CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE COLORADO 2450 E. Quincy Avenue Village Center Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 Telephone 303‐789‐2541 www.cherryhillsvillage.com FAX 303‐761‐9386

City Council Agenda Tuesday, February 6, 2018

6:30 p.m.

1. Call to Order

2. Roll Call of Members

3. Pledge of Allegiance

4. Audience Participation Period (limit 5 minutes per speaker)

5. Consent Agenda a. Approval of Minutes – January 16, 2018 b. Highway User Tax Funds (HUTF) Mileage Certification

6. Items Removed From Consent Agenda

7. Unfinished Business

8. New Business a. Public Hearing – Request by Kent Denver School for Expanded Use for a New Upper School b. Agreement for Professional Services with Fairfield and Woods c. Acceptance of a Memorial Bench Donation at Three Pond Park d. Acceptance of Donation of Sculpture at Quincy Farm

9. Reports a. Mayor b. Members of City Council c. Reports from Members of City Boards and Commissions d. City Manager and Staff (i) City Council Retreat e. City Attorney

10. Adjournment

Notice: Agenda is subject to change. If you will need special assistance in order to attend any of the City’s public meetings, please notify the City of Cherry Hills Village at 303‐789‐2541, 48 hours in advance. Draft Draft Draft

Minutes of the City Council of the City of Cherry Hills Village, Colorado Held on Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 6:30 p.m. At the Village Center

Mayor Laura Christman called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Mayor Laura Christman, Councilors Randy Weil, Earl Hoellen, Al Slum, Mike Gallagher, Dan Sheldon, and Katy Brown were present on roll call. Also present were City Manager Jim Thorsen, Deputy City Manager and Public Works Director Jay Goldie, City Attorney Linda Michow, Finance Director Karen Proctor, Police Chief Michelle Tovrea and City Clerk Laura Smith.

Absent: none

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Council conducted the pledge of allegiance.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION PERIOD

David Wyman, 8 Tamarc Lane, explained that landscape vehicles had been parking on his street and had resulted in his trash and recycling not being picked up. He noted that landscape vehicles were not prohibited by the City Code from parking on the street like construction vehicles were, and he requested that the Code be amended to include landscape vehicles under the parking restrictions. He noted that he did not propose to regulate regular landscape work, but rather those that operated like construction projects. He added that the R-1 zone district in particular had ample room for parking on the property.

Doug Tisdale, 4662 S. Elizabeth Court, presented an update as RTD District 8 Director. He noted that he had been elected Chairman of the Board. He indicated that RTD operated over a 2,400 square mile area, served 3 million people, had 2,000 employees, and managed a $750,000,000 budget, much of which came from sales tax. He explained that the Southeast rail extension was on time, on budget and scheduled to open within a year; the A Line was 98% on time, had received its waiver from the Federal Railroad Administration and was waiting for the waiver from the state Public Utilities Commission; and the North line had been delayed due to construction issues and was expected to open in late 2019. He noted that hundreds of students and domestic employees used public transportation to get to and from the City each day. He indicated that RTD strived to provide safe, clean, affordable, accessible and cost effective service.

January 16, 2018 1 City Council Draft Draft Draft

CONSENT AGENDA

Mayor Pro Tern Hoellen moved, seconded by Councilor Brown to approve the following items on the Consent Agenda:

a. Approval of Minutes — December 13, 2017

The rnotion passed unanimously.

ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA

None

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

None

NEW BUSINESS

Resolution 1, Series 2018; Designating the Public Place for Posting Notices of Regular and Special Meetings

City Clerk Smith presented Resolution 1, Series 2018 for Council’s consideration. She explained that state statute required that the public place or places for posting notice of public meetings be designated annually at the local public body’s first regular meeting of each calendar year. Because the City was planning to demolish the Village Center and move City administrative operations to the old fire station at 120 Meade Lane in March of 2018, staff investigated various ways to handle the change in posting location. Methods used by other municipalities have included not specifying an address but rather just the title of the building, passing a second resolution once the posting location was moved, posting notices on the city website only, or including the change in location within the resolution. Staff believed that the proposed resolution was the optimal way for the City to handle this issue, as it both indicated exact locations for postings and did not require a second resolution be passed. Resolution 1, Series 2018 indicated that notice would be posted at the Village Center until administrative offices were relocated on or about March 1, 2018, upon which event notices would be posted at 120 Meade Lane. Notice of relocation would be prominently published on the City’s website. Should the construction timeline be pushed back significantly from the current timeline, staff would coordinate with City Attorney Michow to ensure that any necessary resolution was brought to Council for consideration.

Mayor Pro Tern Hoellen asked about signage for the temporary building and the poster board on Quincy Avenue.

City Clerk Smith replied that staff would install signage to direct visitors to the old fire station during construction. She clarified that posting notice on the notice board at the January 16, 2018 2 City Council Draft Draft Draft designated location was the City’s only legal obligation, and that the posters and website postings were additional ways of communicating with residents, but not required.

Councilor Weil asked about transitioning to the new City Hall after construction was complete.

City Clerk Smith replied that staff would prepare a resolution similar to this one that designating the old fire station as the public place for posting notices for part of the year, and the new City Hall for the remainder of the year.

Councilor Slum asked if Council meetings would be held in the Joint Public Safety Facility during construction of the new City Hall.

City Clerk Smith confirmed that was correct.

Councilor Slum moved, seconded by Councilor Sheldon to approve Resolution 1, Series 2018; a resolution of the City Council designating the public place for posting notices of regular and special meetings.

The motion passed unanimously.

Public Hearing — Review of 90% Construction Drawings for the New City Hall and Authorize City Staff to Place the Project Out for Competitive Bidding (Public Hearing)

City Manager Thorsen presented the 90% construction drawings for the new City Hall. He reviewed the location compared to the current building, the increase in parking spaces, the layout and floor plan, and architectural renderings. He presented the budget for the three capital projects: City Hall, Public Works, and John Meade Park. He noted that while costs for the individual projects had changed, the total for the three projects was still within the budget of $11.8 million in Certificates of Participation (COPs). He added that in addition to the COP funds the City had received or expected to receive grants and rebates that would offset some project expenditures. He explained that if Council approved, staff would place the City Hall project out for competitive bid and expected to bring back a contract for Council’s consideration at the March 6, 2018 meeting. Ifapproved, staff would move into the old fire station and construction would begin. Construction on the new City Hall was expected to take about a year. City Council, Board and Commission meetings and Municipal Court would take place at the Joint Public Safety Facility during construction. Construction of the new Public Works facility at 2101 West Quincy Avenue in Sheridan was ongoing and was expected to be complete by spring 2018. Redevelopment of John Meade Park and Alan Hutto Memorial Commons would begin in spring 2019 and was anticipated to take a year to complete.

Councilor Brown suggested that the redistribution of funds between the three projects be referred to as charge the share” rather than transfer” funds, She asked if staff was

January 16, 2018 3 City Council Draft Draft Draft confident that the new cost estimate for the Park redevelopment would be accurate for another year when construction began on that project.

City Manager Thorsen confirmed that staff was confident in the new cost estimate, and noted that the original cost estimate for the Park had been reduced after removal of costs for the parking lot, defining details of the playground, and eliminating concrete mow strips along the crushed gravel trails. He added that staff expected to receive grants for the Park project. He stated that the Park redevelopment design was at 50% completion and would be at 90% shortly. He explained that the plans would come to Council first, then to the Parks, Trails and Recreation Commission (PTRC), the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z), and finally back to Council for final review and approval to bid the project.

Councilor Sheldon noted that landscaping contractors would typically hold pricing for three to six months, so the City could bid the project early to lock in a good price.

Katie Anderson and Mall Bartels from Bennett, Wagner and Grody Architects presented more detailed designs to Council.

Councilor Sheldon suggested adding a shorter route from the Council Chambers to the restrooms.

Council discussed wood for the interior of the building and decided on a combination of beetle killpine and a dark wood. They discussed covering on the front counter windows and chose frosted glass. Council provided input to the architects on carpet color.

Mayor Christman opened the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Hearing no comments the public hearing was closed at 8:05 p.m.

Councilor Sheldon moved, seconded by Councilor Brown to accept the 90% construction drawings as shown and authorize City staff to place the City Hall project out for competitive bidding upon 100% completion of construction drawings and specifications.

The motion passed unanimously.

Resolution 2, Series 2018; Ratifying the License Agreement Signed by the City Manager Between the Denver Board of Water Commissioners and the City of Cherry Hills Village for the Installation of a Potable Water Line

Deputy City Manager/Director Goldie presented Resolution 2, Series 2018 for Council’s consideration. He explained that on December 19, 2017, City Manager Jim Thorsen signed the License Agreement with Denver Water allowing the City to install a new sanitary sewer line within a Denver Water easement for service to the Public Works facility at 2101 West Quincy Avenue. The License Agreement was time sensitive due to january 16, 2018 4 City Council Draft Draft Draft ongoing construction and the City Council’s ratification tonight was to memorialize the acceptance of this Agreement.

City Clerk Smith explained that staff had mistakenly written the resolution for a water line instead of a sewer line and would make the necessary changes.

Councilor Brown moved, seconded by Councilor Weil to approve Resolution 2, Series 2018, ratifying the license agreement signed by the City Manager between the Denver Board of Water Commissioners and the City of Cherry Hills Village for the installation of a sanitary sewer line for the property located at 2101 West Quincy Avenue, Sheridan, Colorado.

The motion passed unanimously.

Resolution 3, Series 2018; Initiating the Process to Vacate the Bridle Path Easement Between Lots 3 and 4, Olson Subdivision

Deputy City Manager/Director Goldie presented Resolution 3, Series 2018 for Council’s consideration. He explained that staff had been working with the property owners of the four lots located within the Olson Subdivision to solve a number of issues regarding drainage, encroachments and bridle paths. The proposed agreement between the City, lot owners, their respective engineers and attorneys would meet the needs of all four lots regarding drainage and the City’s desire to have a more connected trail system. Resolution 3, Series 2018 would allow staff to begin the process of vacating a bridle path easement. The plan included the dedication of a new bridle path easement that would complete a link between an existing bridle path and Belleview Avenue.

Council expressed concern about approving the vacation without having the language for the dedication of the new trail easement.

Deputy City Manager/Director Goldie explained that Resolution 3, Series 2018 was simply to initiate the process, and did not approve the vacation. He indicated that the dedication language would be presented along with the vacation to PTRC, P&Z and to Council when staff returned in February.

Councilor Brown asked if staff was confident that the chosen solution would fix the problem.

Deputy City Manager/Director Goldie replied that they were and noted that both the owners’ engineers and the City’s engineer had reviewed the new drainage. He added that the new drainage was completed and had no impact on the trails.

Councilor Sheldon asked ifthis process would impact the City’s discussions regarding trail easements in other areas of the City.

January 16, 2018 5 City Council Draft Draft Draft

City Attorney Michow replied that this process traded one trail easement for another and would improve trail connectivity. She noted that Resolution 3, Series 2018 did not obligate Council to approve the vacation.

Councilor Brown moved, seconded by Councilor Blum to approve Resolution 3, Series 2018; initiating the process to vacate the bridle easement between lots 3 and 4 of the Olson subdivision.

The motion passed unanimously.

Resolution 4, Series 2018; Accepting an Anonymous Donation from a Resident on Behalf of the Cherry Hills Village Police Department

Chief Tovrea presented Resolution 4, Series 2018 for Council’s consideration. She explained that the Police Department had received an unanticipated and generous donation from an anonymous resident in the amount of $10,000. The resident specified that the donation was to be used for the Police Department needs. The City Charter, Section 13.7, titled Bequests, Gifts and Donations, authorized the City Council to receive bequests, gifts and donations of all kinds of property for public, charitable or other purposes and to do all things and acts necessary to carry out the purposes of such bequests, gifts and donations. The Police Department desired to utilize the proceeds of the donation to purchase equipment or for training needs.

Mayor Christman asked ifthe donors would be opposed to acknowledgement of the anonymous donation in the Village Crier.

Chief Tovrea replied that had not been discussed but that her impression was that the residents would prefer no acknowledgement.

Councilor Sheldon asked ifthe donors were involved in any Police Department cases.

Chief Tovrea replied that the donors were not under any investigations and the Police Department had no obligation to the donors. The donors were not asking for anything in return for the donation.

Councilor Gallagher moved, seconded by Councilor Weil to approve Resolution 4. Series 2018; A resolution of the City Council of the City of Cherry Hills Village accepting an anonymous donation from a resident on behalf of the Cherry Hills Police Department.

The motion passed unanimously.

2018 November Election

City Clerk Smith explained that the City would hold its regular municipal election as a coordinated election with Arapahoe County on Tuesday November 6, 2018. She january 16, 2018 6 City Council Draft Draft Draft reviewed the election timeline and stated that the positions on the ballot would be Mayor, District 2 Councilor, District 4 Councilor, and District 6 Councilor. She noted that Mayor Christman Mayor Pro Tern Hoellen, Councilor Gallagher and Councilor Brown were not term limited and all were eligible to run for another term in this election. She asked for direction from Council on any other possible ballot measures that Council might want staff to research in preparation for the November 2018 election.

Council had no ballot measures to discuss.

REPORTS

Mayor’s Report

Mayor Christman had no report.

Members of City Council

Councilor Weil had no report.

Councilor Gallagher had no report.

Mayor Pro Tem Hoellen had no report.

Councilor Brown had no report.

Councilor Sheldon had no report.

Councilor Slum reported that staff was receiving no response from CDOT regarding the proposed traffic light at Glenmoor.

City Manager Thorsen noted that CDOT has had the report for six weeks and that he would follow up with them.

Members of City Boards and Commissions

None

City Manager & Staff

City Manager Thorsen reported that construction of the new Public Works facility at 2101 West Quincy Avenue in Sheridan was on schedule.

City Attorney

january 16, 2018 7 City Council Draft Draft Draft

City Attorney Michow reported that she had not heard back regarding the High Line Canal underpass at Hampden and would follow up with the Denver City Attorney’s office.

EXECUTIVE SESSION AND ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Pro Tern Hoellen moved, seconded by Councilor Brown to go into Executive Session pursuant to CR5 24-6-402(4)(b) for purposes of receiving legal advice and pursuant to CR5 24-6-402(4)(e) for purposes of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators regarding Maven Properties v. Cherry Hills Village; and pursuant to CR5 24-6-402(4)(b) for purposes of receiving legal advice regarding Stuart Kritzer and Janet Kritzer v. City of Cherry Hills Village and Qwest Corporation lawsuit; and adjourn immediately thereafter.

The following votes were recorded:

Weil yes Gallagher yes Hoellen yes Brown yes Sheldon yes Blum yes

Vote on the Executive Session: 6 ayes. 0 nays. The motion carried.

The Executive Session began at 8:35 p.rn.

The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.

