1011/o. There is over 40 acres of parks and open space for retaining recreational trips. The site plan includes a bus turnout and shelter at the Taconic Drive/Eagle Road intersection for supporting transit trips. The site is located within convenient bicycling distance (three miles) of major employment and commercial developers on Eagle Road. The site abuts one of the City of Meridian's major pathway corridors. Although this site has great potential for reducing automobile travel, this analysis does not include any of these conservative reductions. Trip Distribution Once the generated trips are estimated, they must be distributed to geographic origins or destinations and assigned to particular segments of the transportation network. The trip distribution along the roadway network and turning movement percentages were based on the South Meridian Transportation Study. The distribution of the site traffic along the roadway network is given in Figure 4 in the form of percentages of total generated traffic for the site. Figure S illustrates the internal site traffic distribution. Figure 6 present the forecasted site traffic distribution on the roadway network. Background Traffic Background traffic numbers reflect the results of regional growth but do not include the traffic volumes from the Castle Rock development. The background (No -Build) traffic volumes for the Year 2016 were obtained by applying the regional growth rate of 7.0% to the existing traffic volumes and adding traffic from known subdivisions in the vicinity. The 7% figure was determined by comparing the existing Year 2007 traffic volumes to the COMPASS Year 2030 forecasts for the seven arterial roadway segments bordering the project site. A table showing the detailed calculation is included in the Appendix. Build Out Traffic The build out traffic numbers reflects the results of regional growth and includes the traffic volumes from the Castle Rock development. The site traffic is added to the background traffic to obtain the total build - out traffic for the Year 2016. The combined traffic volumes for the 2016 background a.m./p.m. peak hour were added to the forecasted a.m./p.m. peak hour traffic volumes generated by the project site and are shown in Figure 7. C.D111 Washington Group International Castle Rock 'f19 Integrated Engineering, Construction, and Management Solutions Washington Group tn#ernational l c�� S =a� rz„�i: rrs Integrated Engineering, Construction, and Management Solutions Washington Group International i i Cas11e Rock i'IS Integrated Engineering, Construction, and Management Solutions 12 WashingWin group International Castle Rock T S Integrated Engineering, Construction. and Management Solutions Washington Group International 13 Castle Rock TIS Integrated Engineering, Construction, and Management Solutions TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Capacity Analysis and Level -of -Service A capacity analysis was performed using the latest edition of Highway Capacity Software (HCS+) based on the 2000 edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. Capacity analysis for the existing, 2016 background, and 201.6 build -out conditions was performed for all existing intersections. For the background conditions, the existing traffic control was assumed to be in place. Capacity analysis for the 2016 build -out condition was also performed for the new site access intersection with Eagle Road. The result of the area's capacity analysis is summarized in Table 2. ...':.. :. `A .iyi�i ma�yy.. `::::`:': ;''': :'.•::;;•:;`;: _. �r = :•:•:•:: •q�y� m�. •�q♦ `� :.,-,'.:•,'.� .:`:+6= ..E`.?'�tny -; 'R9ig'04+4 2Lt�ty. � .•:%'Lis' - .�,`t�..�t. -.`.t.'��w:�:•`r}::%: Eagle & Amity Existing AtFway Stop AM 22-5 C > 100 F :%;: �1?•i {;1,':: PM 15.5 C > 100 F All -way Stop with Added Turn AM`:::{ :;frti;:•}`r{:•`$ . ~ r%? ••�•� > 100 F l$::r,•i .'ti `;; ": ..• s �:' '�' ; `r• 1. ::;:::. .. :•. ,v{.;.:`• Lanes PM::r::•:ti? rti••:y�ny > 100 F : •i:•}}`.:11:;{;;r,� • ;•":'; Signal with 2 Thru Lanes on AM ? ::; :,{:;:r.• f`, rrs::� �'� 538 D 53.0 D Eagle Road PM '14.;;�'.ti':} r;,1 :=';':?. '�:' 48.0 D 41.3 D Eagle & Lake Hazel Existing A{I-way Stop AM 10.3 8 76.1 F •:'_ %` PM 11.3 B 99.5 F :v: i S:{:,.`M1:ti •{ •?: ;; ::. ::Y:`'rY,{':`:{%; Ail -way Stop with Added Turn Lanes AM:;: {?;i i ::ry:$ •;t;. {' ;::''w{:` 45.0 E ;•.yj{, ti1�:;;{r ;: r.•;. PM :.ti;:}r:;.t:.;r =%,i:;%:{r.•f.{{•. r - v.};.;..;� :•}•: 39.6 E {:,ti>{{r:% :•'r,'.•.lr,':: - Signal with 2 Thru Lanes on AM:�:^:�:,`r,:�a :'�$': ''� _ 28.2 C 293 •C' Eagle Road PM }};. `. } :},• Eagle &Main Site Access Two-way Stop .. - •„ ..;:.. - - - ; }:; > 100 F PM •:}`•:%;,•- ...'�. , .• • "11 ` with Added Turn Lanes Ali -'�" - 1 "' 1.Y,•o.'•' '� ` 18.2 8 __jSignal PM 175 R Note. Level of serice for a two-way STOP is report for the minor street approach. The traffic on the major street does not stop. The intersection of Amity Road and Eagle Road is currently a four-way STOP without any additional turn lanes on any approach. This intersection currently operates below capacity at Level of Service (LOS) C for the existing traffic volumes and intersection geometry. The intersection is forecast to operate at LOS F for the Year 2016 background condition. The background condition reflects regional growth in the area but not the tragic from the Castle Rock site. Improvements are needed to accommodate the background traffic volumes. The addition of separate left turn lanes on all approaches results in traffic operations at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Further improvements are needed to accommodate the background traffic volumes. The intersection will require a traffic signal, widening to provide two through lanes on Eagle Road, and added right turn lanes on all approaches to operate at LOS D in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. For the build -out condition, the intersection is forecast to operate at LOS D with the traffic signal and the additional traffic lanes. The build out condition reflects regional growth in the area plus the traffic from the Castle Rock site. No additional site -related improvements are needed to support the build out traffic volumes. Approximately 26% of the peak hour traffic volumes are attributed to the Castle Rock development under build out conditions. The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Eagle Road is currently a four-way STOP without any additional turn lanes on any approach. This intersection currently operates below capacity at LOS B for the existing traffic volumes and intersection geometry. The intersection is forecast to operate at LOS F for the Year 2016 background condition. Improvements are needed to accommodate the background traffic volumes. The addition of separate left turn lanes on all approaches result in traffic operations at Washington Group International la 5 �' P Castle Rock 'I'LS Integrated Engineering, Construction, and Management Solutions LOS E during the a.m, and p.m. peak hours. Further improvements are needed to accommodate the background traffic volumes. The intersection will require a traffic signal, widening to provide two through lanes on Eagle Road and added right turn lanes on all approaches to operate at LOS C during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. For the build -out condition, the intersection is forecast to operate at LOS C with the traffic signal and the additional traffic lanes. No additional site -related improvements are needed to support the build out traffic volumes. Approximately 10% of the peak hour traffic volumes are attributed to the Castle Rock development. The site plan shows a new public street intersection (Taconic Drive) with Eagle Road. For the 2016 build out condition, the Taconic Drive approach is forecast to operate at LOS F in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours if it is developed as a STOP controlled intersection. The through traffic on Eagle Road is not delayed. Only the Taconic Drive approach will require a STOP sign. A northbound left turn lane is warranted on Eagle Road at the new site access intersection. Also, the new Taconic Drive roadway should be designed with sufficient width to allow simultaneous left and right -turning exiting traffic. A southbound, right turn lane is warranted on southbound Eagle Road at the new site access intersection. The left turning traffic volumes on Eagle Road and the Taconic Drive approach are large enough to warrant a traffic signal at the new site access intersection (Warrant 3, Peak Hour Volume). The Taconic Drive intersection location also meets the ACH.D proposal for access management on a principal arterial in the South Meridian Transportation Study because it's location is very close to the half -mile spacing. With the addition of a signal and separate left turn lanes on the Eagle Road approaches, the traffic signal will improve operations to