Laura Christman, Mayor

Laura Smith, City Clerk

January 16, 2018 8 City Council CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE COLORADO 2450 E. Quincy Avenue Vilkige Cenler Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 Telephone 303-789-2541 www.cherryhillsvil]agecorn FAX 303-761-9386

ITEM: Sb

MEM ORANDUM

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR CHRISTMAN AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL

FROM: JAY GOLDIE, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS

SUBJECT: I-IIGI-IWAYUSER TAX FUNDS (I-IUTF)MILEAGE CERTIFICATION

DATE: FEBRUARY 6.2018

ISSUE Each year the City is required to certify with CDOT the number of miles of roads that are owned and maintained by the City. The Highway User Tax Fund (HUTF) is statutorily defined, state- collected, locally-shared revenue that is distributed monthly among the state, counties and mIlnicipalities.

DISCUSSION Each municipality receives a share of the municipal portion of the HLJTFbased on a formula that takes into account the number of vehicles registered and the center line miles of streets in each municipality relative to the same data in other municipalities. Generally, eighty percent (80%) of the distribution is based on the number of vehicles registered and twenty percent (20%) on the center line miles of streets in a community. Each municipality’s percentage share is calculated annually in July and is based on: 1) the previous year’s vehicle registration figure, as certified by the Department of Revenue to the State Treasurer, and 2) the previous year’s miles of open, used and maintained streets as certified to the Treasurer by CDOT, which uses data from each entity’s Annual Certification of the Condition and Mileage Report.

BUDGET IMPACT In 2017. the City received approximately S225.967.00 from the HUTF. In 2018, it is estimated that this income will be $240,861.00. Staff has reviewed the certification sheet provided by CDOT and verified that the information provided on the Citys streets is correct.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve the December 31. 2017 HUTF Certification for the City of Cherry Hills Village. This Certification is required for the City to receive Highway and User Tax Funds through the State of Colorado. RECOMMENDED MOTION “I move to approve the Highway User Tax Funds Certification as presented by staff and authorize the Mayor to sign on behalf of the City of Cherry Hills ViLlage.”

ATTACHMENT Exhibit A: HUTF Signature Page EXHIBIT A

Colorado Department of Transportation 1/16/2018 Cherry HillsVillage Signature Sheet FIPS Code: 13845

5.68 mires of arterial streets 44.18 miles of local streets 4985 total miles of HUT. eligible streets

1.38 mites of non HUT. eligible streets - Maintained by others

0 miles of non H.U T. eligible streets - Not maintained

F This mileage is the certified total as of December 31, 2017

of I declare under penalty of perjury in the second degree, and any other The Colorado Department Transportation can contact the following applicable state or federal laws, that the statements made on this person with questions regarding this report: document are true and complete to the best of my knowledge 33-783-373/ Mayor Date Name1 Phone

Submit this signed copy with your annual mileage change report to City Clerk Date the Colorado Department of Transportation.

We are required to inform you that a penalty of perjury statement is required persuant to section 18-8503 C.R S 2005, concerning the removal of requirements that certain forms be notarized CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE COLORADO 2450 E. Quincy AvenLie Village Center Cherry Hills Village, CC 80113 Telephone 303-789-2541 www.cherryhillsvillagecorn FAX 303-761-9386

ITEM: Sa

MEMORANDUM

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR CHRISTMAN AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL

FROM: RACHEL GRANRATH. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR

SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST BY KENT DENVER SCHOOL FOR EXPANDED USE FOR A NEW UPPER SCHOOL

DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2018

APPLICANT(S): Kent Denver School Semple Brown Design, Architect

LOCATION: 4000 E. Quincy Avenue (see Exhibit A. Vicinity Map)

REQUEST: The applicant, Kent Denver School (“KDS” or “Applicant”) is proposing to construct a new Upper School building of approximately 28,000 square feet which wilLcontain classrooms, administrative spaces, faculty offices, and other building and campus support spaces. The existing upper school building will be remodeled following the completion of the new upper school project in order to provide similar sized classrooms and administrative spaces. The Applicant has represented to the City that it is not proposing an increase in student enrollment at the present time. For application materials see Exhibit C, Letter of Intent, and Exhibit D. Plans.

ZONING, LAND USE & BACKGROUND: The KDS property is zoned R-1. 2 ½-Acre Residential District. Private schools are an allowed use in the R- I zone district provided that such use may be approved, expanded or increased only in accordance with Article XX of Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code. KDS is a private institution with approximately 700 students, grades 6 through 12- The size of the campus is 187.5 acres with much of the land undeveloped. Surrounding zoning and land uses include R- 1. R-2 and R-3 zoned residential properties, Blackmer Common Park (zoned 0-1), and the High Line Canal.

1 CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE COLORADO

Previous expanded use permit approvals for Kent Denver include the foflowjgj • Expanded Use Agreement for Kent Denver School Athletic Field Expansion Project dated April 1, 2003 and recorded in the real property records of Arapahoe County, Colorado on April 4, 2003 at Reception No. 83070319 • Expanded Use Agreement for Kent Denver School Performing Arts Center Expansion Project dated June 7, 2005 and recorded in the real property records of Arapahoe County, Colorado on August 5.2005 at Reception No, B51 15759 • Expanded Use Agreement for Kent Denver School Dining Expansion Project dated March 18, 2010 and recorded in the real property records of Arapahoe County, Colorado on July 12, 2010 at Reception No. D0066 161. • Expanded Use Agreement for Kent Denver School Athletic Field Expansion Project dated April 11, 2012 and recorded in the real property records of Arapahoe County, Colorado on May 11,2012 at Reception No. D2051 194. • Expanded Use Agreement for Kent Denver School Yates Pavilion Gymnasium Project dated October 7, 2013 and recorded in the real property records of Arapahoe County, Colorado on December 30, 2013

The purpose of Article XX of Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code (“Nonprofit Institutions, Private Clubs, Public Recreational Facilities and Nonprofit Recreational Facilities”) is to establish procedures, submittal requirements and review criteria which the City will use to review and consider for approval certain uses, or, as is relevant in this specific case, to review and consider approval of certain expansions or increases to those uses. The procedures and submittal requirements set forth in Article XX of Chapter 16 of the Code apply equally to the original establishment of these types of land uses, and to any request to expand or increase any nonprofit institution, private club, or similar land use, provided that such request seeks a change which satisfies the requirements of Section 16-20-lO(b)( I) —(5) of the Code (generally the alteration of any building or structure by more than 1,000 feet, the modification of parking area(s), the modification of exterior lighting, the addition of new outdoor recreational facilities, or any other increase or modification to the previously approved use that could result in increased traffic or parking demands).

PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT: Notice requirements for public hearings are outlined in Municipal Code Subsection 16-2-40(c). A minimum of 15 days prior to the hearing date, the Applicant was required to mail notice of the hearing to all adjacent property owners by certified mail with return receipt requested and post a public notice sign on the property facing East Quincy Avenue. Notice of the hearing was also published in the January 18, 2018 edition of the Villager Newspaper and was posted on the Village Center notice board and Village website. All notice requirements have been met.

Public Comment: Staff has received written and verbal comments on this project. Please see Exhibit K.

PLANNENG AND ZONING COMMESSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed project on December 12, 2017. The Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Kent Denver Upper School based on the findings set forth in the December 7, 2017 stall report, except for

2 CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE COLORADO criteria number five, dealing with traffic improvements, which the Commission believes should be addressed by City Council in a larger context. See Exhibit L.

STAFF ANALYSIS: City staff has performed an extensive analysis of all aspects of this project to ensure it meets City Code requirements. Staff is recommending approval of the project with the inclusion of specific traffic and right-of-way mitigation measures. All other aspects of the project have been adequately addressed as pail of the site plan review.

Traffic Congestion: Traffic congestion along Quincy Avenue in front of Kent Denver has been a growing concern for many years. The peak hour traffic at the two abutting intersections along Quincy Avenue have slowly reached unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS). LOS is a letter code ranging from “A” to “F” used to measure traffic congestion, with “A” meaning excellent traffic flow and “F” meaning failing. The current LOS at the existing two intersections during peak hours are as follows:

• Quincy Aye! Colorado Blvd = LOS (D/E)* • Quincy Aye! Main KDS Driveway = LOS (E/E)* * (AM/PM)

The traffic congestion is caused by a number of factors including traffic related to Kent Denver and Cherry Hills Elementary schools, school start times, residential commuter traffic, increased

“cut-through” traffic, entrance driveway/roadway configurations. . and ambient regional growth. The existing LOS at KDS’s main driveway is already at an E during peak travel hours and through this application should be considered for traffic improvements.

Need for Traffic Mitigation: During current AM peak hour, KDS traffic accounts for approximately 63% of the vehicle turning movements at Quincy Avenue and their main driveway. The proposed new Upper School consists of adding 28,000 sq. ft. of building to the campus. In 2017, a new KDS Middle School building was approved and is now under construction. The Middle School added a net gain of 22,000 sq. ft. to the campus. Collectively, both additions will total 50,000 square feet to the KDS campus. Staff is recommending KDS implement traffic mitigation due to their new construction and their existing and potential future impacts.

The Applicant has represented to the City that they are not planning to increase student enrollment at KDS beyond their current 700 students. KDS is limited to a student enrollment cap of 805 students as agreed upon in the March 21, 2017 Development Agreement. Therefore, KDS could decide at any rime to increase enrollment by an additional 100 students and increase associated teaching/administration staff without triggering any further review by the City. It is noted that the 805-student cap could be increased further by an approval of a new Development Agreement by the City Council. It is estimated that 100 new students could generate 100-200 new vehicle trips during peak hour. Any additional vehicle trips without traffic mitigation would exacerbate the existing traffic conditions and lower the LOS.

3 CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE COIORADO

Aside from increased student enrollment and although unlikely, KDS could sell the property to another school, college or other third party who could use the campus at the current building occupant load versus the current KDS student enrollment level. Any new occupant would not he subject to the cap on student enrollment through the Development Agreement the City has with Kent Denveiz Therefore, depending upon usage, the KDS property could generate significant future traffic increases.

Finally, in addition, with the building expansion, KDS could expand other uses on the site without increasing student enrollment. For example: increases in summer camp activities, athletic events, special events, guest students, or joint shared use of facilities by other users.

Due to these concerns, this Expanded Use Permit application will likely’be the only time in the next several yeats that the City could require traffic mitigation as a condition of approval.

Level of Service and Mitigation Options: Staff required the Applicant to provide a detailed traffic study looking at the two main intersections on Quincy Avenue that abut the KDS property. Matrix Design Group was hired by KDS and provided the original report dated October 5,2017. The City has received several updates and additional data from Matrix since that time (See Exhibit E). The City hired Kimley-Horn and Associates to conduct a 3’ party review of the repors and provide the City with any additional data as requested.

After an extensive review of several mitigation options (see full Matrix Design Group traffic study, Exhibit E), the City’s traffic engineering consultant and staff believe the best option for the City is to provide for a long-term traffic solution that provides the greatest flexibility for improving traffic conditions based on KDS’s traffic impacts. Staff is recommending that KDS realign their main entry driveway to Colorado Boulevard and install a 4-way stop controlled intersection. This would take two intersections in close proximity experiencing longer traffic delays and improve it to be just one intersection, thereby improving traffic operations of the area. This option would require a Uniformed Traffic Control (UTC) officer in the AM peak hour to improve the LOS to an acceptable level. A UTC at Colorado Boulevard would have much greater sight visibility than at the existing KDS entry. As a secondary option, in lieu of a 4-way stop controlled intersection at Colorado Boulevard, a roundabout could be installed. This roundabout would eliminate the need for a UTC officer and provide excellent LOS at that location. However, due to the cost of the roundabout, this option has a lower priority. Of note, Kent Denver School would be contributing 54% of the traffic through this realigned four leg intersection of Quincy Avenue and Colorado Boulevard.

4 CHERRY Huts VILLAGE COLORADO

Quincy/KDS Quincy/Colo Kent Denver main entry City Projected Option Description Blvd LOS Projected Cost LOS Cost Estimate (AMJPM) (AMJPM) Jstimate Realignment of KDS entry 5585.000 $782,000 I to Cob. Blvd and a 4-way D/E + $18,000 UTC + $18,000 UTC stop at Cob. Blvd. Realignmentof KDS entry 2 to Cob. Blvd and a C/C $1.12 mil $1.86 mil roundabout at Cob. Blvd. $l.86mi1+ Delay improvementsup to $l.l2inil+ DIF EIE inflation costs inflation 10-years costs + $18,000 UTC + $18,000 UTC 4 Status Quo D/F E/E S18,000/yr $18,000/yr *With Uniform Traffic Control Officer, the Level of Service = DID at 4-way stop Table 1 — Traffic Improvement Option Summary

Staff has met with KDS staff on multiple occasions to discuss various traffic improvement options. See Exhibit F for Traffic Improvement option plans as described in Table 1. Kent Denver has provided a rough cost estimate for traffic improvements as shown in Exhibit G. Additionally. the City’s Traffic Engineer has also provided a rough cost estimate for said improvements, please reference Exhibit H. While there are a number of ways to improve the traffic conditions. staff is providing a total of four options to be considered by City Council. Two options above include requiring KDS to agree to realignment upon written notice from the City that the City intends to close down access from Quincy to their main driveway, while the last option is to keep all intersections at status quo. This last option would not provide mitigation from KDS but would require any future mitigation to be funded by the City.

Kent Denver has provided Council with an article from December 24, 2017 from the New York Times, titled “Navigation Apps Are Turning Quiet Neighborhoods into Traffic Nightmares.” Please see Exhibit M.

CODE REQUIREMENTS: Article XX of the City’s Zoning Ordinance governs the establishment and expansion of nonprofit institutions, private clubs, public recreational facilities, and nonprofit recreational facilities. Under Section 16-20-40 of the Municipal Code, the Council is required to review the application at a public hearing to determine whether the application meets the requirements of the Article XX of Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code, based on the application and evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Council may recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the application. Section 16-20- 40(l)(b) of the Code also authorizes the Council to continue the matter to a date and time certain pending the provision of further information,

The seven (7) review criteria for a request submitted under Article XX of Chapter 16 of the Municipal Code are set forth in Section l6-20-l0(c)(1) —(7) of the Code. Each of these review

5 ______

CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE COLORADO criteria, along with Staff’s analysis and recommending finding with respect to each criterion, are summarized in the following General Standards Review section.

GENERAL STANDARDS REVIEW: Section 16-20-10(c) of the Code states, in relevant part, that “[a]ll requests submitted under this Article XX shall be evaluated based on the following general standards:

General Standards Review (1) The proposed use is consistent with and furthers or implements the goals and strategies of the Master Plan, including preservation of the semi-rural character of the City. Finding: Affirmative. Staff finds that the proposed new Upper School building meets the goals and strategies outlined in the City’s Master Plan and is consistent in design and implementation with the preservation of semi-rural character. This project is centrally located on KDS campus and protects open space adjacent to neighboring single-family properties. The building conforms to all zoning regulations, such as height, setbacks, and bulk plane.

(2) Theproposed use complies with all applicable City ordinances and is consistent with all other Citypolicies and plans. Finding: Affirmative. The proposed project complies with City ordinances and policies. Additionally, the applicant will have to meet all applicable codes at the time of building permit submittal for review.

(3) The bulk and scale of any proposed design is compatible with the site and the character of the surrounding area. Finding: Affirmative. The proposed Upper School building is compatible with setbacks, bulk plane. and fits the overall campus design and layout.

(4) Drainage and transportation systems are designed to encourage the use of natural ,naterials and comply with the character of the surrounding area. Finding: Affirmative. As part of last year’s Middle School project, KDS made improvements to both drainage and on-campus transportation systems including an on-site roundabout. There are additional drainage improvements being made as part of this application in order to account for the now fully designed Upper School, (5) The proposed use will not result in unreasonable traffic congestion or create a safety hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic and adequate provisions will be provided to manage any traffic-related issues. Finding: Negative without conditions of approval to mitigate adverse traffic impacts.

Staff has provided council with a few options to mitigate traffic congestion. Staff is recommending Option I as it is felt this mitigation will provide for an improved overall LOS through this region and will enhance traffic and pedestrian safety while maintaining the rural character of the Village.

Option I: Realignment of KDS Entrance to Quincy Avenue/Colorado Boulevard Prior to and as a condition of the City’s issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new Upper School Building, Kent Denver shall comply with the following conditions of approval:

6 CHERRY HII±s VILLAGE COLORADO

a. Kent Denver shall eliminate and remove the Entry Road and design and construct, at its sole expense, the Realigned Entry Road on the Proper y and the necessary intersection improvements at East Quincy Avenue and Colorado Boulevard in general conformance with Exhibit F to establish a four-way (stop sign) controlled intersection (“Quincy-Colorado Intersection Improvements”). Kent Denver shall be responsible for all costs associated with the Realigned Entry Road and the Quincy-Colorado Intersection Improvements, including design and construction of traffic control devices, curb, trail reconstruction, drainage and other associated improvements as set forth in an engineer’s cost estimate and construction documents to be prepared by Kent Denver and reviewed and approved by the City in accordance with all applicable building and construction standards and requirements imposed by the City and any other governmental or quasi-governmental entity with jurisdiction. The City is authorized pursuant to its police powers to control ingress and egress from East Quincy Avenue and shall close access to the Entry Road upon City’s acceptance of the Quincy-Colorado Intersection Improvements. b. Kent Denver shall provide at its sole expense a uniformed traffic control officer through the Cherry Hills Village Police Department to direct traffic at the intersection of East Quincy Avenue and the Realigned Entry Road for a minimum one-hour period during peak morning hours Monday through Friday during any school year. c. Kent Denver shall dedicate by special warranty deed to the City for right-of-way purposes immediately adjacent to East Quincy Avenue, varying in width from approximately 14’-22’ of its Property asshon on attached Exhibit E of the Development Agreement, Exhibit B of this Staff report. d. Kent Denver shall dedicate to the City an irrevocable right-of-way and trail easement in a form approved by the City Attorney for a future roundabout at the intersection of Colorado Boulevard and East Quincy Avenue (“Roundabout”). The City at its sole cost shall design and construct the Roundabout based on the City’s roadway standards, Said easement dimensions shall be reviewed and approved by the City and will generally follow the attached Exhibit G of the Development Agreement, Exhibit B of this Staff report.

Option 2: Realignment of Entrance at KDS Entrance to Ouincv Avenue/Colorado Boulevard and Construct a Roundabout at the Intersection Prior to and as a condition of the City’s issuance of a certificate of occupancy of the new Upper School Building, Kent Denver shall comply with the following conditions of approval: a. Kent Denver shall eliminate and remove the Entry Road and design and construct, at its sole expense. the Realigned Entry Road on the Property. Kent Denver shall also design and construct the intersection improvements at East Quincy Avenue and Colorado Boulevard in general confonnance with Exhibit G of the Development Agreement, Exhibit B of this Staff report, to include a one-lane roundabout (“Roundabout”), associated drainage and trail improvements. Kent Denver shall be responsible for 100% of the costs associated with the design and construction of the Realigned Entry Road on its Property and 50% of the costs to design and construct the Roundabout including survey work, trail reconstruction, drainage and other associated improvements as set forth in an engineers cost estimate and construction documents to be prepared by Kent Denver and reviewed and approved by the City in accordance with all applicable building and construction standards and requirements imposed by the City and any other governmental or quasi-governmental entity with jurisdiction. The City is authorized pursuant to its police powers to control ingress and egress from East Quincy

7 CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE COWRADO

Avenue and shall close access to the Entry Road upon City’s acceptance of the Roundabout improvements. b. Kent Denver shall dedicate to the City necessary right-of-way for the construction of the Roundabout and related improvements as delineated in the construction documents. c. Prior to and as a condition of obtaining a right-of-way permit to commence work on the Roundabout, Kent Denver shall submit construction documents and a construction estimate prepared by a Colorado registered professional engineer for the Roundabout to the City for review and acceptance. Within 60 days of City acceptance of completed construction improvements and approved construction costs, the City will reimburse Kent Denver fifty percent (50%) of the construction costs. d. Kent Denver shall dedicate by special warranty deed to the City for right-of-way purposes immediately adjacent to East Quincy Avenue, varying in width from approximately 14’-22’ of its Property as shown on attached Exhibit E of the Development Agreement, Exhibit B of this Staff report.

Option 3: ReQuire future realignment of KDS driveway within a 10-year time period a. In its sole and exclusive discretion, in furtherance of its police powers, the City may determine to provide alternative access to Kent Denver Property at the intersection of East Quincy Avenue and Colorado Boulevard thereby closing access from East Quincy Avenue to the Entry Road. If the City Council makes such determination by resolution (“City Council Resolution”) within ten (10) years of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Kent Denver shall be responsible for 100% of the costs of the Realigned Entry Road on its Propcrty and its proportionate share of the estimated costs of the improvements to the intersection of East Quincy Avenue and Colorado Boulevard. The improvements to the intersection of East Quincy Avenue and Colorado Boukvard include hut are not ‘imited to: design and construction of four-way controlled (stop sign) intersection, traffic control devices, curb, trail reconstruction, drainage and other associated improvements, in general conformance with Exhibit F of the Development Agreement, Exhibit B of this Staff Report, and as set forth in an engineer’s cosi estimate and construction documents to be prepared by Kent Denver and reviewed and approved by the City in accordance with all applicable building and construction standards and requirements imposed by the City and any other governmental or quasi-governmental entity with jurisdiction (Quincy-Colorado Intersection Improvements”). Upon receipt of such City Council resolution, Kent Denver shall eliminate and remove the Entry Road and design and construct, at its sole expense, the Realigned Entry Road and Quincy-Colorado Intersection Improvements. The City shall provide notice of closure to the Entry Road. Upon receipt of

said notice. KDS shall have 1 year to design, construct and complete the Realigned Entry Road and Quincy-Colorado Intersection Improvements. b. In the event that the City does not adopt a City Council Resolution for relocation of the Entry Road and Quincy-Colorado Intersection Improvements within the prescribed 10-year period, all funds and interest associated with the security shall be released and returned to Kent Denver. c. Kent Denver shall continue to provide, at its sole expense at effective hourly rates, for a uniformed traffic control officer through the Cherry Hills Village Police Department to direct traffic at the intersection of East Quincy Avenue and the school’s main entrance and/or realigned entrance for a minimum one-hour period during peak morning hours Monday through Friday during the school year.

8 CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE COLORADO

d. Kent Denver shall dedicate by special warranty deed to the City for right-of-way purposes immediately adjacent to East Quincy Avenue, varying in width from approximately 14’-22’ of its Property as shown on attached Exhibit E of the Development Agreement, Exhibit B of this Staff report. e. Kent Denver shall dedicate to the City an irrevocable road and trail easement for a future roundabout at the intersection of Colorado Boulevard and Quincy Avenue. Said easement dimensions shall be reviewed and approved by the City and will generally follow’the attached Exhibit G of the Development Agreement, Exhibit B of this Staff repor.

Option 4: “Status-Quo” Continue with Uniformed Traffic Control Officer at existing KDS entrance during peak morning hours a. Kent Denver shall continue to provide a uniform traffic control officer, at its sole expense. for the Entry Road at East Quincy Avenue for a minimum of one-hour period during peak morning hours Monday through Friday, during the school year. h. Kent Denver shall dedicate by special warranty deed to the City for right-of-way purposes immediately adjacent to East Quincy Avenue, varying in width from approximately 14’-22’ of its Property as shown on attached Exhibit E of the Development Agreement, Exhibit B of this Staff report.

(6) Sufficient parking in terms of parking spaces and areas to accommodate parking needs is provided and designed to minimize the impact on the character of the surrounding area. Finding: Affirmative. The Applicant increased total campus parking from 780 spaces to 808 spaces as pail of the Middle School project. KDS currently has a reduction of 18.1% which was lowered from the 2013 Gymnasium project which had a parking reduction of 20.4%. The Upper School proposal reqitests a 20.0% reduction,

Section 16-16-10 oLitlinesthe requirements for the entire site, which would be 1010 spaces. Section 16- 16-10 (c) allows for up to a 50% parking reduction, KDS is not currently planning to increase enrollment and added parking as pail of the Middle School project in order to accommodate both the Middle School and Upper School. KDS wants to maintain the rural openness of the campus, and believes that unnecessary addition of parking takes away from the natural landscape. Staff recommends a 20.0% parking reduction as part of this project (see Table 2).

Kent Denver Parking Analysis -2018

! / 2013 2017 Middle 2018 Upper School Gymnasium School Expansion Expansion Expansion Parking Required 980 986 1010 Parking Provided 780 808 808 Spaces Below Requirement 200 178 202 YrReduction 20.4% 181% 20.0% Table 2—Parking Analysis

(7) Adverse impacts on adjacent properties as a result of the proposed scope of work will be

9 CHERRY HILLS VIlLAGE COLORADO eliminated, mitigated, or reasonably controlled, including but not limited to lighting and noise. Finding: Affirmative. The Upper School is located on the interior of campus adjacent to existing structures, parking lots, and interior roadways. There is very minimal lighting proposed and its landscape, parking or emergency lighting has no adverse impacts on neighboring propel-ties. Additionally, there is no change in use of the building and it will not change or increase noise, hours, or enrollment. If the main entry driveway is relocated to Colorado Boulevard, the closest property to the east would he nearly 1000 feet from the entry and therefore there would be no adverse impact on neighboring properties.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Kent Denver School Expanded Use Permit to construct an approximately 28,000 square-foot new Upper School building with the following conditions as outlined in Option I

Prior to and as a condition of the City’s issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new Upper School Building, Kent Denver shall comply with the following conditions of approval: a. Kent Denver shall eliminate and remove the Entry Road and design and construct, at its sole expense, the Realigned Entry Road on the Property and the necessary intersection improvements at East Quincy Avenue and Colorado Boulevard in general conformance with Exhibit F to establish a four-way (stop sign) controlled intersection (“Quincy Colorado Intersection Improvements”). Kent Denver shall be responsible for all costs associated with the Realigned Entry Road and the Quincy-Colorado Intersection Improvements, including design and construction of traffic control devices, curb, trail reconstruction, drainage and other associated improvements as set forth in an engineer’s cost estimate and construction documents to be prepared by Kent Denver and reviewed and approved by the City in accordance with all applicable building and construction standards and requirements imposed by the City and any other governmentaL or quasi- governmental entity with jurisdiction. The City is authorized pursuant to its police powers to control ingress and egress from East Quincy Avenue and shall close access to the Entry Road upon City’s acceptance of the Quincy-Colorado Intersection Improvements. b. Kent Denver shall provide at its sole expense a uniformed traffic control officer throtigh the Cherry Hills Village Police Department to direct traffic at the intersection of East Quincy Avenue and the Realigned Entry Road for a minimum one-hour period during peak morning hours Monday through Friday during any school year. c. Kent Denver shall dedicate by special warranty deed to the City for right-of-way purposes immediately adjacent to East Quincy Avenue, varying in width from approximately 14’- 22’ of its Property as shown on attached Exhibit E of the Development Agreement, Exhibit B of this Staff report. d, Kent Denver shall dedicate to the City an irrevocable right-of-way and trail easement in a form approved by the City Attorney for a future roundabout at the intersection of Colorado Boulevard and East Quincy Avenue (“Roundabout”). The City at its sole cost shall design and construct the Roundabout based on the City’s roadway standards. Said easement dimensions shall be reviewed and approved by the City and will generally

10 CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE COLORADO

follow the attached Exhibit G of the Development Agreement, Exhibit B of this Staff report.

RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move to approve the Kent Denver School Development Agreement and Expanded Use Permit and to construct an approximately 28,000 square-foot new Upper School building to City Council based on the findings set forth in the February 6,2018 staff report and subject to the conditions of approval as outlined in Option 1 of the staff report and Option I of the development agreement.”

ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Vicinity Map Exhibit B: Development Agreement Exhibit C: Letter of Intent Exhibit D: Plans Exhibit E: Traffic Study Exhibit F: Traffic Option Exhibits Exhibit G: Traffic Improvement Preliminary Cost Estimates: Kent Denver Consultant Exhibit H: Traffic Improvement Preliminary Cost Estimates: City Traffic Engineer Kimley Horn Exhibit I: Drainage Report

Exhibit J: Agency Review Letter — ICON Engineering, dated December 8, 2017 Exhibit K: Public Comment Exhibit L: Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes: December 12, 2017 Exhibit M: December 24, 2017, New York limes Article “Navigation Apps Are Turning Quiet Neighborhoods into Traffic Nightmares”

11 0-I. Co,’aaanty cskid IC-Z LaMed Ccn,eda S*Id Open Space Parks aid Reaeaton flea C4s*id 2 Open Space. C&seea5 and Ktc& flea ,1 Mi. 2 ia#cre R.n,&nlnd Diatict 2 I lid -AcreResdeniaI flaccid

R 3. I AcreRestdenM Dsnd R-3&VnaiabItLMRe4idenbaIDhict t R 4 142-Ann Recadensal Dafriri L eec EXHIBIT B

CITY OF CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE, COLORADO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT KENT DENVER SCHOOL UPPER SCHOOL BUILDING PROJECT

THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into and made between KENT DENVER SCHOOL, a Colorado nonprofit corporation, whose address is 4000 East Quincy Avenue, Cherry Hills Village, Colorado 80113, hereinafter referred to as “Kent Denver,” and the CITY OF CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE, COLORADO, a home rule municipality of the State of Colorado, whose address is 2450 East Quincy Avenue, Cherry 1-lills Village, Colorado 80113, hereinafter referred to as the “City.” Kent Denver and the City shall collectively be referred to as the “Parties.”

This Agreement shall be effective following execution by Kent Denver and immediately upon the date of the authorized execution of this Agreement by the City’s Mayor or Mayor Pro Tern (such date being here in after referred to as “Effective Date”).