LOS B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Traffic signal improvements should be implemented to accommodate the build out traffic volumes. Based upon Warrant 3 (Peak Hour) the traffic volumes are expected to meet the minimum volume at approximately 48% of the build out traffic volume. This equates to approximately 400 homes. ACH.D's current Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) already includes the following intersection projects: + Amity Road at Eagle Road intersection — widen each approach. from 2 to 5 lanes and signalize the intersection during the period 2011 to 2020. Lake Hazel Road at Eagle Road intersection — widen each approach from 2 to 5 lanes and signalize the intersection during the period 2011 to 2020. Roadway Capacity Table 3 summarizes the future traffic projections and capacity requirements on roadways within the vicinity of the site. The planning development thresholds for arterial and collector streets are as follows: • A 2-lane principal arterial road (Eagle Road n/o Lake Hazel Road and Lake Hazel Road) is 15,500 vehicles per day at LOS E. • A 2-lane minor arterial road. (Eagle Road s/o Lake Hazel and Amity Road) is 14,000 vehicles per day at LOS D. The forecast daily Year 2016 build -out traffic volumes for the segment of Eagle Road north of Amity Road exceed the planning development thresholds of a two-lane rural arterial. Eagle Road may require widening north of Amity Road prior to Year 2016 forecast conditions. The forecast daily build -out volumes (Year 2016) for all other roadways in the vicinity of the project are lower than the planning development thresholds. The other area's roadways do not require any capacity improvements to accommodate the site generated traffic volumes. fi''{,1", r Washington Group International 15 WhiGtl Castle Rock TTS Integrated Engineering, Construction, and Management Solutions The 2030 forecast ADT was acquired from the Community Planning Association (COMPASS). The forecast daily build -out volumes (Year 2030) for the segments of Amity Road and Lake Hazel Road exceed the planning development thresholds of a. two-lane rural arterial. Amity Road and Lake Hazel Road may require widening prior to Year 2030 forecast conditions. Table 3: Daily Traffic mmary - 1d�1 tt F'•• .'tr41�i? ,. - 77 tesbtilii:$ ' t ���..,.;; . - Eagle Rd. n/Amity 2007 7,931 15,600 5,664 21,200 15,500 16,400 Principal Arterial Eagle Rd. a/ Amity 2007 3,703 7,300 6,546 13,900 15,500 12,000 Principal Arterial Eagle Rd. n/ Lake Hazel 2007 3,703 7,300 1,636 9,000 15,600 12,000 Principal Arterial Eagle Rd. s/ Lake Hazel 2007 1,202 2,400 982 3,400 14,000 9,000 Minor Arterial Amity Rd. el Eagle 2007 6,784 11,400 327 11.800 14,000 29.100 Minor Arterial Amity Rd- w/ Eagle 2007 6,040 9,900 665 10.600 14,000 30,500 Minor Arterial Lake Hazel Rd. e/ Eagle 2007 5,009 9,800 246 10,100 15,500 29,300 Principal Arterial Lake Hazel Rd: w/ Eagle 2007 3,011 5,900 409 6,400 15,500 28,600 Principal Arterial `Average Annual Growth Rate 7.0% ACH:D's current Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) already includes the following roadway projects: + Amity Road - widen the arterial roadway from 2 to 5 lanes from Meridian Road to Eagle Road during the period 2011 to 2020. + Lake Hazel Road - widen the arterial roadway from 2 to 5 lanes from Meridian Road to Cole Road during the period 2011 to 2020. + Eagle .Road - widen the arterial roadway from 2 to 5 lanes from Victory Road to Lake Hazel Road during the period 2011 to 2020. Site Access and Circulation Internally, all of the subdivision streets in the southernn portion of the project with front -on -housing have projected A.DT volumes less than 1,000 vehicles per day. Internally, the two access roads for the northern portion of the project with front -on -housing have projected A.DT volumes less than 1,000 vehicles per day. The site plan (Figure 2) shows a number of residential stab streets. These stub streets are planned to connect to future residential developments and provide inter -neighborhood connectivity. None of the adjacent parcels have current development applications. Alternative Transportation Strategies The Castle Rock development has the potential to reduce site -generated traffic volumes by up to 10%. There are over 40 acres of parks and open space for retaining recreational trips. The site plan includes a bus turnout and shelter at the Taconic Drive/Eagle Road intersection for supporting transit trips. The site is located within convenient bicycling distance (three miles) of major employment and commercial developers on Eagle Road. The site abuts one of the City of M.eridian's major pathway corridors. Although this site has great potential for reducing automobile travel, this analysis does not include any of these conservative reductions. a �- N� Washl Qm. International 16 rn} Castle Rock TIS Integrated Engineering, Construction, and Management Solutions Transportation Impact Fees Table 4: Impact Fe Estimate Single Family Detached (210) 855 units $2,541 52,t72,555 The proposed project of 855 single- family homes is expected to generate $2,172,555 in transportation impact Total $24112,6 fees to the Ada County Highway Based Upon Ordinance 202 District (Ordinance 202). These fees are normally due at the time of building permits. For the purposes of mitigating the impacts from the Castle Rock site, the impact fees generated from this project might be allocated to the following projects: a) Signal installation and intersection improvements at the Eagle Road/Amity Road intersection. b) Signal installation and intersection improvements at the Eagle Road/Lake Hazel Road intersection. c) Widening Eagle Road from the site access intersection (Taconic Drive) north to Overland Road. 17 Washington Group International Castle Rock JJS Integrated Engineering, Construction, and Management Solutions CONCLUSIONS The following are the principal conclusions of the traffic analysis for the Castle Rock development. I) The proposed project is projected to generate an average daily traffic (AD'I') volume of 8,182 vehicles of which the a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic is 641 and 864 vehicles per hour respectively. 2) As a result of the site build -out, traffic on the area roadways is expected to increase in the vicinity. Traffic on Eagle Road may increase by 6,546 trips per day north of the site and 1,636 trips per day south of the site. Eagle Road traffic may increase by 5,564 trips per day north of Amity Road and 982 trips per day south of Lake Hazel .Road. Traffic on Amity Road may increase by 327 trips per day east of Eagle Road and 655 trips per day west of Eagle Road. Lake Hazel Road tragic may increase by 245 trips per day east of Eagle Road and 409 trips per day west of Eagle Road. 3) The site has the potential to reduce traffic volumes by up to 10%. There is over 40 acres of parks and open space for retaining recreational trips. The site plan includes a bus turnout and shelter at the Taconic Drive/Eagle Road intersection for supporting transit trips. The site is located within convenient bicycling distance (three miles) of major employment and commercial developments on Eagle Road. The site abuts one of the City of Meridian's major pathway corridors. 4) The Ada County Highway District has recently conducted a South Meridian Transportation Study that includes the area of the Castle Rock development. The South Meridian Transportation Study has not been. adopted but has a land: use plan that includes the development of the Castle Rock site. The study recommendations have not yet been finalized, but are expected to include a range of access management strategies plus corridor and intersection and corridor improvements. 5) The intersection of Amity Road and Eagle Road is currently a four-way STOP without any additional turn lanes on any approach. This intersection currently operates below capacity at Level of Service (LOS) C for the existing traffic volumes and intersection geometry. The intersection is forecast to operate at LOS F for the Year 2016 background condition. The background condition reflects regional growth in the area but not the traffic from the Castle Rock site. Improvements are needed to accommodate the background traffic volumes. The addition of separate left turn lanes on all approaches results in traffic operations at LOS F during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Further improvements are needed to accommodate the background traffic volumes. The intersection will require a traffic signal, widening to provide two through lanes on. Eagle Road, and added right turn lanes on all approaches to operate at LOS D in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. For the build -out condition, the intersection is forecast to operate at LOS D with the traffic signal and the additional traffic lanes. The build out condition reflects regional growth in the area plus the traffic from. the Castle Rock site. No additional site -related improvements are needed to support the build out traffic volumes. Approximately 26% of the peak hour traffic volumes are attributed to the Castle Rock development under build out conditions. 