RECITALS AND PRESENTATIONS:

WHEREAS, Kent Denver represents that it is the sole owner of the following described property located in the City of Cherry Hills Village, County of Arapahoe. State of Colorado:

The Kent Denver School campus commonly addressed and known as 4000 East Quincy Avenue. Cherry Hills Village, Colorado, and as more particularly described in the legal description attached as Exhibit A: such Kent Denver School campus in its entirety hereinafter generally referred to as the “Property.”

WHEREAS, Kent Denver is planning the development and1or improvement of a portion of the Property including the construction of a new Upper School building of approximately 28,000 square feet, as more thoroughly described in an application for approval of an expanded use or expansion of use submitted on or about October 18, 2017, such application being authorized by Article XX. Chapter 16 of the City Code (collectively, the “Application” or “Upper School Project”); and

WHEREAS, Kent Denver represents it is not increasing student enrollment or hiring additional faculty with the modification to the Property proposed by the Application; and

WHEREAS, Kent Denver’s stated purpose for the Upper School Project is to relicve overcrowding of classrooms and add office space: and

WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 16-16-120 of the City Code. Kent Denver has submitted to the City a traffic impact study dated December 1, 2017 and prepared by Matrix Design Group traffic engineering (“Traffic Study”); and

WHEREAS, the Traffic Study concludes that the increase in square footage as well as the current student enrollment contributes to a peak morning traffic level of service (LOS) F between the hours of 7:15 — 8:15 am.; and

WHEREAS, although the Traffic Study further concludes that traffic mitigation measures are not required at the intersection of East Quincy Avenue and the main entrance to the Property

1 (“Entry Road”) and that the East Quincy Avenue and Entry Road intersection will operate at a similar level of service (LOS) as existing conditions, the City and Kent Denver mutually acknowledge and agree that improvements to the intersection of the Entry Road and East Quincy Avenue and East Quincy Avenue and Colorado Boulevard are reasonable conditions to be imposed by the City in consideration of its approval of the Application and that such requirements are necessary to protect, promote, and enhance the public welfare; and

WHEREAS, in conformance with Section 16-20-50(10) of the City Code, a development agreement shall be entered into between Kent Denver and the City defining terms and conditions of approval; and

WHEREAS, Kent Denver voluntarily agrees to the conditions of approval imposed by City Council as memorialized in this Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to document and memorialize the terms and conditions that will govern the development and the future operation of the Property and the Upper School Prolect.

NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and agreements to the Parties, the approval by the City of Cherry Hills Village of the Application, and other good and valuable considerations, the sufficiency and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged by the Parties, the Parties agree as follows:

1.0 DEFINITIONS.

“Application” shall mean the application for the approval of an Expanded Use submitted to the City by Kent Denver on or about October 18, 2017, including supporting plans, documents, mapping, drawings, landscape plans, and other illustrations titled “Kent Denver School Upper School Building” (“Upper School Project”).

“City Code” shall mean the Municipal Code for the City of Cherry Hills Village. as the same may be amended from time to time.

“Concurrent Events” shall mean two or more meetings, assemblies, plays, concerts, games, tournaments, lectures, sporting events, or other special events that occur on the Property on the same day with overlapping times.

“Entry Road” shall mean the main ingress and egress driveway to Kent Denvcr from East Quincy Avenue existing as of the Effective Date of this Agreement.

“Project Area” shall mean that portion of the Kent Denver Property subject to the Application involving the development and/or improvement of a portion of the Property for the Upper School Project.

“Realigned Entry Road” shall mean the driveway to be constructed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement that shall serve as the main ingress and egress to Kent Denver from East Quincy Avenue generally terminated at the intersection of East Quincy Avenue and South Colorado Boulevard.

2 “Special Event” shall mean any event on the Kent Denver campus that meets all of the following criteria (1) occurs or is conducted outside of regular school hours (typically non-holiday dates, Monday through Friday, 8:00 am. to 3:00 p.m.); and (2) is reasonably expected to result in the use of 75% or more of the permeant parking spaces located within the Event Area: and (3) at which the attendance is reasonably expected to exceed 800 people.

“Upper School Project” shall mean the Application, as defined above.

2.0 USE AND OPERATION OF KENT DENVER PROPERTY.

2.1 Parking Requirements and Reduction Granted. Minimum parking space requirements are imposed by Section 16-16-10(h) of the City Code. Kent Denver’s Application proposes that the Property, incliLdingthe Project Area, be served by 808 total parking spaces, which is less than the minimum number of 1010 parking spaces required by the City Code. Based on representations made by Kent Denver during the public hearing on the Application, the findings made by the City Council concerning the proposed use of the Project Area, and Kent Denver’s compliance with this Agreement, the City Council hereby grants a reduction in the minimum required number of parking spaces as authorized by Section 16-16-10(c) of the City Code and approves a minimum of 808 spaces to serve the Property. Following the Effective Date of this Agreement, no reduction in parking spaces below 808 spaces shall be permitted except upon approval of a new application for expandcd use proceeding in accordance with Article XX. Chapter 16 of the City Code, as amended from time to time. A parking analysis completed by Kent Denver in conjunction with the Application and reviewed by City Staff is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit H and is incorporated herein by reference. Following the Effective Date of this Agreement. no further use or expansion of the Property shall occur that will cause the approved parking reduction to exceed twenty percent (20%) without subsequent review and approval of the proposed parking reduction by City Council, in accordance with Secüon 16-16-10(c) and Article XX, Chapter 16 of the City Code.

2.2 Traffic Management Plan. Kent Denver shall update and implement the “Traffic and Parking Management Plan” (the “Plan”) that was submitted with Kent Denver’s Expanded Use application for the construction of new athletic fields in 2002 and reconfirmed with Kent Denver’s Expanded Use application for construction of the Performing Arts Center in 2005. A copy of the updated Plan is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit C and is incorporated herein by reference. The Parties understand and agree that Kent Denver’s continued compliance with the Plan constitutes, in part. justification for City Council’s grant of a reduction in the off- street parking requirements as authorized by Section 16-16-10(c) of the City Code.

2.3 Limitation on Concurrent Events. Kent Denver shall not program. schedule or conduct Concurrent Events that will cause the parking demands for each Concurrent Event to exceed the parking capacity based on the requirement of three (3) occupants to one (1) parking space within a ¼ mile radius of each Concurrent Event. For example. Kent Denver shall not hold a musical performance in the El Pomar Theater

-I .3 and also host a special event in the Upper School Building if each event is expected to fill all parking spaces within a ¼ mile radius of each Concurrent Event.

2.4 Traffic Control Required. Kent Denver shall provide, at its sole expense at then effective hourly rates, for a uniformed traffic control officer through the Cherry Hills Village Police Department to direct traffic at the intersection of East Quincy Avenue and the Entry Road or Realigned Entry Road for a minimum three-hour period during any event at the Property that is expected to conclude any time between 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday during the school year and which is expected to exceed 500 attcndees. Events requiring a uniformed traffic control officer shall not exceed ten (10) events per calendar year. However, additional events requiring traffic control will be allowed when there is available Police Department staff

2.5 Public and Traffic Improvements. As a condition of approval of the Application, Kent Denver agrees to comply with and implement traffic improvements as outlined in Exhibit D

2.6 Mailed Notice Required for Special Events, Kent Denver shall mail via regular U.S. Mail (or comparable delivery service such as hand delivery or private commercial courier) written notice of each Special Event not less than 30 days before the date of such Special Event. Such notice shall be provided to each residential property located either immediately adjacent to the Kent Denver property or adjacent to a public or private street or drive adjacent to the Kent Denver property. Notice shall include the name, date, and approximate times of each Special Event, together with any other information deemed desirable by Kent Denver. A single notice may include or combine notice of any number of Special Events during the school year or during a given period of time.

2.7 General Public Notice of Other Events Encouraged. Kent Denver is encouraged to provide a schedule or other form of list or information identifying events planned or proposed for the Upper School Project that may result in traffic. parking. or attendance in excess of that experienced during customary or typical day-to-day school operations. Such schedule or notice is encouraged to be posted on a publicly available worldwide web site.

2.8 Construction of Upper School Project/Building Permit. Kent Denver shall construct the Upper School Project proposed by the Application in accordance with all applicable laws, including the adopted uniform building. construction, fire, and safety codes of the City of Cherry Hills Village. Kent Denver shall commence construction of the Upper School Project as evidenced by the City’s issuance of a building permit within one hundred eighty (180) days of the Effective Date.

2.9 Restriction on Use of Stadium Facility: Kent Denver shall use the Stadium and Athletic Field for activities or events at which Kent Denver, its students, facility and staff are participants, attendees or are joint-participants with other non-Kent Denver teams or organizations. Kcnt Denver shall not lease, rent, loan license, grant. or otherwise provide the use of the Stadium and Athletic Field for activities unrelated to Kent Denver.

4 2.10 Exterior Lighting. The proposed lighting associated with the Upper School Project must comply with all applicable provisions of the City Code, including the provisions applicable to lighting of parking areas for public, semipublic, commercial or other nonresidential areas as set forth in Section 16-16-20 of the City Code. ]n accordance with Section 16-16-20(c)(5) of the City Code, lights in parking areas shall he off between 11:00 p.m. and sunrise the next day; however, during the summer, outside of the normal school year, lights will be turned off by 9 p.m. except during special events.

2.11 Noise. Kent Denver’s use of the Project Area shall comply with applicable noise and/or nuisance regulations of the City of Cherry Hills Village. as now existing or as may be later amended or adopted by the City.

2.12 Landscaping. Kent Denver shall install and maintain in a living and healthy condition all landscaping described in this and previous Applications. Any dead. diseased, or unhealthy landscaping materials shall be promptly replaced with materials of like kind and size.

2.13 Construction Times. Kent Denver shall comply with the restrictions on construction times set forth in Section 18-10-60 of the City Code.

2.14 “Will Serve” Letters. Kent Dcnver shall submit to the City “will serve” letters from all applicable utility providers in compliance with Section 16-20-50(8) prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of the Upper School Project.

2.15 Phase III Drainage Repoft Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the Upper School Project, Kent Denver shall resolve any remaining technical issues associated with the Phase Ill Drainage Report dated December 4, 2017 as submitted as part of the Application, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

2.16 Expanded Use Permit Trigger. If Kent Denver enrollment ever exceeds 805 students, Kent Denver shall submit to and receive approval from the City for an expanded use permit in accordance with the City Code.

3.0 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

3.1 Delays. The Parties have cxecuted this Agreement such that completion of the improvements shall be subject to strikes, accidents. acts of God, weather conditions which justift a delay of construction in light of standard practices in the building profession, inability to secure labor, fire regulations or restrictions imposed by any government or governmental agency, or other delay resulting from events which are beyond the control of the delaying party and which are agreed to by the Parties as justifying delay.

3.2 Waiver. A waiver by any Party to this Agreement of the breach of any term or provision of this Agreement shall not operate or be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach by either Party.

3.3 No Waiver of Government Immunity. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to waive, limit or otherwise modify any governmental immunity that may be

5 available by law to the City of Cherry Hills Village, its officials, employees, contractors, or agents, or any other person acting on behalf of the City and, in particular, governmental immunity afforded or available pursuant to the Colorado

Governmental Immunity Act, Title 24, Article 10, Part 1 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.

3.4 Binding Effect. The Parties hereto agree that this Agreement, by its terms, shall be binding upon the successors, heirs, legal representatives, and assigns thereof and shall constitute covenants running with the Property. To the extent permitted by law, all Kent Denver and all future successors, heirs, legal representatives, and assigns of Kent Denver shall be jointly and severally responsible for all terms, conditions, and obligations set forth in this Agreement.

3.5 No Third Party Beneficiaries. It is expressly understood and agreed that enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to the City and Kent Denver. and nothing contained in this Agreement shall give or allow any such claim or right of action by any other third person on such Agreement. It is the express intention of the City and Kent Denver that any person other than the City or Kent Denver receiving services or benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed to be an incidental beneficiary only.

3.6 Remedies arid Enforcement. Any activity or use of the Property that does not comply with the terms of this Agrecmcnt constitutes a violation of the City’s approval of the expanded use permit and a violation of the City Code. In addition to any other rights or remedies provided by law. the City may initiate any one or more of the following actions: (1) delay processing of any pending land use application: (2) issue stop work orders: (3) refuse to issue or approve any land development permit including but not limited to building permits. right-of-way permits. or certificates of occupancy: (4) issue a citation to Kent Denver or any contractor for violating the requirements of the City Code: or (5) initiate legal proceedings in any appropriate court of law.

3.7 Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado. Venue for any action arising from this Agreement shall lie with any appropriate court within Arapahoe County, Colorado.

3.8 Attorney’s Fees. If Kent Denver breaches this Agreement. Kent Denver shall pay the City’s reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred in the enforcement of the terms. conditions, and obligations of the Agreement.

3.9 Assignment and Release. All or part of the rights, duties. obligations, responsibilities. or benefits set forth in this Agrcement shall not be assigned by Kent Denver without the express written consent of the City of Cherry Hills Village which consent may he withheld at the City’s discretion for any or no reason.

3.10 Paragraph Captions. The captions of the paragraphs are set forth only for the convenience and reference of the Parties and are not intended in any way to define, limit or describe the scope or intent of this Agreement.

6 3.11 Severability. Invalidation of any of the provisions of this Agreement or any paragraph sentence, clause, phrase, or word herein or the application thereof in any given circumstance shall not affect the validity of any othcr provision of this Agreement.

3.12 Integration and Amendment. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the Parties concerning this Application and there are no oral or collateral agreements or understandings concerning this Application. This Agreement shall supersede the following previously approved development agreements between the City and Kent Denver, including but not Limitedto: (a) the Expanded Use Agreement for Kent Denver School Athletic Field Expansion Project dated April 1, 2003 and recorded in the real property records of Arapahoe County, Colorado (“County) on April 4. 2003 at Reception No. B3070319. as amended by that certain Amended Expanded Use Agreement for Kent Denver School Athletic Field Expansion Project dated April 11,2012 and recorded in the real property records of the County on \4av 11. 2012 at Reception No. D2051194: (h) the Expanded Lse Agreement for Kent Denver School Performing Arts Center Expansion Project dated June 15. 2005 and recorded in the real property records of the County on August 5. 2005 at Reception No. 5249337:(c) the Expanded Use Agreement for Kent Denver School Dining Expansion Project dated March 18. 2010 and recorded in the real property records of the County on July 12. 2010 at Reception No. D0066161; and (d) the Development Agreement for the Kent Denver School Yates Pavilion Gymnasium Project dated October], 2013 and recorded in the real property records of the County on December 30, 2013 at Reception No. D3152848 (together, the “Prior Development Agreements”). This Agreement may be amended only by an instrument in writing signed by the Parties.