6) The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Eagle Road is currently a four-way STOP without any additional turn Lanes on any approach. This intersection currently operates below capacity at LOS B for the existing traffic volumes and intersection geometry. The intersection is forecast to operate at LOS F for the Year 2016 background condition. Improvements are needed to accommodate the background traffic volumes. The addition of separate left turn lanes on all approaches result in traffic operations at LOS E during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Further improvements are needed to accommodate the background traffic volumes. n, 18 ,,F Washington Group International Castle Rock TIS 5,1Integrated Engineering, Construction, and Management Solutions Following are the transportation -related improvements needed to accommodate the traffic volumes generated by the Castle Rock development: Construct a traffic signal at the new site access intersection with Eagle Road. Provide sufficient width on. the east -west collector roadway to accommodate separate left and right turning traffic. A southbou.nd right turn lane and a northbound left turn lane are warranted on southbound Cloverdale Road at the northern site access intersection No other traffic -related improvements have been identified with this analysis. Washington Group International 20 S• P Castle Rock 1'IS Integrated Engineering. Construction, and Management Solutions Following are the transportation -related improvements needed to accommodate the traffic volumes generated by the Castle Rock development: Construct a traffic signal at the new site access intersection with Eagle Road. Provide sufficient width on the east -west collector roadway to accommodate separate left and right turning traffic. A southbound right turn lane and a northbound left turn lane are warranted on southbound Eagle Road at the northern site access intersection No other traffic -related improvements have been identified with this analysis. Washington Group International Castle Rock20 TIES r Integrated Engineering, Construction, and Management Solutions REFERENCES "Trip Generation A Edition," by Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington U.C., 2003. "Highway Capacity Manual 2000," Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.. "Development Policy Manual," Ada County Highway District, September 11, 2007. Impact Fee Ordinance 202, Ada County Highway District "NCHR.P 279, Intersection Channelization Guide," Transportation Research Board. 2002 "City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan" COMPASS 2030 Traffic Model "South Meridian Transportation Study — DRAFT." Ada County Highway District, 2007 Washington Group International Castle Rock21 TIS Integrated Engineering, Construction, and Management Solutions APPENDIX n Gnu Int�afnaflona1 T'` Washi ngton � CastieRcck'ftS Integrated Engineering, Construction, and Management Solutions Growth Rate Calculation Arterial Street Segment Eagle Rd. n/ Amity Eagle Rd. s/ Amity Eagle Rd. n/ Lake Hazel Eagle Rd. s/ Lake Hazel Amity Rd. el Eagle Amity Rd. w/ Eagle Lake Hazel Rd. e/ Eagle Lake Hazel Rd. w/ Eagle Total Volume Increase (2030 - 2007) Percentage Change (2030 - 2007) Annual Increase (2030 - 2007) 7 931 16,400 206.810 3.2% 3,703 12,000 324.1% 5.2% 3 703 12,000 324.1 % 5.2% 1,202 9,000 748.8% 9A% 5,784 29,100 503.1 % 7.3% 5,040 30,500 605.2% 8.1% 5,009 29,300 584.9% 8.0% 3,011 28,600 949.9% 10.3% 35,383 166,900 1 471.7% 7 0% 131,517 471.7% 7.0% 40 op 0061 1100 r CD c_; C cZ) CD c7 CO Cloverdale Rd. fi T---.6-00 0090y OCJ89 7200 ONt 16100 0066 0011,9 i�00 0x001 tJGA©l� CL C7 N Q t� CD r r ONlip 55900 7P�0Ol9 0100 J ol15o3 z � ti.El i1 ,1 ;ust Grove Rd 5800 V d LO Locust Grove Rd 0009 00 420 CO Q p � 0069 45000 00 l 9 4_00 1�23 a10e� V I Locust Grc 004,7t7 2900 00Z-V 2800 tCD RS Pam- C� C� 2(X)3 Edition Page 4C-7 Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour .fl s- •- s- s-. *150 '100 400 500 600 700 B00 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES --- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) "Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 70 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) n_ U 400 �d Q 4 300 rx Lu a= 200 - I �O ci 100 w T C7 T 2 OR MORE LANES & 2, R MORE LANES — 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE .1 LANE & 1 LANE •100 *75 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES — VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 100 vph applies as the tower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street approach with one lane. Sect- 40.)6 EXHIBIT A Traffic Impact Fee Schedule Service Area: r. r z. -SOUTHWEST i l ?j 3 9'-Wr'Yj l r Service Area . 0346 $ 67 823 t7 NeigsAorhoodLandUses. 5a% ::. E - 7th Edition ` ' -%" MM c.` AOJUST(NENi fq 70R§ one-Wa New Trip ITE PM Peak Hour x (Pass -By x nd Use { Y x Code only) � {rounds Si ! F ng a amr(y Apartment 210 220 0.505 1.00 8.23 0.346 $1,767 $2,541 Residential Conda Townhouse 230 0,310 1.00 8.23 0.346 $1,767 $1,560 Mobile Home 240 0,260 1.00 8.23 0,346 $1,767 $1,368 0-295 1.00 8.23 0.346 51,767 $1,484 Hotel Mote! 31.0 320 0,295 i.QO 8.23 0.346 $1,T67 $1,484 0.29 1.00 8.23 0,346 $1,767 Automobile Care Center 942 rer Automobile Parts Safes 843 1.690 0.72 8 23 0 346 $3,767 $6,123 Bank, Drive Thru 812 2.990 0.57 4.12 0,346 $1,767 $4,293 Building Materials and Lumber 812 22.870 0.53 2.06 0.346 $1,767 $ Church 560 2.245 0.74 8.23 0,346 $1,767 8,359 $8,359 Convenience Market(24hrs) 851 0.330 1.00 4.12 0.346 $1,767 $g31 Discount Club 861 26.205 0.39 2,06 0.346 $1,767 $12,871 Free-standing Discount Score 815 2.120 0.77 8,23 0,346 $1,767 $8,214 Free-standing Discount Superstore 813 2.530 0.83 8.23 0,346 $1,767 $10,566 Furniture Store 890 1.935 0.72 8.23 0.346 $1,767 $7,010 Garden Center/Nursery 8f7 0.230 0.47 8.23 0,346 $1,767 $,07 Hardware/Paint Store 8t6 1.420 0.74 8.23 0.346 $1,767 $7,0T5 Home improvement Superstore ggp 2.420 0.74 8,23 0.346 $1,767 $9,011 Hospital 610 1.225 0.52 8.23 0.346 $1,767 $3,205 Light industrial it0 0.590 1,00 8.23 0.346 $1,767 $2,469 Manufacturing 140 0,490 i.00 8,23 0346 $1,787 $1,862 Mini -Warehouse 151 0,370 1,00 8,23 0.346 $1,767 $ New Car Sales 841 1.72 8.23 0.346 $1,767 $654 654 Pharmacy/Drug store (No Drive -Thu) 8g0 f.i30 1.320 0.72 8.23 0,346 $1,767 $4,782 Pharmacy/Drugstore (with Drive-Thru) 881 4.210 0.47 2.06 0.346 $1,767 $2,768 Restaurant - Fast Food W/drive-thee windc 934 4.310 0.51 2.06 0.346 $1,767 $ RestaurantHighTurnover 932 i 0.57 0,346 $1,767 0,90 $7,907 Re Restaurant Quality 931 5.460 A60 O.S7 4.12 4-12 0.346 $1,767 $7,839 Shopping m Center 3.745 0.56 4,12 0.346 $1,767 $5,283 SpecialtyRetail814 1.875 0.66 8,23 0.346 $1,767 $6,227 SupermarR (Free Standing) 814 L355 0,66 8.23 0.346 $1,767 $4,500 Tire Store 848 5.225 0,72 2.06 0.346 $1,767 212 $4,212 Warehousing 150 2.075 0.72 8.23 0.346 $1,767 $7,517 0.235 1.00 8.23 n un - Ordinance #202 Page A-2 All -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS lG enerai Information Site Information F�8_fyst IDBS enc /Ca. WCi ate Performed 91517 nal sis Time Period M Peak Hour Intersection ale at Amltyy Jurisdiction Analysis Year b06 Exisitn roject lt7 Castte Rock East/West Street; Amity North/South Street: Eagle Road Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 101 308 13 8 169 99 %Thrus Left Lane Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R volume (veh/h) 21 225 32 67 83 21 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR 'H F O. 92 0.92 0. 92 0,92 =low Rate (veh/h) 457 298 300 184 Heavy vehicles (1 0 0 0 do. Lanes 1 1 1 1 3eometry Group 1 1 1 1 )uration, T 0.25 Saturation HeadwayAd ustment Worksheet 'rop. Left -Toms 0,2 0.0 0.1 Q 4 >rop. Right -Turns 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 >rop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LT-adj 4.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 RT-adj -0.6 1 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj, computed 0.0 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 )e arture Headway and Service Time d, initial value (s) 3,20 3.20 3,20 3,20 initial 0.41 0.26 0,27 0,16 d, final value (s) 6.42 6.57 6.88 7.32 final value 0, 81 0.54 0.57 0.37 ove-up time, m (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ervice Time, tg (s) 4.4 4.6 4.9 5.3 -apacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Lt L2 L1 L2 Li L2 apacity (vela/h) 544 497 474 422 play (s/veh) 31.71 17,12 18.74 14,63 >s © C C B �proach: Delay (s/veh) 31.71 17.12 18,74 14.63 LOS D C C g ersection Delay (slveh) 22.52 All -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 LOS Copyright C 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5,21 Generated: 9/5J2007 3:07 PM f'tI_(Ff' \T'I--..V., +"o,_,n.. All -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL. ANALYSIS Site Information Intersection urisdiction 5/T Analysis Year Peak Hour orthtSouth Street: Eagle Road nat st es Agency/Co. G! Bate Performed 1141 Analysis Time Period Street:. YIV YGFI}G4Il I L 1 ('Y L 1 R oiume (vehth) 8 301 65 29 128 6 Th€us Left Lane movement L I T R L T R Volume (vehlb) 83 174 83 8 75 7 r`oThrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 Ll L2 Ll L2 Ll L2 onfiguration L TR L TR LTR L TR PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Flow Rate (vehlh) 405 176 369 96 to Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 eometry Group 1 1 1 1 uration, T 0.25 aturation Headwa Ad'ustment Worksheet Prop, Left -Turns 0, 0 0.2 0.2 0.1 Prop, Right -Turns 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 LT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0,2 0.2 0.2 0.2 RT-adj -0.6 -0.6 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 1 46 -0.6 -0.6 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj, computed -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.0 de arture Headwa and Service Time d, initial value (s) 3.20 3. 20 3.20 3.20 initial 0,36 0.16 0.33 0.09 d, Final value (s) 5.57 6,11 5.71 6,38 anal value 0.63 0.30 0.59 0.17 ove-up time, m (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2,0 rvice Time, is (s) 3.6 4.1 3.7 4.4 Ca aci and. Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L# L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 Ll L2 apacity (vehlh) 617 426 596 346 Delay (stveh) 17.47 11.68 16.46 10.68 LOS C B C B Approach: Delay (s/veh) 17.47 11.68 16.46 10.68 LOS C B C intersection Delay (sbeh) 15.52 All -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 �tntemection LOS I C I Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 9/5/2007 3:07 PNI All -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS eneral Information Site Information nat st IDBS WG/ M riod M Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year '- ro"ect ID Castle Rock astlWest Street: take Hazel North/South Street: Eagle olume Adjustments and Site Characteristics roach Eastbound Westbound ovement L T R L T R ,fume (vehm) 51 160 3 1 172 137 1'Thrus Left Lane roach Northbound Southbound ovement L T R L T R olume (vehm) 1 94 3 68 23 3 loThrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 onfiguration L TR L TR L TR L TR HF 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 low Rate (vehlh) 231 335 106 100 /U Heavy Vehicles Q 0 0 0 o. Lanes 1 1 1 1 eometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 aturation HeadwayAd`ustment Worksheet rop. Left -Turns 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 Prop. Right -Turns 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 rop. Heavy Vehicle 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 LT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0,2 RT-ads" -0.6 -0.6 1 -0.6 -0.6 1 -0. fi 1 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 FtV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj, computed 0.0 -0.3 -0.0 0.1 e arture Headwayand Service Time d, initial value (s) 3.20 3,20 3,20 3,20 initial 0.21 0.30 0.09 0.09 d, final value (s) 4,95 4.54 5.43 5.58 final value 0.32 0.42 0.16 0.16 ove-up time, m (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ervice Time, is (s) 3.0 2.5 .11 3.4 3.6 apacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 L1 L2 Lt L2 Ll L2 Capacity (vehm) 481 585 356 350 Delay (slveh) 10.24 10.82 9.46 9.60 oS B 8 A A Approach: Delay (s/veh) 10,24 10. 82 9.46 9.60 LOS Intersection Delay (s/veh) B B A A 10.30 •.•• •-• ,�-• ninn rni�nc'_...____._\�.-....1,.11„fitlT ,. .. ,.t0/'�/l f' +, �r All -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 intersection LOS ( B ! Copyright C 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 915/2007 3:07 PM L:f _. tJ!"�.1 T1 _.___. _... _ni�ln_._ tnJnnc�_„• i : ff n.�r All -Way Stop Control Page I of 2 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS Site Information intersection Jurisdiction nat st BS enc /Co. WGf Date Performed 91517 ysis Time Period nal, PM Peak Hour aallWest Street: Lake Hazel North/South Street: Eagle olume Adjustments and Site Characteristics roach Eastbound Westbound ovement L T R L T R olume (vehlh) 13 165 5 5 168 96 1oThrus Left Lane roach Northbound Southbound ovement L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 5 38 3 159 87 19 loThrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 Configuration L TR LTR L TR LTR HF 0.92 0.92 0,92 0.92 tow Rate (veh/h) 198 291 49 286 to Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 a. Lanes 1 1 1 1 eometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0,25 Saturation HeadwayAdjustment Worksheet Prop, Left -Turns 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.6 Prop. Right -Turns 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0 LT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 RT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 1 -0, 6 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj, computed -0.0 De arture Headwayand Service Time d, initial value (s) 3.20 3-20 3,20 3.20 initial 0.18 0.26 0-04 0,25 d, final value (s) 5.28 4.95 5.67 5.34 final value 0.29 0.40 0.08 0.42 ove-up time, m (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time, tg (s)777[ 3.3 3.0 3, 7 3,3 Service Capacity and Level of Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 apacity (veh/h) 448 541 299 536 Delay (s/veh) 10-43 11.21 9.15 12,21 Los B B A B Approach: Delay (s/veh) 10.43 11.21 9.15 12.21 LOS B B A B Intersection Delay (s/veh) 11.25 All -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 Intersection LOS I B l Capynght 0 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HGS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 9/5/2007 3:08 PM All -Way Stop Control Page I of 2 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS eneral Information ice Information nai st 08S JlEag7qaiAmjty enc lCo. WGt urisdiction ate Performed 91517 nal sis Year 0 t 6 Back round nal sis Ttme Period M Peak Hour ro eci !D Casrle Rock astiWest Street: Amity orthisouth Street: Eagle Road plume Ad"ustments and Site Characteristics roach. ovement Eastbound L Westbound ofume (veh,?t) 199 T 606 R 26 L i6 T 332 R 195 bThrus Left Lane roach Northbound Southbound ovement L T R L T R Volume (vehih) 41 443 63 132 163 41 /.Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Lt L2 LI L2 Lt L2 LZ L2 onfiguration LTR LTR LTR L TR HF 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 low Rate (vehih) 902 588 593 364 Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 0 0 o. Lanes 1 1 1 1 eometry Group 1 1 1 uration, T 0 25 1 aturation Headwa Adjustment Worksheet rop. Left -Turns 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.4 Prop. Right -Turns 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 rop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2RT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 HV-adj 1.7 7.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 17 . 1.7 1. �' adj: computed 0.0 -0.2 7.1 0.0 e arture Headwayand Service Time d, initial value (s) 3,20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.80 0.52 0.53 0.32 d, final value (s) 9.83 9.57 9.74 9.82 final value 2,46 1.56 1.60 0,99 vtove-up time, m (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ervice Time, is (s) 7,8 7.6 7.7 7, 8 a aci !y and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Lt L2 Lt L2 Li L2 Lt L2 opacity (vehih) 902 588 686.83 290.51 593 308,35 367 77.49 e!ay (siveh) oS F F F pproach: Decay (siveh) 686.83 F 290.51 F 308.35 F 7749 Los Intersection Delay (siveh) F F 409.23 All -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 intersection LOS Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+Tm Version 5.21 Generated: 9?12007 6:35 AM • •• �+••. .rtrnnn_.a_.�.__\T,....,,._1 ..^tl_O^P"f1 ..