3.13 Incorporation of Exhibits. Unless otherwise stated in this Agreement, exhibits referenced in this Agreement shall be incorporated into this Agreement for all purposes. Application materials, construction plans. plats, and other documentation referenced in this Agreement are public records on file and available for review at the City of Cherry Hills Village, Village Center, 2450 East Quiney Avenue. Cherry Hills Village, Colorado. 3.14 Review of Referenced Documents. Kent Denver hereby understands and acknowledges that the public documents referenced in this Agreement. including but not limited to the City Code. were, prior to the execution of this Agreement, and are presently, available for review and inspection at the Cherry Hills Village City Hall. 2450 East Quincv Avenue. Cherry Hills Village, Colorado during regular business hours. Kent Denver has reviewed such documentation, or elected not to review such documentation, prior to execution of this Agreement.

3.15 Notices. Any notice required or permitted by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been sufficiently given for all purposes if sent by United States Mail, postage and fees prepaid. addressed to the party to whom such notice is to be given at the mailing address for such party. or at such other address as has been previously furnished in writing, to the other party or parties. Such notice shall be deemed to have been given when deposited in the United States Mail.

7 ______

3.16 Authority. The undersigned signatories represent that they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of their organizations and to contractually bind their respective organizations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date(s) set forth below.

CITY OF CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE, a Colorado home rule municipal corporation

By: Mayor Laura Christman

Date of execution: ,2018

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Laura Smith. City Clerk Linda Michow, City Attorney

8 ______.

KENT DENVER SCHOOL, a Colorado nonprofit corporation

By:

Printed Name:

Title/Position:

STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF

Acknowledged before me this day of .2018. by as of Kent Denver School. a Colorado nonprofit corporation.

\otarv Public

My Commission Expires:

(SEAL)

9 EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

raIft#IIqMMzriEuhatTpa1Ie1wu*nlTorwnpa(Il&eaaat IMINRFSOI 114Wi I& 1ilITNUST W*fl)II IL flIIbPtIilIkIMfl iUtiN!ItE il iAiHfltIUfl JUN.* PMnmAstt ewi Uffl!. IIOI$WAT¶WtWIfl EUI ffWIfl NS4$tIifl Mid UMtttc t14rw,*eg IUU* Mci IWTTIIM371 UWTUKIC*EW Mfl W1TNIMITSI CRW?IMOW, hall&irNaagMwrnnutnncw IWlf1IT. tIE lWrflhlWfft Mtl IINWII4ThIU flGlCiLUT 7*UIWMMI UIWTIIWYIIL 1naHnRI,I4nlmi,w;I IJ*SUOW.UIML M.aacmiflsnx14tu, lrsmL eu,, II tiUt 3TIIllUtt lt1(I1N Uflhlt, Ia4T MYW( WIll! HalLRCWL MiUatMC1(1l*lt34UI Lilt *IT, ,amlflxnezll TUUWV 114MW P1ias ii i.,Ina nit qzi iffy. ) TI1W I_i U 1I1 IWfl WTC lift IUTNIU fl@Bct ItIThS Naftn WSS1MWt 4J 1111T1IMWHAJI flM riflU I 1(Iill RflUil, nnqennns4etuhIg(nwT flWTN il(flhlcitNflilC IWIIDIN SMI. TCIRTI2flUIIDIISTN•OIIfl*TI T*LOT. IiiItinrkui*IantnrnarariuimWI Itul I41fllIfKtNIII!TJ Iliji T- hi JSI4D*T I14JTI Hrdtn .lel’mnwlw. aria 41*114*1(0* .-i T MW, IWWaI*1tIfl 4u3N1*t lUL*tIalh,i,JJ,lt,. MsuaNa41m1tawaxNla*m,.l Flu. MlMTw*zulcwTt1*wt.,uuDwBnhirFm*mcLI,4lILRr. rfli4N4i4I WQJUI XSrBIOI unmgrm IfliA4lUIW4*tj MW, M,flS.PM423I4FrnI4iuUSTIztN.aHutt TWIIfl4KIIL4 1ITU I 4111 mu Fill. IWNUShlI 11Iw1l1 I1Ifl3Jl4fl11Sll1hiti IncMiaw,Hr.MwtsliMw,vw,ctm,mIl,nftT. 14&XWUIGW 1*1I %WIjJOICTII ThIIfl lWThUn iii SIl IN ltvnrTaIL 1i,naaMasu&uUh1RmLsr,u,Flnu,wulngw,ia,iyMilTwriQlLIwr4u lflItl$flhjTlInI*StW*LjffflN(L,11, 144 tMIfluRsmlnliLtzuilwF2Iwut £IARl1(flUFuLflsTiKWIIWTft

Mt IWfl 22NWflIEUZS as, at. FIn, lIfE 4W14M!1(IN 114*0 I *OIW*0IHIJU!(rI IflSluhTWlFIlI, 11nn1w1a0.8mT.IWPIITMIWSIUNaasUII1MIInF4iOITMUU I*74T. l0i1 ffa II n wsTm. 11(w,lacFwIan.lTImRLflTwrilsawa,anHnrnnfaTonIrWmr,r.1I ua MflS*UilUEWftlIII 1(4Rr UTE 1liueTw1aH*.TT,uHcgnTwIIywriIuIiuTsnuho,aal,a,n I4’iFffl. 111144111ThaUaS 11ItTI It lFIaEflhI mt III!. ItWflIOjMUXIItLJlTjl2Sliul $Twvi1I %CIwIatWbh;. yaw “*111II anI *51 mJ lift 141(1 riaNtanill MlflJ Ill, tFt4T, 111K!ION IIUIIfl*.T lift ,)U41I*1t.CHaII11HIIIJKRTh IW24MtWliTMtciflISZ1ø1ZTWIVlUfltlflCfl ,m14iw,ma_nil,$ I11fUSTa11IIC*5TI.* IWA4TI1TI@M142IW CWCtinhIAr IWT*F&ITI*iI’ ‘*woHcid* I! FWW SWIMNIIINU1*111 ii 11Ut1!AL1 IllIMpli: ‘1114 FOIl 0’S—a

IX Cliff THATPOaTmM WIIlqII 1)41 HIGHL CARAt. ALSO IXCT THAt POnIOH QII DS Cfl UAIV 17,1W? IN BOOK lY AT FA ill M4O *La51’Jt Ta? hi 1001 ‘714 AT PAUl )l.

10 EXHIBIT B

PARKING ANALYSIS

Kent Denver Parking Analysis -2018 2013 Gymnasium 2017 Middle 2018 Upper School Expansion School Expansion Expansion Parking Required 980 986 1010 Parking Provided 780 808 808 Spaces Below Requirement 200 178 202 % Reduction 20.4% 181% 20.0%

11 EXHIBIT C

UPDATED TRAFFIC AND PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN

Kent Denver shall comply with the following traffic and parking management plan:

(A) No Special Event shall be scheduled to begin or be conducted during regular scheduled daytime hours (typically non-holiday dates, Monday through Friday, 8:00 am. to 3:00 p.m.) at the Kent Denver School; and (B) Kent Denver shall arrange for, hire, and use at Kent Denver’s cost and expense at least one Cherry Hills Village uniformed traffic control officer to direct traffic on East Quincy Avenue during Special Event; and (C) With the exception of Special Events; Kent Denver shall schedule and program the use of its school, athletic fields, and facilities in a manner that will prevent parking demand from exceeding parking capacity.

12 EXHIBIT D

TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS

Kent Denver shall be obligated to provide the following improvements and land dedications as a condition of approval of the Application:

OPTIONS:

1. Option 1: Prior to and as a condition of the City’s issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new Upper School Building, Kent Denver shall comply with the following conditions of approval: a. Kent Denver shall eliminate and remove the Entry Road and design and construct, at its sole expense, the Realigned Entry Road on the Property and the necessary intersection improvements at East Quincy Avenue and Colorado Boulevard in general conformance with Exhibit F to establish a four-way (stop sign) controlled intersection (“Quincy-Colorado Intersection Improvements”). Kent Denver shall be responsible for all costs associated with the Realigned Entry Road and the Quincy-Colorado Intersection lmprovcments, including design and construction of traffic control devices, curb, trail reconstruction, drainage and other associated improvements as set forth in an engineer’s cost estimate and construction documents to be prepared by Kent Denver and reviewed and approved by the City in accordance with all applicable building and construction standards and requirements imposed by the City and any other governmental or quasi- governmental entity with lurisdiction. The City is authorized pursuant to its police powers to control ingress and egress from East Quincy Avenue and shall close access to the Entry Road upon City’s acceptance of the Quincy-Colorado Intersection Improvements. b. Kent Denver shall provide at its sole expense a uniformed traffic control officer through the Cherry Hills Village Police Department to direct traffic at the intersection of East Quincy Avenue and the Realigned Entry Road for a minimum one-hour period during peak morning hours Monday through Friday during any school year. c. Kent Denver shall dedicate by special warranty deed to the City for right-of-way purposes immediately adjaccnt to East Quincy Avenue, varying in width from approximately 14’-22’ of its Property as shown on attached Exhibit E. d. Kent Denver shall dedicate to the City an irrevocable right-of-way and trail casement in a form approved by the City Attorney for a future roundabout at the intersection of Colorado Boulevard and East Quincy Avenue (“Roundabout”). The City at its sole cost shall design and construct the Roundabout based on the City’s roadway standards. The City shall determine Said casement dimensions shall be reviewed and approved by the City and will generally follow the attached Exhibit G.

13 2. Option 2: Prior to and as a condition of the City’s issuance of a certificate of occupancy of the new Upper School Building, Kent Denver shall comply with the following conditions of approval: a. Kent Denver shall eliminate and remove the Entry Road and design and construct, at its sole expense, the Realigned Entry Road on the Property. Kent Denver shall also design and construct the intersection improvements at East Quincy Avenue and Colorado Boulevard in general conformance with Exhibit G to include a one- lane roundabout (“Roundabout”), associated drainage and trail improvements. Kent Denver shall be responsible for 100% of the costs associated with the design and construction of the Realigned Entry Road on its Property and 50% of the costs to design and construct the Roundabout including survey work, trail reconstruction, drainage and other associated improvements as set forth in an engineer’s cost estimate and construction documents to be prepared by Kent Denver and reviewed and approved by the City in accordance with all applicable building and construction standards and requirements imposed by the City and any other governmental or quasi-governmental entity with jurisdiction. The City is authorized pursuant to its police powers to control ingress and egress from East Quincy Avenue and shall close access to the Entry Road upon City’s acceptance of the Roundabout improvements. b. Kent Denver shall dedicate to the City necessary right-of-way for the construction of the Roundabout and related improvemcnts as delineated in thc construction documents. c. Prior to and as a condition of obtaining a right-of-way permit to commence work on the Roundabout, Kent Denver shall submit construction documents and a construction estimate prepared by a Colorado registered professional engineer for the Roundabout to the City for review and acceptance. Within 60 days of City acceptance of completed construction improvements and approved construction costs, the City will reimburse Kent Denver fifly percent (50%) of the construction costs. d. Kent Denver shall dedicate by special warranty deed to the City for right-of-way purposes immediately adjacent to East Quincy Avenue, varying in width from approximately 14’-22’ of its Property as shown on attached Exhibit F.

3. Option 3: Kent Denver shall comply with the following conditions of approval: a. In its sole and exclusive discretion, in furtherance of its police powers, the City may determine to provide alternative access to Kent Denver Property at the intersection of East Quincy Avenue and Colorado Boulevard thereby closing access from East Quincy Avenue to the Entry Road. If the City Council makes such determination by resolution (“City Council Resolution”) within ten (10) years of the Effective Date of this Agreement. Kent Denver shall be responsible for 100% of the costs of the Realigned Entry Road on its Property and its proportionate share of the estimated costs of the improvements to the intersection of East Quincy Avenue and Colorado Boulevard. The improvements to the intersection of East Quincy Avenue and Colorado Boulevard include but are not

14 limited to: design and construction of four-way controlled (stop sign) intersection, traffic control devices, curb, trail reconstruction, drainage and other associated improvements, in general conformance with Exhibit F, and as set forth in an engineer’s cost estimate and construction documents to be prepared by Kent Denver and reviewed and approved by the City in accordance with all applicable building and construction standards and requirements imposed by the City and any other governmental or quasi-governmental entity with jurisdiction (Quincy Colorado Intersection Improvements”). Upon receipt of such City Council resolution, Kent Denver shall eliminate and remove the Entry Road and design and construct, at its sole expense, the Realigned Entry Road and Quincy-Colorado Intersection Improvements. The City shall provide noticc of closure to the Entry

Road. Upon receipt of said notice. KDS shall have 1 year to to design. construct and complete the Realigned Entry Road and Quincy-Colorado Intersection Improvements. b. In the event that the City does not adopt a City Council Resolution for relocation of the Entry Road and Quincy-Colorado Intersection Improvements within the prescribed 10-year period, all funds and interest associated with the security shall be released and returned to Kent Denver. c. Kent Denver shall continue to provide, at its sole expense at effective hourly rates, for a uniformed traffic control officer through the Cherry Hills Village Police Department to direct traffic at the intersection of East Quincy Avenue and the school’s main entrance and/or realigned entrance for a minimum one-hour period during peak morning hours Monday through Friday during the school year. d. Kent Denver shall dedicate by special warranty deed to the City for right-of-way purposes immediately adjacent to East Quincy Avenue, varying in width from approximately 14’-22’ of its Property as shown on attached Exhibit F. e. Kent Denver shall dedicate to the City an irrevocable road and trail easement for a future roundabout at the intersection of Colorado Boulevard and Quincy Avenue. Said easement dimensions shall be reviewed and approved by the City and will generally follow the attached Exhibit 0.

4. Option 4: a. Kent Denver shall continue to provide a uniform traffic control officer, at its sole expense, for the Entry Road at East Quincy Avenue for a minimum of one-hour period during peak morning hours Monday through Friday, during the school year. b. Kent Denver shall dedicate by special warranty deed to the City for right-of-way purposes immediately adjacent to East Quincy Avenue, varying in width from approximately l4’-22’ of its Property as shown on attached Exhibit E.

15 EXHIBIT E

RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION EXHIBIT

-

‘v-i’

‘F..‘ 4;••,

I

16 EXHIBIT F

REALIGNMENT TO 4-WAY INTERSECTION CONCEPTUAL TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS

KENT DENVER ACCESS REALIGNMENT February 2. 2016 -[kimIey>Horn

17 EXHIBIT G

ROUNDABOUT CONCEPTUAL TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS

18

2.

Attributes

1. project,

pedagogies, Student

portion necessary

faculty The

structure

This

Municipal

Kent

Cherry

2450

Cherry

Community

Rachel

The

all

The

for

intended

letter

Denver

East

other

Cherry

offices,

o

o

Hills

Hills Granrath

o o

proposed

of

proposed

to

enrollment

will

to

of

the

Quincy

Code.

shall

provide

The

different The

preparatory

site

cut

modes

improved

Existing No

Village,

Village

policies

relative

Development

the

SchooVs

provide

ani:

EvcQIfencc

KENT

be

303.E70V66{i

use

existing

Hills

and

additional

off

circulation

proposed

recently

serve

wkcvtkctrocg

approximately

proposed

Please

of

use

Avenue

use [,i’:

and

of

similarly

Village,

typical

vehicular

CO

to

and

is this

than

DENVER

larger

E_i,,,

access.

of

Application

in as

of

Upper

not

(1’)

the

preserve

80110

accept

school.

the

the

the

installed

in

the

expansion

plans.

Street

use

Kent

Bill

‘

building

Coordinator

projected

and

project

including

c

existing

classroom

sized

area

project

Letter

project

ho!ar.ship

Schoo;

and

ol

34911

the

the

Denver

28,000

SCHOOL.

or

the

the

of

classrooms,

traffic

for

pedestrians

include;

parking attached

of

new support

Upper

is

the

complies

is

“dark

project

“promoting

building

to

Expanded

for

Intent

and

consistent

and

School’s

square

proposed

increase

path

circle

the

School’s

sky”

office

chaca

lighting

spaces.

does

as

materials,

from

construction

will

with

aaministrative

has

pathways

feet,

while

required

Use

longstanding

the

as

space

with

immediately

ftr

not

project.

added

Quincy

all

design

is

a

and

of

semi-rural

anticipated.

providing

contem applicable

result

and

a

application

to

will

by

through

Non-Profit

significant

support

from

into of

implements

Section

of

contain

a

spaces

plate

status

follow

the

campus new

adequate

character

1966,

City

the

All

improved

proposed

fee,

activities

16-20-50

Upper

Institution.

clarity

as

and

classrooms,

ordinances

proposed

Kent

the

A

an

successfully

the and

future

typical

completion

safety.

exceptional

of

Denver

School

ard

strategies

escrow

that

Cherry

teaching

of

project.

project

safety

lighting

the

building

and

administrative

are

Building.

Campus

check

separates

Cnerry

Hills

is

appreciably

of

to

of The

and

college

to

consistent

will

this

the

the

support

Village”.

renovate

in

project

changing

will

The Hills

feature

proposed

Master support

previous

different

be

proposed

Village

spaces,

EXHIBIT

spaces.

with is

a

full

Plan

of C

6.

5.

4.

3.

Sufficient

The

provisions

character

Drainage

The

surrounding

o

o

o

o

o

o o

proposed

o

o

o

o

bulk

Village The

and

application.

construction

tinder The

The

through

campus.

Quincy

to

As

with

uniformed Although

Kent create

Because

constructed,

The

mix

concepts

frames.

The

brick,

consistent

The

building’s

The

parking

and

and

of

Kent

will

part

Cherry

new

site

school

•

•

of

previously

Cherry

the

Denver building

proposed

building

area.

this

transportation

use

scale

Municipal

copper

be

additional

into

indigenous

of

Denver.

of

the Vehicular

School

that

Upper

quality/quantity

The

through

parking

the

surrounding

the

space

made

the

such

Expanded

will

the

has traffic

Hills

height

with

the

of

construction

Hills

drainage

of

population

School

run

contemplated

project

will

Middle will

that

not

the

proposed

School

issued

single

a

as

project.

approved

Village

heart

and

to

lot

the

Village

the

through

Code.

new

control

safety

be

deep

is

seek

and

result

proposed

manage

plantings

will

also

currently approximately

areas

desire

constructed

Use

enlargement

will

systems

School

of

area. story

requests

parking

infrastructure

project.

pedestrian

have

patina

LEED

Although

Additional

roof

to

hazards

is

campus

anticipated

building

in

Appiication,

of basin,

in

not

the

Middle

are

not

mitigate

unreasonahe

traffic

to

building

the

the

the

historically

overhangs

to design

construction

Platinum

increase

campus.

partners

lot

maintain

provided.

encourage to

increasing,

for

reduce

which

mornings

proposed

construction

to

to

a

up

through

is

of

School

related

pathways

and

dark

its

improvements

vehicular

encourage

cuirently 10

existing

is

complies

materials

to

the

has

community

based

compatible

is

feet

traffic

certification

improvement

with water

a

for

a

brown

agreed

visually

construction

already

Expanded

40%

the small

traffic

to

school

the issues.

building

project,

lower

shade,

Cherry

congestion

on

have

help

or

or

a

consumption

of

use

with

reduction

recent

to

the

color,

parking

scale

the

to

safety

pedestrian

congestion the

indistinguishable

been complement

traffic

than

of

mitigate

members

already

with

will

a

clerestory

a

Kent

the

have

and

zoning

Hills Use

20%

proposed

natural

bike

and

Middle

of wood

of

be

improved

issues,

what

applicable

the

lot.

witl

Application, its

issues.

the

Denver

Village

already

is

the

reduction

path

sense

made

been

permissible,

congestion

design

requirements

site

However,

traffic and

accents,

not

to

Middle

or

materials

proposed

is

School

windows

Kent

other

has

Upper

permissible

carpool create

and

Police

as

improved of

increase,

community

provide

been

in

City

will

from

inumacy

a

been

Denver

in anticipation

School

character

Exoandeci

result

and

currently

buildirgs

School

the

required

safety

incorporate

rebuilt

ordinances.

and

Department

at

Upper

when for

Kent

the

native

constructed

dark

the

of

parking

nor

through

daylighting,

comply

of

on

School water

for

Cherry

existing

to

Denver

hazards

building.

main

possible,

the

through

will

School

of

the

bronze

on

being

hike

Use

parking habitats.

the

of

the

proposed

campus;

the

spaces

site,

will

sustainable

entrance with

The

this

the

campus.

to

Hills

to

wetlands

School

from

and

Building

window

project

provide

the

the

work

and

Middle

project

the

lost a

Jerry

Associate

Sincerely, Thank

Please

T

Adverse

Walker

V

you

consider

o

o o

-

Head

for

7

The

Hills

neighbors

The

work

not

spaces

impact

your

/._

of

this

required

General

proposed

Village,

School

that

consideration

due

request

on

/

than

was

:4

adjacent

to

and

Contractor

for

project

the

completed

the

for

sportng

will

fact

proposed

expanded

properties

already

of

is

that

this

is

in

or

well

on

the

not

Letter

performing

be

project

the

use

heart

acquainted

will all

working

roadways

at

spaces

of

be

of

the

Intent

reasonably

the

arts

to

Kent

are

with

campus,

minimize

and

events

required

Denver

the

parking

controlled.

requirements

during

adjacent

impacts

School

all

lots

the

the

was

campus.

to

on

time,

regular

its

the

closer

for

current

i.e.

Kent

working

school

dedicated

to

Denver

the

center

day.

within

nearest

parking

School

of

activity.

Cherry is V., ______

SEMPLE KENT: NEW UPPER SCHOOL CLASSROOM BLDG BROWN APPLICATION FOR EXPANDEDUSE - 2017.10.18 PROJECT DIRECTORY VICINITYMAP DRAWiNG INDEX- PLANNING AND ZONING

SHEET NO. SHEEENWTE ARE EITFETS AND DESIE NDRU

CONTACT ZONING JER RY WALKER COVER SHEET

432 CAST OUINCYAUEIOU C AS SO ClATE HEAT OF SCHOOL CIVIL ENGLEW000 CO AOl 3 PHONE 3537707660 CIT SITE PLMI FAX 153 770 0172 CI 2 UTILITY PLAN OlD GRADING PLAIA ARCHITECT SEIRPLE SROWN DESIGN. P-C LANDSCAPE 1160 AANTAFE DRIVE LI 0 DENVER CO 10254 ICE 303 SUN4117 ARRAN S CHUGS ZONING IER.SAIININIANS P pHI 10110 SOS SC N11WNSRI 3D PD ES PS CT IVEN IEAHE@RSNIPAREIR2AIERISI 051111

CIVIL ENGINEER HCI ENGINEERING PARKING REQUIREMENTANALYSIS 021 SOUTH HERE SRI liE OSLITEI500 LEO LETON CO RollS S PER 103 576 55150 PLANNINGAND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION OFFICE - POT PSRE-ING INFORRRASITN END ANALYSIS AGE FED COLE HANEREN UPON RETANEEN KENT SEWER SCHOOL AND CHERRY 745.15 CAR1AINL VII SREAIRTANAONV4 1001110 IUNRIRISII-HE100111151 41110 OILLAGS FEE_LASESEE PREVIOUSLY AT PROVED 01:1,551 TAILF 1152146 GUNS HEEl 51501 IN 010111.103060 III App III ApI-WHIR HI INANHNN SIRIRIIHTI, OITNRHI1R5 AT TIlE SIlT II GARRETT OOCISLIN SIPAN SED USE AGREEMENT RELASE 73014 EVAMIDDLE C SIIPE HIS VII URN ISSASSNEISIIASRIRIRIHHS SC S7CL PLIILOING CURE ENSLI UNDER CONSTRUCTI TNT SAL All 01 25 LANDSEAP RARCHITRST SHUISNRSINIE CSRIIIHHIRVIIIIDPIUO,PIP.TIAZOPIIIS RHA DRAIGN CSR1R1INNISR 411014 60 ESIOSKR:DISCR CRCC-jNN CORIOW CF FCE S’S 123 7577 H130 AA AHEARIAN INS30Il4]WS1UIT SUTSCIOCSE_ET PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE SETBACK, LOT SIZE AND LOT COVERAGE STANDARDS F;,L60A’c.4511’SI.05.-I.4UppIpVI- EPSIUIS 4R1S4IURRI N’.W’SESITRCTGI’CN.S LIJNVIfl! CIVIl-PA, 21_ .APP.Il UHPlIil’EN70OAIHV NARNI C’R—INNIN SURVEYOR F.IoosRtsN .PE,UIAIII’SILUNUSUHIN T00IVIOE RDlI-NlS.ISTR PRALIHE 154 2CNSG CS’NIC IdEALOT SAFE NEAR S’CES EISA; LOS CCSIERAGS VIISTITNCTVIHIUSDU 25 0 ARTNS ANI EA 1460 60 COLFAS Ai..E R- 1OACEES 75 3] lILA 0 LAREJAOO3 CC OLIN N-I ACRES 7S 47 40 IsA IACRA_ CE 332 421 AID] N-I DC UN .c 4CAROkCRRS R -GA C-, —A.Il-RR.NE’ 1IIACNRS 25 SC S.C 151% IL4ACRES 711 0 SC 27% OU’AINA1RRIS’4700’ION’R RHo.. ACRE 10 25 IN 61% DIIRAI’NRVRIIRA TWNU’IS SUlIR0ISNMR,0 IIDI0RUl0IRtEIRUI0Vl1INN! SIL.RCNNE,IR: APIA.A,ER.IIALRANRI4R Co IOACRE 25 ZN IS 30% CI, 5’ CSo’pS IHINVT.S. ANoDE15 CI-l, Coo-.so 503’ 560 IETWESI OS IN ‘R TOTALG ‘11)17)_V 33% F,5. IV U .1 555V5 21001 I N4 IS ACRE 25 25 32 TOTALAIE5CVI1lSN ETA C, N-N IESD 25 25 EU-SIX 11W.. ElI NSA CS—SIINL 010,15LION 5115 L1PR&IINL NIMbI 11.HIIP’VV’SRHII FR 1-0055151 SIN EIFS”4E4 UN. F SO WA p-SAUl Is II’S MEPOAIIN 154 04 R.Il1,INSISAO•WH SR CEATIOI IN HiR•S CE,o-, Ha 5114. MIRRERI CXIV - C-I . — LCYrET_. —. —. IACR SW IC ApSIsno. a Cl NOSE 50 20 20 ISA 1 2’ 75 50 SC INIA a SOCCER VL..D D 051*1651 ISHA.HNC.HHE

C, HORN CSIRIHIN ‘SAC RHN EL POAIRR TEIEATEE z SF GROSS ASEA T3*RIIH4RIRROIN’IIITSRIRRVSM 117 TIELO 7605 ORROIAIRRIIE00NUEIS,SSINSS.AN.SIM0060IN_AIISH 255 73 ‘.15.7 45 35’ TV-VIllA V. T’.ES1A_5 FEDOS EUE_lCRA2E I R-1 SNNl_,’SlAO2-4UXA C) LRN’yF.ASU T’USEST LETS NEON T’EARSS >1 YR UX’1 RNRE El FM N 05°’ 332.60SF GROSS AREA I. 36 ElkS ‘IT CIA’ RE.,V 515 TO .C-SSER 0605. C 20515-4 HE GE RAA lI I 04S’C 600 ONSCE 0o A’ RI CC.E 01 S_S.’.] a, FI2EORIOC,S A DEOC EASSSALE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Co 75,EW S F SEPT60 SRI 55 AREA ES 0,3 HE 1%’? ‘IIA_ 0 31 AFEROX GET TI-ST FCV C-N 011.5 7.055 N G TEl’ ‘C7sSSHANNCrE RANGE 51115551 OF 5TH FRAIl EAE VEROLIAI A”C S—AT SON TO, o AAETER A SCDO -ó 05 ES RELAT VS O DNA DE7SGCN OF ThE EAS OP TE I.CNRIRSAST >1CF SEC’E211 ‘6 •OV.’SC, SOUTH RASTA RSWSSI CF WE STR’VNCIHAE VHVE7AN CC7TS55C F 4- II 005 SF ON 055 F ‘C OR OlE 4 to R.1 ANAPAINOE STATE, OH COORAGC 204 EFAS’ C’,.LAA,A DESC4 NUDES EOLLOVIS RD 0 77 51101.4 SHE C ETEASIVE SO LOOR ELIS_l1RADE LU ‘6 460 SE AAPRC.N 70250 ARE 05 REDE.0. SGAT”E NOR’H,’OV CCS’,SR OF NEC’ L’N7 TONS’.S’ 5025’” 553.3 T_5760°_ST OH THE ISA FR NC 04, E’SR C-ES a, 350 V.701400 EIGT SHE’.CENOETEENLEGSSESRN’S.TTS3CSTCCAOSEASSALC4I3’HE NS4H --‘-F CFSAIOSECHOTIA RELATIVE C GRAZE OCR LE sE THE’,CF SCOT’S SC E F EAT S UI THENCE SCUTH 60’ 555SF ES SAMNUT S 60 STCO’ACS ESS’ ‘III N AEET TEESCESCUTIES 2DGREESI_’AR.,77AN3CSACCU’I2SESSTNH OFEE’’.’7RE CRLESSTDSE-E-AA51SSERLYRDrnOV,’;44L’11.cFTl’E