___ ��ua,na All -Way Stop Control Page 1. of 2 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL. ANALYSIS General Information ISRe information nal st 8S ntersection Eagle at Am/t enc /Co. WG7 urisdictfon ate Performed 91517 nal sis Year 0 16 Background naf sis Time Period tPMPeakl4our rotect tD Castle Rock lEastMest Street: Amity orth/South Street: Eagle Road olume Ad ustments and Site Characteristics roach Eastbound Westbound ovement L T R L T R oiume (veh/h) 16 592 128 57 252 12 Thrus Left Lane roach Northbound Southbound ovement L T R L T R otume (veh/h) 163 342 163 16 148 14 1 Thrus Left lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 Li L2 Ll L2 L1 L2 Configuration L TR L TR L TR L TR HF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 low Rate (veh/h) 799 347 725 192 to Heavy Vehicles o o Q o o. Lanes 1 1 1 1 eometry Group 1 1 1 1 uration, T 0,25 aturation. HeadwayAdiustment Worksheet rop. Left -Turns 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 rop. Right -Turns 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 LT-adj 0.2 0.2 0,2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 RT-adj -0.6 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj, computed -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -Q.Q e arture Headwayand Service Time d, initial value (s) 3,20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.71 0.31 0,64 0.17 d, final value (s) 7.99 8.47 7.99 9.29 final value 1.77 0.82 1.61 0.50 Move -up time, m (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ervice Time, is (s) 6.0 J. 6.5 6.0 7.3 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 Ll L2 Ll L2 Ll L2 Capacity (veh/h) 799 422 725 374 stay (s/veh) 375.99 39.54 304.61 21,06 oS F E F C Approach: Delay (s/veh) 375.99 39.54 304.61 21.06 LOS F E F C kntersection Delay (s/veh) 261,28 All -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 Intersection LOS I F Copyright O 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 91W2007 6:36 AM All -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General information Site Information nat st DBS enc fCo. {t/Gt ate Performed 9/517 im naf sis Time Period A9 Peak Haur Intersection E'a to at Amif Jurisdiction Analysis Year 129,16 Back round roiec# ID Castle Rock ast/West Street: Amity orthlSouth Street: Eagle Road vlume Adjustments and Site Characteristics roach Eastbound Westbound ovement L T R L T R plume (veh/h) 199 606 26 16 332 195 %Thrus Left Lane roach No thbound Southbound ovement L T R L T R plume (veKh) 41 443 63 132 163 41 ..Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 t2 L2 L2 L2 Configuration r L TR L TR L TR L TR HF .9 1.00 . 2 700 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (vehih) 216 632 17 527 44 506 143 204 Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o. Lanes 2 2 2 2 eometry Group 5 5 5 5 oration, T 0,25 aturation Headwa Ad ustment Worksheet rop. Left -Turns 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 rop, Right -Turns 0.0 010 0,0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 rop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 RT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0,7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0,7 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 .adj, computed 0.5 -0.0 0.5 -0.3 0.5 -0.1 0.5 -0.1 De ariure Headwa and Service Time d, initial value (s) 3.20 3.20 3,20 3.20 3,20 3,20 3.20 3.20 , initial 0.19 0.56 0.02 0.47 0.04 0.45 0.13 0.18 d, final value (s) 9,25 8.73 9.36 8,60 9,32 8,73 9,80 9.16 final value 0.56 1.53 0.04 126 0.11 1.23 0.39 0.52 ove-up time. m (s) 2.3 2.3 2.3 2,3 ervice Time, t� (s) 7.0 6.4 7.1 6.3 70 6.4 7.5 6.9 -.apacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Li L2 Li L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h) 389 632 267 527 294 506 368 393 Delay (s/veh) 22,91 273.72 1249 160.29 13,22 148.93 18.61 21.33 oS C F 6 F 8 F C C Approach, Delay (s/veh) 209.83 155.67 138,08 20,21 LOS F F F C Intersection Delay (s/veh) 150.97 All -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 Intersection LOS I F Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+T m Version 5.21 Generated: 9/7/2007 6:38 AM - -- ---- -,,- .. ,m-___ r.00n fNr /^nnn All -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site information OBS ntersection Ea le at Amit urisdiction WGt nalsis Year o16 Back round Wriod 9r5/7 PM Peak Hour raect ID Castle Rock astiWest Street: Amity orth;Sauth Street: Eagle Road 41ume Adiustrnents and Site Characteristics roach Eastbound Westbound ovement L T R L T R 'fume (veh.%h) 16 592 1 128 57 252 12 .Thrus Left Lane roach Northbound Southbound ovement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 163 342 163 16 148 14 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 1 2 t2 i L2 L2 G TR L - TR L TR till TR HF 1.00 0. 1.00 1.00 1.00 tow Rate (veh/h) 17 720 61 264 177 505 17 162 . Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o. Lanes IIonfiguration 2 2 2 2 eometry Group 5 5 5 5 oration, T 0.25 aturation HeadwayAdjustment Worksheet rop. Left -Turns 1.0 0.0 1-0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 rop. Right -Turns 0.0 0.2 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 rop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0:0 0.0 LT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 .0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 rHVRT-adj j, computed 0.5 -0.1 0-5 -0.0 0.5 -0.2 0.5 -0.1 arture wayand Service Time ,d, initial value (s) 3,20 3.20 3,20 3.20 3,20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.02 0.64 0.05 0,23 0.16 0.45 0.02 0.14 ,d, final value (s) 8.38 7.75 8,77 8,23 8.25 7.53 9,20 8.64 final value 0.04 1.55 0.15 0.60 0,41 1,06 0.04 0.39 ove-up time, m (s) 2.3 2.3 2.3 2,3 ervice Time, is (s) 6.1 5.5 6.5 5.9 6.0 a aci# and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Ll L2 Lt t2 L1 L2 Li L2 Capacity (veh,h) 267 720 311 435 427 505 267 411 Delay (sjveh) 11.42 278.23 12.99 22.70 16.47 83,86 12.32 16.74 OS B F B C C F B C Approach: Delay (s/veh) 272.08 20.88 66.37 16.32 LOS F C F C Intersection Delay (s/veh) 132.86 11 11... ins tmn 0,17P007 Ali -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 Intersection LO5 Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TNI Verson 5.21 Generated: 9?7/2007 6:39 AM . , „ ,. 1�, tmr% Q/70007 Short Report Page 1 of 2 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst DBS Agency or Co. Date Performed 91512007 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Eagle at Amity } Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2016 background Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Lane Group L T R L T R L TR L TR tJolume (vph) 199 1606 26 16 332 195 41 443 63 132 163 41 % Heavy Vehicles 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) P P P P P P P P P P P P Startup Lost Time 2,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12,0 2.0 Extension of Effective Teen 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking Al 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 13.2 1 13.2 3.2 PhasingExcl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 Excl. Left Thru & RT 07 08 Timing G= 13.0 IY= G= 34.7 G= G= G= 11.8 G= 29.5 G= G= 4 IY= 4 Y= 1Y= IY= 4 Y= 4 jY= IY= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WS NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 212 1645 22 17 353 202 44 533 140 211 Lane Group Capacity 223 616 523 219 628 523 203 995 203 1983 v/c Ratio 0.95 1.05 0.04 10.08 0.56 0.39 0.22 0.54 0.69 0.21 Green Ratio 0.12 0.33 0.33 10,12 0.33 0.33 0.11 0.28 0.11 0.28 Uniform Delay d1 45.7 35.2 23.9 140.7 2&9 27.0 42.4 32.0 44.8 28.9 Delay Factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Incremental Delay dz 48.7 49.2 0.2 0.7 3.6 2.1 2.4 2.1 .5 0.5 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 00 F62-3 1.000 Control Delay 94.4 84.3 24.0 41.4 32.5 29.1 44.8 34.0 29.4 Lane Group LOS F F C D C C D C E C Approach Delay 85.2 31.6 34.8 42.5 Approach LOS F C I C D .. 11 - - -,A---*-.....t'V- ....-.\.,71,Q A) t,r n U/7/?007 Short Report Page 2 of 2 Intersection Delay 1 53.8 Intersection LOS Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+Tm Version 5.21 Generated: 9/7/2007 6:47 AM ... —1.mni.c��TL,.'71.QA'? +—, Q/7/')007 Short Report Page 1 of 2 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst DBS Agency or Co. Date Performed 9/5/2007 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Eagle at Amity Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2016 background yak Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT I TH RT Number of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 Lane Group L T R L T R L TR L TR Volume (vph) 16 592 128 57 252 12 1163 342 163 16 148 14 Heavy Vehicles 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.94 0.94 10.94 12.0 094 0.94 0.94 12.0 0.94 0.94 0.94 10.94 0.94 0.94 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) P P P P P P P P P I P P P Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Teen 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 t 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 1 13.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Leff Thru & RT d3 04 Excl. Left Thru & RT 07 d$ Timing G= 6.6 G= 36.1 IY= G= G= G= 25.4 G= 20.9 G= G= Y= 4 4 Y= ly= IY= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Len th C = 105.