- 60 THE_lODEN265000 CF GRE EN 60135—IFS 60 LECCSCN V405 7053E EET AL0RS SA’D G’V 01 5’,ELLIS THESCEHIRT37CEGHSES 24VILSES305ELCI.CV7.LN’33P PSIETAEDI.CSFCNOULO; I.E.’. SIC). ECC02. GAEES’S 1311 S EAST EDT S*-IXSFUEEACVIAXE GRISSANEA THsNCET42R5EH El CE SEA 60 SECC1AC 365’ / 11540 01 H1. NE TFE,CEE;26:s’3 06 AEES’SIII0_TES342NECCI.CNAVU_SI2 DEEETRS_OM.1 THE EASTES,HRZNT OF .15E H’O’ls LIE S”Cl E4.3.’2G—-L SIR I I’S- NELEAT TO SRHCE1ODGN EE1T_ — -. ? ,I — AEEAtEN2N’’S &SSEGAERN4SILIN_TEX T.CSEECHCSEASTTTCFEST SIlO FII’A_C)CCMF_E’OSSVS 50 TI’DSCENCN’HISDEVAEESHA’I’A.SVS 30 SECCI.DS.455145 HEET TE’ESCER:CR’NTSVXGAEDE ‘ElSIE_TEA NCVEECIN2V EASS’AIDSEET FOISTING TT.476THGRAEE - SI’VSCERACN’—SNCEGAEESEC’S’I,TTS ESST4EITFEDT .2 ‘PD ‘.00’’, ,LOVSA2SI_CVICH,1 ELLIS•.E - T IS. ‘IS SFA PP505 GROSS ARRA “Al DEGREES II MINUTESSO SEC ONUS EAST 03] I FEET TO THE NOR TSESS CORNER CE THE EI0NTRSE ‘70CF SAID 25 APPROSHEIOST SECTION RELATIVE TO CRADEIGROUND PL 005 THENCE SOUTH CO DEGREES 56 RAINUTESINSECONDS EAST ISIS 32 FEET TO TNE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OE THE HIGH LINE CANAL FUTURE I1.710 REROIATIONINOU SF *001 TION AONIINISTHATION RLDG THENCE EASTE RLT ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINF ON THE ARC OFACURVE TO THE LEFT ANTICIPATEO SPRING 20 IR-AUTEHN 21111 II 003 SF APPROX GROSS AREA cç TEE RADIUS CF SAID CURVE REING 13543 FEET FOR A EISTSJICR OH 132 SI FEET THE CHORD OP SAID CURVE TEARING S OUTHNSDEGR ETS 14 APFR OSIMATEEIEIGHT 46 NHINUSES 15 SEC 0505 EAST EELATLVE SO CARS EIGR0UND PLOOS 0.1 THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 3 SNIINUI ES 10 SECONDS EAST HSI 3 FEE EXISTING DIPPER SCHOOL N THENCE ALONG THE A6C OPACURV ETC THE RIGHT. THE RADIUS OP SAG CURVE REINO 4417SF EDT FORRDISTANC SOFT? 07 FEET THENCE OSTRIESTEGREES SIMISUTES SOS FCGSDSONFS T 3012 FEET SLEDS SF TOTAL APPR 05 CROSS AREA SN’. I 34’APPROX. MAEHEIGHT THENCE ALORG THEARC OFACURS E TO TREL EFT THE RADIOS OP SAID CURSE HEllO ‘SPRESEEFO RADISEANCEOE4IU SD HEFT PROPOSED NEW UPPER SCHOOL RELATIVE TO GRADEAFLOOR LEVEL AT SOUTH SIDE THENCE SOUTH 46 DEGREES Al SIISUTDS SI SECONDS EAST 173 UA.ESOSF APPROX GROSS AREA URAPPROX ERAS HEIGHT THENCE ALONG THE ARC OP A CURSE TO TI-FRI GET THE RADIUS OF NAIDCURSE THING AT355 EEEEE OR A DISTANCE OF 4500 FEET. EXISTING GRADE IN CR NTROID OF RELATIVE TO ORADEIPLOOR LEVa AT NORTh SIDE THENCESOUTHSSDEGREES 1581 NUTES INSECONDS WEST 2060 FEET HOUNDING ROR Il-S ARE SF11TORE 21.000 SF RENOVATIONS SF ADDITION THENCE NORTH IS DEGREES IT MINUTES 35 SECONSO WE ST 130 lIE LET III ELF HEIGHT PER ZONING’ 11 ANTICIPATED AETUNN lAIR-AUTUMN ISIS) THENCEALGSGTHE ARC OFACURVE TO THE LEPT THE RADIUS GE SAID CURSE DEINO 5515 FE ET TOTE E SOUTH LINEOFTE RADE PROM ESESINGO NORTHEAST IS OF SAFE SECTiON V A.4SA THENCE SOUTHALOSGSAIS SOUTH LINE TO THE CENTER DFSECTION1. PROPOSEO ELEVATION AT LOWER FLOOR H 1.400 TEEIICE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 55 EIINUTE SIN SECONDS EAST 34 27 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OP WAS LINE OP THEH IDE LINE CANAL. HEIGHT OF REILDINC•TI. 20 .2’ THENCE SOUTHA’,XSTERLT ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT. TR6 RADIUS OF SHE CURVE SEING 35 I2PEET. A GISTAISCE OF R-3 TOP OF RUS.DINGIIS 400 .1 7R 43 FE ES. SCCF ELEGFR E TI-FTC H SOUTH ES DEGREES 30 EPINUTES SO SECONDS WEST TI 52 FEET THENCE ALORG THEARC OFACUEVETO TIlE SIGEST THE RADIUS OP SAIDCURS TEEING 7N7RFEET FOR A DITTANCE OF 04 25 FEET TO RENIRIR - THENCE SOUTH 63 DEGREES 25 ElINUTES 20 SECONDS VNEVT0554FEFT EEAD OF SCHOOL RESIDENCE - THENCE ALORG THE ARC OFACURSE TO THE LEFT THE RNDIUS OP SRID CURSE DEING lOS 61 FEET FOR A TISFORCE OF 320 7R FEET 3100SF APENOX GROSS AREA THENCE SOUTH CA DEGREES 56 MINUTES SO SECONDS EASTIAP E FEET 23 AVPROSIMATEHEIGET TI-ETC F ALONG THE ARC OPACURV E TO THE RIGHT THE RADIUS OF SAID CURVE REING S2I3FEEEFGRADISTARHCE OF 13074 FEET. EELATIVE TO GRAS EIGROSINO FLOOR FOISTING TO RE NDNGNSTED IFSTSREI TEENC ENORTH 53 DEGREES US MINUTES 35 SECOSDS SlIEST III N FEET ThENCE ALORG THE ARC 0 PACURS E TO THE LEFT THE RATIOS OF SAID CURSE REITSOIPH Al FEET FOSADI STASICE OF 27202 FEET.

TEENC ESOUTH6NDEGREESSGMINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST 1 37 FEET 170070 THENCE ALONG THE ARC OP A CURVE TO THE LEFT. THE RADIOSOE SAID CURVE REINC 4570 FEET FOR A DISTANCE OF 1411 14 PEET. NEW ADDITION AT EXISTING ELOGS IPSTUREI R-1 TEENC ESOUTHIN DEGREES 251,IISUTESISUE CGSDS WEST ISRTXI FEET loll SiSEl V THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 05 MINUTE Sb SETONDS EAST737 EFEET TO THE NNIESEIS CORNER GF SAID SECTION 7. IT IS 11AM THENC ENORTH 64 DEGREES WEST 2ISSFEET. NEW UPPER CLRSSROSNI THENCE NORTH AS DEGREE SAN MISUT ES FAUST 745 S FEET. THENCE NORTH NI DEGREES WEST 4555 FEET. CAP) COVER SHEET THENCE NORTH Al DEGREES WEST UI4RFEST TO THE WEST LINE OF THA EASE A OP THE NGRTH EAST 55 OP SECTION II, TOWNSHIP N SOUTH. RANGE OS WEST. THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES O2EIISUTESINSECONDSEASTALGNG SAID WEST LIEF 170705 PEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNEH OF THE EAST SNOF THE NORTHEAST SSOF SAIC SECTION 12. THENCE SOUTH RNDEGREES 35 MIS UTES 45 SECGNDS EAST III V.40 FEET TO TIE POINT OF SEGINNING MAP I MAS’T3RPLAN SCOPE ZONING“556-H CHVO.O —I ______, ______

I lIt ]H’ j / / RIPRAP TiJ7j SEMPLE ‘PRO.HYOAT CX PrO TONE ti_I HCI N .,. RELOCATED - -I] I ;\ I TRENCH BROWN ASPHALT PAR/INC PRO. MOUEP II,p DRAVV PRO HW LOT r p V -i .Z -- . SITE &&_ A DIVISION OF I HABERER CARPENTRY INC j ARCHITRCTD AND EESION ERD

— ,_± PRO.MDUNTABLE A CURB 77 VICINITY MAP IIRISI’ITY IEDIIII

SEMPIIIRSIFUC LI’ GATE WI 10905 BOX

I TERRAcEo79 HYDRANT - PRO. .4 I / aERATWAE&s 1 ——-— —.. .- -- ‘¾’.II _)_>T— ‘IIAL— I [II IQ= , TYP) PRO. 551179 MH 1/AL PRO eIxrRAcKspssp C EXISTS CX SSIW UP —r - GIRDING I A PRO. SSWRMH K,,III,IhaIN hdaw AOARAMP - S.IETER I - - - I — WIThEW4DRAILE I - - (TIP) Call ERTSIIISII Sq — —ULT RA j LION STAIRS IRPIGA 80 . p I SUPPORTCOLUMN 520_TO’ —1 z/t. TEGRATEDWITH p_____ CRUSHER FINES TRAIL $TUGHT 7 0 j ORSI’ I AcCE I0WAI 55.0W FIRE I 픕1 4 / ‘PROPOSED UPPER SCHOOL BUILDING — — — — ACCESS ROUTE & I _.j_ LI HPPROX.DEORRWS4FI. DEWER WATER CALL Eli 2.EUSINESS DAYS IN EASEMENT ADVANCE BEFORE IOU DIG 77SFIIITIOIIiTE ‘\ \ GRADE. EXCAVATE FOR THE / L’/ OR -UT IF-I AA’ESEP.CDRIER REQ ‘ I J o,,d/I A MARKING OF UNDERGROUND FE —H-H MEMBER UTILITIES — SUPPORT COLUMN Q e II I’ RETAINS4OISEATWALE STAIRS<, _j flEMSEIEHAS / — OUT000R ClASSROOM] . I — —PRO.BIKERACKS -t\ OAThERIRG AREA — AININelsEAT.._.-’r”_ — CONCRETE - —— - ——— — STAIRS — —, C ‘9_Alt ,_- SUPPORT COLUMN CONCRETE PAIR -c., HYGRMIT / PLAZA . -- ‘TI EAT WALLS HE,ADWALL I - . F - — AALL- 7___* - 25.0W 0 = —-- / - __._J. FIRE ‘Ii jVTh AREA INLET .,, PA7q ACCESS 1 I 0 J PAD i- ‘3 (ThAI . 06 ROUTE OP OO I’ . -C - - U AD TELICC’? 1101 4 .4 H-- 4 ER HYDRANT L (TIP.) d S 7= Cl) 1#-z-N- ETi --:7’,” PAD ‘‘ SIJRVEY IJGI/LUEiIIT_’ / — jENUIII Wn V I (TIP) /7j TI . PRO 55WRMH- a, - (Ow) RIPPAP 14 OUTDOOR CLASSROOM] a 114 GATHERING AREA ‘—1 / V‘I- ®‘— V 11% a SEAT WALLS CX SSIIF AIR TI. 1* — D ‘N E7/SO,VO 4 N IL I LA’S C IC AS .# /i /=‘ ‘/ 0 AREA a, I -.-STAJUE 44000 C FIT .Jff ‘ z REQ 81001855 a 2055EIRE DVS’IVAA’G ____f/i P50055 CGEC. ACCESS ROUTE — “ LIMITES OF PRO. \ 7 ,‘OEERIIAVC ====LA.’,DSCAPE I LWIDSDAPINO owner, do hereby agree that the above descrIbed property Willbe developed in accordance with the AREA a, COSC uses, reStnctions and conditions Contained in this Site Specific Development Plan. I understand that failure to abide by > Sin the terms and conditions of this Site Specific Development Plan shall result in the forfeiture of any development rights C which may be vested by virtue of the approval of this proposed Site SpecifIc Development Plan. 0 4 a, :1 0 - 0 4- SignatUre of Owner C Subscribed and SWDTT before me this — date of , 20_. /7 -covc a’

WItness my hand and official seal. •LUTERRANC II 7 Commission expires EDGE OP My LANDSCAPE / Notary Public

APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN MAYCREATE A VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 68 OF TITLE ‘i/p / F’’HALL 24, COLORADO REVISED STATUTES — APPROVED AS TO FORM: J -u.S 2 HEDGES S City Attorney SC/UNItS (-I-V 0 ARDORS HEDGES Approved this day of 2D_. by the Cherry HIllsVillage City Council.