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delav, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 17 630 131 61 268 7 173 532 17 167 Lane Group Capacity 113 641 545 111 653 545 437 677 437 712 v/c Ratio 0.15 0.98 0.24 0.55 0.41 0.01 0.40 0.79 0.04 0.23 Green Ratio 0.06 0.34 0.34 10.06 0.34 0.34 0.24 0.20 0.24 0.20 Uniform Delay d1 465 34.1 24.6 478 26.3 22.7 33.4 39.9 30.5 35.3 Delay Factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Incremental Delay d2 2.8 31.6 1.0 18.2 1.9 0.0 2.7 8.9 0.2 0.8 PF Factor 1.000 11,000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 Control Delay 49.3 165,7 25.7 65.9 28.2 22.7 36.0 48.9 30.6 36.1 Lane Group LOS D E C E C C D D C D Approach Delay 58.6 35.0 45.7 35.6 Approach LOS E C D D Short Report. Page 2 of 2 Intersection Delay 1 48.0 1 Intersection LOS I D Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 9l7i2007 6:50 AM All -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 i ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS I eneral information site information nal st DBS enc iCo. WG1 ate Performed 91517 nai sis Time Period AM Peak Hour ntersectw a ie & Lake Hazel Jurisdiction Analysis Year 12016 Background oject ID Castle Rock Vast/WestStreet: Lake Hazel orthfSouth Street: Eagle olume Adjustments and Site Characteristics roach Eastbound Westbound ovement L T R L T R plume (vehih) 100 315 6 2 338 269 aThrus Lett Lane roach Northbound Southbound ovement L T R L T R plume (vehlh) 2 185 6 134 45 6 J Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Lt L2 Li L2 Li 12 Li l2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR HF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 low Rate (veh(h) 456 661 209 199 Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 o. Lanes 1 1 1 1 eometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation HeadwayAdjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Turns 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 Prop. Right -Turns 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 rop. Heavy Vehicle . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 RT-adj -0.6 -0.6 1 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 dj, computed 0.0 -0.3 -0.0 0.1 ke arture Headwayand Service Time initial value (s) 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 Id, , initial 0.41 0.59 0,19 0.18 d, final value (s) 7.06 6.60 8.14 8.32 final value 0.89 1.21 6.47 0,46 Move -up time, m (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time, is (s) 5.1 4.6 6.1 6.3 CapacityCapaci!y and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 Li L2 Li L2 Capacity (vehih) 505 661 420 410 Delay (s/veh) 44.71 133.58 18.22 18,21 oS E F C C Approach: Delay (slreh) 44.71 133,58 18,22 18,21 LOS E F C C intersection Delay (sfveh) 76.14 All -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 intersection SOS I F Copyright ® 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+Tm Version 5.21 Generated: 90,2007 6:59 AM All -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS eneral Information ite Information Analyst DBS enc /Co, WG/ ate Performed 191517 Analysis Time Period IPM Peak flour ist/West Street: Lake Hazel plume Adjustments and Site roach Street: ovement L T I R L J f Aume (vehrh) 26 325 10 10 330 189 Thrus Leh Lane roach Northbound Southbound ovement L T R L T R alume (vehlh) 10 75 6 313 171 37 :Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 Lt L2 Li L2 onfiguration L TR LTR LTR L TR HF 0,92 0.92 0.92 0.92 low Rate (veh/h) 391 573 97 565 , Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 o. Lanes 1 1 1 1 eometry Group 1 1 1 1 uration, T 0.25 ,aturation Headwa Adjustment Worksheet Zip, Left -Turns 0. 1 0.0 0.1 0.6 rop. Right -Turns 0.0 0.4 0.1 0' 1 rop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0'0 LT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 RT-adj -0.6 1 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1,7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj. computed -0.0 -0.2 -O.0 0.1 }e arture Headwa and Service Time d, initial value (s) 3,20 3.20 3.20 3.20 , initial 0.35 0.51 0.09 0.50 d, final value (s) 7,80 7.33 9.38 7.63 . final value 0.85 1.17 0.25 1.20 love -up time, m (s) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 service Time: is (s) 4 5.3 ,aeacIV and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Li L2 Li L2 Ll L2 Li L2 rapacity (vehih) 460 573 347 565 )eiay (s/veh) 40.89 120.45 15.53 133.16 os E F C F approach: Delay (s/veh) 40.89 120,45 15.53 133.16 Los E F C F ltersection Delay (slveh) i 99,47 _ All -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 Intersection LOS Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+T" Version 5.21 Generated: 4Rt2007 7:01 AM .. ,... _ :.-> 1-1 .._ ..\ i` _ .\.. 11rQ1 Z tr " onn tt 1 ! All -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS .mmmrai tnMrmatinn ISite Information na# st JDBS enc iCo. JWGI rmed asiTimePeriod s M Peak Haur Street: Lake Hazel Street: Movement L - T__ . R L t aiume (veh/h) 100 315 6 2 338 269 .Thrus Left Lane roach Northbound Southbound ovement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 2 185 6 134 45 6 r Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Li L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 onflguration L TR L TR L TR 1 00 L 0 92 TR 1 00 IF )w Rate (vehih) 0.92 108 1.00 321 0.92 2 1.00 607 V. 2 191 145 51 Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . Lanes 2 2 2 2 *rnetry Croup 5 5 5 5 iration, T 0.25 aturation Headwayad ustment Worksheet op. Left -Turns 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 op. Right: -Turns 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 op. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 T•adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 IT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 1 -0.7 1 -0.7 1 -0.7 -0.7 1 -0.7 IV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 dj, computed 0.5 -0.0 0.5 -0.3 0.5 -0.0 - e arture Headwayand Service Time , initial value (s) 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.10 0.29 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.17 0,13 0.05 _ final vane (S) 7.40 6.89 7.18 6.37 8,29 7.76 8,30 7.71 final value 0.22 0.61 0.00 1.07 0.00 0.41 0.33 0,11 eve -up time, m (s) 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 �rvice Time, is (s) 5.1 4.6 4,9 4.1 6.0 5.5 6.0 5.4 apacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 12 Li L2 L1 L2 L,1 L2 apacity (veh/h) 358 515 252 607 252 441 395 301 clay (siveh) 1221 19,95 9.91 83,52 11.02 15,80 15.10 11.36 )S B C A F 8 C C 8 Yproach: Delay (srveh) 18.00 83.27 15.75 14.13 LOS C F C B ersection Delay (s/veh) 45.02 All -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 Intersection t_OS Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+ m Version 5.21 Generated: 9t712007 7:00 AM - .. - - - • •• _.— . �M nnc. _...:._.....1T,..v.,.1.,'iL4�i2 +.. _ 01-7P)(V)-7 Ali -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS keneral Information ite Information na1 st Des enc /Co. VVG/ Date Performed naf si5 Time Period Pht Peak Hot r roject 0 Castle Rock astMest Street: Lake Haze( 'plume Adjustments and Site Characteristics roach Eastbound Street; & Lake lovernent L T R -- L T R olume (veh/h) 26 325 10 10 330 189 Jhrus Left Lane pproath Northbound Southbound lovement L T R L T R olume (vehih) 10 75 6 313 171 37 >Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Li L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 12 ;onfiguration L TR L TP L TR L TR HF 0.92 1.00 0.92 1,00 0.92 1.00 0. 92 1.00 tow Rate (vehih) 28 335 10 519 10 81 340 20EI o Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1 0 Jo. Lanes 2 2 2 2 'eometry Croup 5 5 5 5 }oration, T 0,25 Saturation HeadwayAdjustment Worksheet 'fop. Left -Turns 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 >rop. Right -Turns 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 'rop. Heavy vehicle 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 iLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 iRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 tHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1,7 1,7 1.7 1. 7 ;adj, computed 0.5 -0.0 0.5 -0.3 O.5 �e arture Headwa and Service Time id, initial value (s) 3,20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3,20 3.20 ,. initial 0.02 0,30 0,01 0,46 0.01 0.07 0.30 0.18 od, final value (s) 8.06 7.54 7.80 7.04 9,06 8,51 7.99 7.37 „ final value 0.06 0.70 0.02 1.02 0.03 0.19 0.75 0.43 Aove-up time, m (s) 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 >ervice Time, tg (s) 5.8 5.2 5.5 4.7 6.8 �a acit and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Li !2 Lt 0 L1 L2 rapacity (veh?h) 278 472 260 519 260 331 448 458 )elay (sJveh) 11.30 26,12 10.67 70.02 11,99 13.21 31.40 15.42 _OS B D 8 F 6 B D I C \pproach: Delay (v'veh) 24.98 68,90 13.08 25.33 LOS C F 8 D ntersection Delay (s/veh) 39.57 All -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 intersection LOS E Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+Thk Version 5.21 Generated: 9/7?2007 7:02 AM Short Report Page 1 of 2 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst DBS Intersection Eagle at Lake Hazel Agency or Co. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 9/5/2007 Jurisdiction Time Period AM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2016 background Volume and Timing in u# EB Wg NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT .Number of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (vph) 100 315 6 2 338 269 2 185 6 134 45 6 % Heavy Vehicles 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHP 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) P P P P P P P P P P P P Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Lane Width 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade IParking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N Parking/Hour Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 ji3. 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Timing Excl. Left G= 10.4 �(= 4 Thru & RT G- 42.8 Y= 4 03 G= Y= 04 G= Y= Excl. Left G= 16.7 Y= 4 Thru & RT G= 10.1 Y= 4 07 G= Y= 08 G= Y= Duration of Anal sis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 90.0 Lane Group CapaCity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 106 1335 1 2 360 281 2 197 1 143 48 Lane Group Capacity 209 886 755 205 904 755 215 406 171 215 406 v/c Ratio 0.51 0.38 0.00 0.01 0.40 0 0.01 0.49 0.01 0.67 0.12 Green Ratio 0.12 0.48 0.48 0.12 0.48 0.37 .48 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 Uniform Delay d, 37.4 15.1 12.4 35.2 15.3 15.0 35.0 1 37.5 35.5 37.9 35.9 Delay Factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Incremental Delay d2 8.5 1.2 0.0 0.1 1.3 1.4 0.1 4.1 0.1 15.7 0.6 _ PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 45.9 16.3 1 12.4 35.3 16.6 16.4 35.1 41.6 35.6 53.0 36.5 Lane Group LOS D 8 B D B B D D D D D Approach Delay 23.4 16.6 41.5 48.8 Approach LOS C B D D - - - _.. __%lr I, n S 1 +__ 017/")nfi7 Short Report Page 2 of 2 Intersection Delay 26.2 Intersection LOS C Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+Tm Version 5.21 Generated: 9i7/2007 8:12 AM _._- 11111,Ix tnfAC1 tmn ()/Wr n07 Short Report Page 1 of 2 o SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst DBS Agency or Co. Date Performed 91512007 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Eagle at Lake Hazel Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2016 background Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH FT Number of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (vph) 26 325 10 10 330 189 10 75 6 313 171 37 % Heavy Vehicles 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) P P P P P P P P P P P P Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2,0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12,0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 1 Excl. Left Thru & RT 07 08 Timing G= 6.4 G= 31.3 IY= G= G= G= 23.5 G IG= Y= 4 4 Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= IY= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 90.0 Lane Group Ca acit i, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 28 1346 5 11 351 196 11 180 1 333 182 Lane Group Capacity 128 1648 551 126 661 551 471 515 218 471 515 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.53 0.01 0.09 0.53 0.36 0.02 0.16 0.00 0.71 0.35 Green Ratio 0.07 0.35 0.35 10,07 0.35 0.35 0.26 0.14 10.14 0.26 0.14 Uniform Delay d, 39.4 23.5 19.2 139.1 23.5 21.8 124.7 33.9 33.1 30.1 34.9 Delay Factor k 0.50 10.50 0.50 10.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Incremental Delay d2 3.9 3.1 0.0 1.4 3.0 1.8 0.1 0.6 0.0 8.7 1 1.9 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 43.3 26.6 19.2 40.4 26.5 23.6 24.8 34.5 33.2 38.8 36.8 Lane Group LOS D C B D C C C C C D D Approach Delay 27.8 25.8 33.3 37.9 Approach LOS C C C D ... , r,, -- .. -` T - - »- n Lc -- n i-r /,-Inn^r Short Report Page 2 of 2 Intersection Delay 1 30.9 Intersection LOS c Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+Tm Version 5.21 Generated: 9/712007 8:15 AM - - -• r �+ n� r _ .__Ifv AAA. tm— Q/?/7(lfl7 r � x � �� � �� f ��� �� Short Report Page i of 2 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst OBS Agency or Co. Date Performed 91512007 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Eagle at Amity Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2016 build out Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SS LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (vph) 199 606 39 22 332 195 82 786 83 1132 278 41 % Heavy Vehicles 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 10.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) P P P P P P P P P P P P Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 13.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.O 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 1 13.2 13.2 1 3.2 1 13.2 Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 Excl. Left Thru & RT 07 08 Timing G= 9.5 G= 29.1 G= G= G= 8.8 G= 26.6 10= G= Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 212 1645 36 23 353 202 87 836 83 140 1296 Lane Group Capacity 191 1602 512 187 614 512 176 1069 461 176 1069 v/c Ratio 1.11 11X7 0.07 10.12 0.57 0.39 10.49 0.78 0.18 0.80 0.28 Green Ratio 0.11 0.32 0.32 0.11 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.30 Uniform Delay d1 40.3 130.5 21.1 36.5 25.3 3.6 38.5 29.0 23,6 39.7 24.3 Delay Factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Incremental Delay d2 97.7 57.3 0.3 1 1.3 3.9 2.3 9.6 5.7 0.9 30.0 0.6 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 11,000 Control Delay 137.9 87.8 21.3 37.8 29.2 25.9 48.1 34.8 24.4 69.7 25.0 Lane Group LOS F F C 0 C C 0 C C E C Approach Delay 970 284 35.1 38.0 Short Report Page 2 of 2 Approach LOS F C D D Intersection Delay 53.0 intersection LOS D Generated: 9rii2007 7:42 AM Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, Ali Rights Reserved HCS+TF't Version 5.21 Short Report Page 1 of 2 SHORT REPORT General Information Site information Analyst DBS Agency or Co. Date Performed 91512007 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Eagle at Amity Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2016 guild out Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (vph) 16 592 174 80 252 12 190 571 177 16 537 14 % Heavy Vehicles 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) P P P P P P P P P P P P Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTQR Volume 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 IN N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasin Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 Excl. Left Thru & RT 07 1 08 Timing G= 6.6 G= 32.8 G= G= G= 14.7 G= 24.9 IG= I G= Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= I Y= IY= 4 Y= 4 1Y= IY= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 95.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 17 1630 180 85 268 1 7 202 1607 183 17 571 Lane Group Capacity 125 1643 547 123 656 547 279 1948 408 279 948 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.98 0.33 0.69 0.41 0.01 0.72 0.64 0.45 0.06 0.60 Green Ratio 0.07 0.35 0.35 0.07 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.26 0.26 0.15 10.26 Uniform Delay di 41.5 30.8 23.0 43.2 23.7 20.5 38.2 31.1 29.3 34.3 30.7 Delay Factor k 0.50 10.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Incremental Delay d2 2.3 130.9 1.6 27.4 1.9 0.0 15.1 3.3 3.5 0.4 2.8 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 43.8 61.6 24.6 70.6 25.6 20.5 53.3 34.4 32.8 34.7 33.5 Lane Group LOS D E C E C C D C C C C Approach Delay 53.2 36.1 38.0 33.5 Approach LOS D D D C -. .. I-- -- -� ._ni_ A n" ... - n1'7P-)nn 7 Short Report Page 2 of 2 Intersection Delay 1 41.3 Intersection L©S I U Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida: All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated 9,7'2007 7:43 AM tmr% 0/7/)007 Short Report Page l of 2 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst DBS Agency or Co. Date Performed 91512007 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Eagle at Lake Hazel Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2016 build out Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Dumber of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (vph) 109 315 6 2 338 275 2 205 6 149 106 31 % Heavy Vehicles 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHP 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0,94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 1.0.94 0.94 0.94 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) P P P P P P P P P P P P Startup Last Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12,0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/GradelParking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 j 3.2 13.2 Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 Excl. Leff Thru & RT 07 08 Timing G= 9.9 I G= 44.0 G= G= G= 15.3 G= 9.8 G= IY= G= ly= Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= IY= 4 Y= 4 Duration of Analysis. hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 95.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rafe 116 1335 1 2 360 287 2 218 1 159 113 Lane Group Capacity 188 863 735 184 880 735 291 373 156 291 373 v/c Ratio 0.62 0.39 0.00 0.01 0.41 0.39 0.01 0.58 0.01 0,55 0.30 Green Ratio 0.10 0.46 11 0.46 0.10 0.46 0.46 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.10 Uniform Delay d1 40.7 116,7 13.7 38.2 169 16.7 33.5 40.7 38.2 36.7 39.4 Delay Factor k 0.50 0,50 0.50 0,50 0.50 0.50 0,50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0,50 Incremental Delay d2 14.2 1.3 0.0 0.1 1.4 1.6 0.0 6.6 1 0.1 7.2 2. i P F Factor 1.000 1.000 1. 000 11,000 1JB 1.000 1.000 1.000 11,000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 55.0 18.0 13.7 38.3 118.3 33.5 43.5 41.5 Lane Group LOS D B B D B C 147.2 D 138,3� D D D Approach Delay 27.5 18.3 47.0 42.7 Approach LOS C B D D Short Report Page 2 of 2 Intersection Delay 29.3 Intersection LOS e Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida, Ail Rights Reserved tiCS+1 Version 5.21 Generated: 9i7l2007 40 AM _. -- .. % --_1_lVnt\T -- IC/ ?(1Ca*tintrC�iamri�Cilr4ilQ tmn 0/70C)07 Short Report Page 1 of 2 SHORT REPORT General information Site Information Analyst DSS Agency or Co. Date Performed 91512007 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Eagle at Lake Hazel Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2016 build out Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 Lane Group L T R L T R L T R L T R Volume (vph) 54 325 10 10 330 206 10 143 6 323 211 54 % Heavy Vehicles 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.94 0,94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 10,94 0.94 10,94 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) P P P P P P P P P P P P Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12,0 12.0 12,0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 1,32 13.2 1 1 13.2 13.2 Phasing Excl. Left Thru & RT 03 04 Excl. Left Thru & RT 07 08 Timing G= 6.2 G= 33,1 G= G= G= 26.5 G= 13.2 G= G= Y= 4 Y= 4 Y= Y= IY= 4 Y= 4 Y- IY= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 C cie Len th C = 95.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 57 346 5 11 351 214 11 152 1 344 224 Lane Group Capacity 118 649 552 116 662 552 504 503 213 504 503 v/c Ratio 0.48 a53 0.07 10.09 0.53 0.39 0.02 0.30 0.00 0.68 0.45 Green Ratio 0.07 10.35 0.35 10,07 0.35 0.35 0.28 10.14 0.14 0,28 10,14 Uniform Delay d, 42,9 4.8 202 41.8 24.7 23.3 24.8 36.8 35.2 30.5 37.5 Delay Factor k 0.50 0.50 0,50 0.50 0.50 0,50 0.50 a50 0.50 0.50 0.50 incremental Delay d2 13.5 3.1 0.0 1 1.6 3.0 2.0 10,1 1.5 1 0.0 7.3 2.8 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1,000 11.000 1,000 1.000 Control Delay 56.3 27.9 20.3 43.4 27.8 25.4 24.9 38.3 35.3 37.8 40.4 Lane Group LOS E C C D C C C D D D D Approach Delay 31.8 27.2 37.4 38.9 Approach LOS C C i D D -1- . 1 11 11-1 1 - Ile, --- - IN - I - - Short Report Page 2 of 2 intersection Delay 33.3 intersection LOS C Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 90i2007 7:32 AM -^ _t____ratnyt� ^ 10/_ ?l1Ce.rt;n�rclTs+mr�\ci1rC}7() tmn Q/"7l')00'7 Two -Way Stop Control Page I of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information ISite information Analyst DBS Intersection Eagle at Main Site Access Agency/Co. Jurisdiction Date Performed 91612007 Analysis Year 016 Build Out Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description East/West Street: Main Site Access [North/Sout Street: Eagle Road Intersection Orientation: North -South [Study Period _(hrs): 0,25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh1h) 34 547 205 135 Peak -Hour Factor. PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 36 581 0 0 218 143 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 405 101 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 430 0 107 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0. 0 Percent Grade 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 L Delay, Queue Len th and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R v (veh/h) 36 430 107 G (m) (veh/h) 1209 285 - 754 V/C 0.03 1.51 0.14 5% queue length 0.09 24.66 0.49 ontrol Delay (s/veh) 8.1 279.3 10.6 0S A F Approach Delay 225.8 Two -Way Stop Control Pal-e ? of'-) slveh Ipproach LCJS -- -- F Copyright O 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 9/7i2007 8:17 AM Two -Way Stop Control Page l of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst DBS Intersection Eagle at Main Site Access enc /Co, Jurisdiction Date Performed 91612007 Analysis Year 2016 Build Out Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour roject Descri tion astNVest Street: Main Site Access In orth/South Street: Ea ie Road tersection Orientation: North -South tud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 114 669 332 458 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 121 711 0 0 353 487 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -` Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L T TR U stream Si naf 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 269 67 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0,94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 286 0 71 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration L R Delay, Queue Len th and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L R (veh/h) 121 286 71 (m) (veh/h) 804 108 507 lc 0.15 2.65 0.14 5% queue length 0.53 26.32 0.48 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.3 830.2 13.3 OS B F B kproach Delay '- -' 667.7 Two -Way Stop Control Page 2 of 2 s/veh PPCeach t_OS -- -- F Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 911312007 10:02 AM 1t1._It—"T\__...--- __._I.. nr nil.___.117'In CI __._..%"-_1_f1-ll -I1T Short Report Page 1 of 2 SHORT DEPORT General Information Site information Analyst UBS Agency or Co. Date Performed 915,j2007 Time Period AM Peak Hour intersection Eagle Main Site Access Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2016 Build Out Volume and Timing In ut E8 WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 f Lane Group L R L T T R Volume (vph) 405 101 34 547 205 135 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0-94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Pretirned/Actuated (P/A) P P P P P P Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 5 5 5 1, 5 5 5 5 5 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour StopslHour 0 0 0 0 0 0 mum Pedestrian Time L 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB nly Thru & RT 07 08 Timing G= 25.8 G= G= IY= G j G= 7.5 G= 25.7 1 G IG= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= 4 IY= Y= Duration of Anal sis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 71.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NS SB Adjusted Flow Rate 431 102 36 582 218 Lane Group Capacity 656 568 191 995 688 v/c Ratio 0.66 0.18 1 0.19 0.58 0,32 Green Ratio 0.36 0.36 0.11 0.52 0.36 Uniform Delay di 18.9 1 15.4 29.0 11.6 116.3 Delay Factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Incremental Delay d2 5.1 0.7 2.2 1 2.5 1.2 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 24.0 16.1 31.1 14.1 17.5 Lane Group LOS C 8 C B B Approach Delay 22.5 15.1 17.3 Approach LOS C B 8 Short Report Page 2 of 2 intersection Delay 18.2 1. Intersection LOS B Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+Tm Version 5.21 Generated: 9/7/2007 7:47 AM .. -- '— nnn_...`— \T,. \..nL A nL .-_- n/ inn-- Short Report Page 1. of 2 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst DBS Agency or Co. Date Performed 91512007 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Eagle Main Site Access Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2016 Build Out Volume and Timing Input PB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume (vph) 269 67 114 669 332 458 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 10.94 0.94 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) P P P P P P Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2A 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 Lane Width 12,0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 13.2 a2 3.2 EB Onl 02 03 04 NB On1 Thru & RT 07 08 fimiPhaiin ng G= 16.4 G= G- G IG= 8.6 G= 34.0 IY- G= G= IY- Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= 4 Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Len th C = 71.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 286 f 66 121 712 353 Lane Group Capacity 417 359 219 1247 910 v/c Ratio 0,69 0.18 0.55 0.57 0.39 Green Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.12 0.66 0.48 Uniform Delay di 24.9 21,9 29.4 6.7 11.8 Delay Factor k 0.50 1 0.50 0,50 0.50 0.50 Incremental Delay d2 8.9 1.1 9,7 1.9 1.2 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1,000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 33.8 23.1 39.1 8.6 13.1 Lane Group LOS C C D A B Approach Delay ;1,8 13.0 16.0 Approach LOS C B B Short Report Page 2 of 2 Intersection 17.5 Copyright 0 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Intersection LOS L--j NCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: 9/7/2007 7:50 AM