PROPOSED Mayor CURB AND OUSTER I5PIU.I CONCRETE A ATTEST CURE AND DUTTER ICATCHI 0 m F. ET ELECTRICAL Box En -I N ASPHALT C SITE LIGHT

/00910010 /001/3310 NO 1±00 8 ±3 N00 9190 39 113H3 1/01100913/100 0 0 O3IVNIO9000 0± 8018/ 9301/10)9/ 301 0±9/ 930/33 /19013 90/ 0330 3/Id 0060 31330 111±33 HIM 30N3/180/N00 NI 39 (3/VOSONV1 333/V/N 7303 109/NOD N01!01391 1111110 90 38 11003 S±N3/1330)9//1I 180 3/1/ 301 HIM 319110/800 3N0I/VNOOI/N0D 11VH3 3±NIOr 3NOIIVON3/11110038 S.8390100/flNVhN 3H± 0±9/ 3000/090003 NI 30 N01103NN001013/1180/30 381/ /0’. 910(103/191001/13(11±028/30 391/ no 1001/S do I 093/ 1136 9/OH ONV 13003 03308//V 90 N311//flS 3/Id 11093 3±NVDINOI11 ONflO/+1100 0>8313013013 30080 HOIR 0331/130139/ 1183/09/ 3NOIIVDIdIO333 ONV IOHVONVI3 N A 11/080/H 381/ 1± 103380/H 381/ 0. 331 .39 03H31N811/ 0/13 038fl100/ONV/1 30 38 113+33 30/11.0.13 830/33 180±11285 liv 03 V /0 ONIISI3NOO 1/0/ /1±30 HIM 11/300 TIll 3±33300 0310/1 33M83H/0 NO SNOI/.001d103d3 S 3801N33131//fll 3331)90 111VM 0110319313/1010 HI Di. 33809110 032)9 03330 3310,0 3±01 [-1 r’./ 0) 3,010,0 3130 01 N €3 3300010/ 80/30901 NVld 1/11110 -3.• ONV 30890N011 3310N300 ONINN3300 3NV1/ O3AONddO 11VH3 N0I±811VISNI 93101/1110 03 /190/NOD /180±3 0/Id IL /./1flVAIZ ±1/83±3,11 HIll 11/800 /1±300± 110011301/1931/013/1 18011/1030/103331393033 © 6 ±1/93±3/1 l CI . C 310(9/ON//V OH>. HIM 30/10/190/NOD NI 38133/1 31N3tI3A0d/V)I 930/33 ANVIINV3 110 33 a ±311/I 1130.: ±31/11 Lt 38 3/100 IN 0103 3 03±98 3030 39/0 0/10 190/3 39 0± (00) 3100 1/0310 93033 I8VIIN’/3 liv 83 0113/11/ 3181>331/ 03/108/30 NV HIM 03111/ 39 11VHS HONI 03 3033033 ±OHI 1/101±001/03/3 3133303 319>311110 3310H/1V111 31 @01 331OHNVI’I ({) /00 1911Cr 3003360 33030 8±300±0911/190/NOD 31/1)03 3/13110 NO 0331/ 38 11003 0€ () 30800N0±3 ±903/13/131//OS .-:• 01/V 3300809/391 dod 030331/So 3/118(103913890839/01 3133300 834808 H301/ A1900/O3V3d 39V 3303/9fl3 83/1/11 0/IL 0/10 038313(3 /101111 1H011 3/IS - €1 ONV 0/333/ 931810.1 ION 1H011 31(3 0.7 90 3N011901d03/3 308301/013 01 0.300301110911 11011180100819100 30091 NI 31+3/HO 1/10 HIM 33900.0fl813 /1110/38010913301100183/10310/10 H001 NI 03/110339 TIONS 30011033/08EV IL C 3310N300 0/11)9)93300 31018/09//V 3H1 >300 1V01810313 .13]3/I/Jill >300100(910313 [jJ (4] [] 300/903 0/10 331OHNO/1 110 do 3/1(8 3131/108000 11/1113 901038±N00 33 HIM NV/180/N0O NI 38 1.30/1 IINV8OIH 991’/183H10 110H3 39111011/0 836/3 0/ 3/111 011/0 836/3 3/ 0310/1 393180 ‘11133310 39 3/Id 930/33 /19013 /08 IL 381/ 01/0 1/0± 393.13/1 33/111 83100/ 03 39300/08/331 3Nfl83±OM —60 —M 31/083±30/ HIM 3/1011000138 0/13 3013333 331111110 Ado 110 3±3/110)9000 11VHS HO±0Id±N00 03 0310/1 31M83H10 33311/fl 313N8311V -- -Iro— — — 4105— — 09/81/NOD 36 830/33 I8VII/1V3 ——-—-. — 83/33 ±8311/133 — 0/110038 8 33010 01 001)0036 0/1/ 810/33 /8311N03 Or/v 110 3 — 93$/33 33 830/33 /18010 830/33/180/3 930/33/13013 ——13—01— 1100333/111 ONI±333 0± 300IJ.O3NNOO NOI±3/1dO/NI 1101 /31833 01 03133303 113 30011 36 0± 033/1 3/1011001/100/1 01313 0/13 03100103 36 131111110 110 30)931(110033 9333101/3 3030038 9101±0330+13 03901/ 31)1. 30010/11 SHION31 dl A/lION 0+80(0/ 1910 0330/08/ 0(1130 1/13 933/110)93 30 3310001 31380003)91 01 300 3310N31313NO0N1 80/ 31913N0/338 ION SI 3/Id 3±9/11309//V 390 ONV H±0N31 1V±NOZI8OH V 30 N3,/1I9 380 3H19N31 0/1(133/13 380/36 3213 0/10 H±d30 3013833 0 3831/IONS 3/311 080038 80 0901310001 30V/8fl3 NO/fl 03339 333/ 3311111./fl 113 333/1/ 3±31+/I dO 11VM 3013/11 3H± ONV 310/ 0/139 3109NV/1 /0 8319130 /109/ 830333 3N119113 /31833 01 8010081/100 33 039fl01/ 39033/013080 30±0N31 3/1/830/33 A8V±INVS ONV 830/33 1’180±3 110 01 3N11 11800/193/1 00± II II dl ±130/SV ONI.333 3H1 HIM 11003 93/ ..v/>) ‘/,0 /03/013/10/11/118 HIOld 03001/39 NVO 88fl0 MON 1+300/30 N011313/10D 3H1 933./V 309/ .3±1931 30)90/380 310/H .080±1+135 V 11033 33013833 830/33 IV 39 11301 3800/ R01V/ ±190/30 liv ±00 0/VS 39 110113 ±1VH33V 0/11±3113 30± 30± NO 00/OHS 39 30090 GNV 3/1/1 01 3fl8± 3/1/ AV1 3N01130N3(0/10038 ,oc=j :3]Q +100/ 011 1(0/11/11/1 .9 93/ 83 /0 3/013 3Nfl 3+800/103/1 VOl 03/1)90/83/ 30 119/ ONIHDIVd 0/111093)900/ 11V0/SV 110 93 0910 3/101±901/103/3 3.H39010V/fllNhN 30± dIM 30023080003 /1/ 3/rd —————a— V 3/ION 11VHS 3013933 830/31 180.11)933 I >3 30±391 111H/I1 0N11N10/ 31138 301 RIM INIOd±33/1001 3H1 ±03/1/3/11/31/11038 13 .06 .09 ,OC .0 ±/1Ior NOIIDfldj.SNOO 3H1 90/ 300/803 HOfiCH V 3±0380 0± ±NIOC ±0 9130+098 /130± 038003 03±03/SNI N333 9903/1/111/1090000 ION 11003 ON111I/NOVE 3/1/ 3 >1313303/o11doN3o13a31030138 33 110H3 1N3/1333/ 31380+100 0/11±3333 N0I±VId0/3NVNI /0 ±330 OOVdO100 3H1 do 3N0110013103/S 3H1 13311 0± 03001/3)9 30 01 II 0330/138 ±100/33 0)90800330/03/ 3H± 890/93/011833330313 0 — YI/’HI Ar/V 333333330101 01/V 31919310/1 3311 H±M 3/1311 ONIj.31133 03080±310 ±30 380 101/1 311/183/ 110 33/13/733 31H IV 1119130 11VH3 dO±0V8±N00 3H1 -z I / V —_ 3031/383813/33 13800/ 3H1 01 131N3010N1 0393013N00 36 119/InS 3131v90339 7 I 80/ 00/3 39 ION 119/ 1N11100 0/03 ±00/ (>1 31/0 do /1fl/1INIV( 3 ONII±flO 833N13N3 3H± 01 11313103/1/11 -k.. 3/111 01800/ V 01 3/100 38 1101+3 0/1133/ 13/10111000 1/13/13001/ 33 11303 A3HI 33lDNVd3d03lO 31011/NOD 3001/ 3H1 0/03 103/1 /0 03±80/38 90 80±0091/100 3H.I ±1OH/33 00/V 31380/1000/1113153119 ±flD 0/VS 111V3N 3±919/09//V 393+3/1 33 383180/ 3NOI./ICNOO 1/111333 031/1)93/INn 0± 0313138 10130 0901/13/13001/3)9 0.I.rW. .. I 10/10/139 /0 ±300 110/ 3H± 9039 11003 9OIDV8±N00 30± 31019313/1 N -.* I -:*- 3310d ±9011 do 3/10119001 90/ N’ol/ 0N11H0)1 0± 93/39 33 /0 1NI83080 80 1/033008131/00 NOIIVZI1IS0/1 01 901)9/ 301039/NOD 18 031/193,0 52 /1130071 01/V 03I/IIN3OI 381101/3101180/003±0/118/I 331±111±0 0NI13013 110 30/101±0001 9 -‘.7 30N30V 0/11/193300 3±v19/Od//V AS 03308//V 0/10 113/11/ 3H± NI 0310N 31M93H±O 33111111111100/1VA113383338/ONV3IVOO1 11103/3 b 3331Nfl 133/ 33 SI 93300 1(fl3IXV(’I 3H± 30090 03H11N1/ 0/0139 l/1fl/1INII/1 01 3801,0/ 38010081/100 3H1 13 03/10130000 33 1001/1 00+90 3300/100 110 1/31) 1VOIdH± 83300 1/03 HIM 03119±1/11 39 TIVHS 3/Id 3011/1933 93±90/ 110 ONV 191380/ 3161300/339 1110/ 3601333800 0130 38O01 01/10113/11(00390/39 - 03±ON 33M93H±0 3331N0 ±/03 93/dOD)) 3d/i. 38 11VH3 0/11/Id 301/193393000/ /3 3311/1110 INI/3113 110 /0 NOII0001 10393 3H1 3N1/183130 113133 8010081/100 30.1 3/l±0IN3338/38 311 80 93+30/0 30± /3 031/193,0 .311N3O913/30N1 30090 O3HSIHI/ 91333 10/1 3/NON 0110 111/0 .000/ 300/11908//v NO NI 1/0/OHS 330 1/01±3111180/NI / HIM H3fl1/ 0/1003109 DI//V9± 30 0±393,000 3/00 030039H± 310/H 0± 3±flO 313311030 1338 3N1 NO/fl 03308 330 331±111±0 091/1333 /0 3/101±0001 OH>. 3 /\ N3310 3/Id ISOH 3H1 IV 3213 311/3 30±38 11VHS 3±110910310930/33 A9VIINV3 03 m 33N3/73 080/OSlO /080±008./NOD 3H± 180391/3838 110H3 331±11/In 03033(00 = 0 90103/3911 3310N30V3N1N83301 31018/083)91 801009/NOD 331 18 3001000 1(08/ 03103±09/ 38 1131)3 331111110 0/11±3193 (2’s m x/15. 3H1 AS 03±03/IN) 38 ±311/1 33013833 830/33 /19011/131 0/10 93±00/ 110 01 110 N0l/0fl8±3/1OD 0330/08/ OH! HIM 1011/1/00 1010 H01133 13H±/30 09110017911) /155555 1111110 3/1113133 ±1/0 ONIIVOO1 80/ 31813/10/339 38 liONS )901009±NOD r11 33090 /13H1 38300/ 1/3033 33/1/1 93±00/ /0 931/130 3H1 /109/ 1/0110318±31/00 3/10 /001/1/11/1039 3H± 01 8018/ ±0/1300 0N1N93603 3±0/3/08//V 133/N3± /0/101(1/11/1003100813/1003611/1131331/830/33/190110/13 18011/133 31 3H/ 0+3/ 331NV//1O0 3111110 31018/08//V 11V 10311/00 113113 801008/NOD 3H1 V as N “± o tIlt 3H011V3313 010300/080 080038 /01330/10 0 0’ 1/13/1330/ 1VNI/ HDIO}11 CI ±N3v3J.3nrCV 80/ 010333/108 HIM 301/Ia 31380/100 910110880/NI 111330/3 1911080008 80/ 316(3NO/339 09 113113 80/DV8//100 3H1 3 cD 0393±1/3D NI 133 33 1101/3 83300 0/10 0/118 3/10110/1313 13/11/ 30 /13>10.1 38 01 ION 390 0NV 31/10 3101111>308//V 383 0900H3 31/01103313 /118 310H0111d 31 .0080/380310.3/10/0 z 933/110/13 1/110/111983 801099/NOD 3H1 3/rd /00/113013 80 N0110fl9±SNOO 01 Sc 318331/I 03/VHS 8300110/13 3310HNV111 113 3N01±V01/103d3 0NV 8018/ 0.1 031± 38 0193100/00/1 0N3 339111 93300/ 830/33 /18013 83033 18011/103 3010601/3±3 33/091300 0019183300 31018/09//V 3H± 83/ 39 113H5 /101±00813/100 091113133 /0 3/101±03313 1/1)933 113H3 0/380 3338fl3 01/3 90±0331/100 30± NIVI3 83100/ 80 830/33 38011/101 110 NI 0330 31318310/I 0NV /101±00913/100 Or -I *1111/fl H033 011/13/11133/ N0l±103 3183/1/1/ 03/VHS 8/0/H 10138300 0N01./V0I//03/3 0013 30900013/3 .3310)9300 0/11/183,000 3/0111/011/dO T o001 110343 S3101408 113 30910093013 3310N303 CNIN93AOI 31318/08//V 301 83/ 30/ HIM 11/1100 113H5 3830/10 83/1033 88013 0133 830/33 18011303 8313M 113 . 35 118348 NOIIO88ISN0O 839/31 88011110 NI 0310110(8310/10/10/10/1.00813/100 IL z 33±ON/±11)1fl1383/130 IDH cD •o., . . . 41/1/001) 03 000 .03 I C 3/Id /1HOI0CNVfl1N1 >33 ‘ 7E_J 43110301389/3303/9/13+03131113)8/ ‘t> I i—-— •_ :—- •0 060309 (8N(±flO 9/Il _.‘ / —- — rf -Z •0 / 800303 N)±flON/1 10111 338100 (9/3(1//N/I ‘—.. N0/3Nfl3010883 — 0 IC AN) -I &91J V;/1!NVA.7S 139/I 038V I / . / b Cl) — 011480/983±3318/ 08/ “7 .-.. /1 — -, - V 03/ .9 031fl03338 38 01 .-(4 , 13111 ‘N ‘1 A C, / 3+111301,083380/OS >3 — j 73300303/1/ / N011000168 S - 03/008383001 N t 0.11.;:. 11801003/21/1.0390 IN801OAR 08/ ..‘-l — 3+111331/33 ..,-‘.., / / 0 I / I %380©3/r//18013D3/.01/1.5I86f 098389/0A31fl0A12 r ___ 0 300803:31/I . I V /1/8 1191003N I — F - -. I /3191828008/ — —— a— / ‘$ / t -I / ,,,,__ 11% I 1/000303/1/ .,w..r__- — %03O@10N333303/.0/130811310318/ 1 .3... I — , /18010/08.OL’/130301 —\--._ ( r., / I / .1 031VD013833’’... ,.,/r N11’ 1. f I / ‘ OIIOIVO8AH333 00/198 8/801 3000I188M60 I ,3’ 3311111/1I838/13hN ‘‘4, 00//.0 I 3+111 0 , / 3 —.. 0.0. .Z00.1/0. 0191031308/ / S1 I I / / 11011/131 0/10080830)90 ONIO8V/1 ‘ /0 / 0 I 391 90/ 31V/10013 90 30V90 , V 9/1.3r31:lll9/+/0lS0rlr0(n:r3 ——— / L31309’CM(iflOAnl / / 4I I 010 1101390/38 30010/100 I I .‘.‘—0.i0 / 189309’1318180/ >1 ROn i( NI /101 3/330333)9130831>91190 090303’(NrIflO Sifl’3838013Nl1 03+1009383900 F ( I I U 600083’/118 / 0 08381/ / 4 1 NI I . \ /14 390389 ‘(33) 0/Il flA08338M30/DA.rX3 I NIV/1 83/00/102/ 303 11./4j_ / ‘ ‘“ H/188O10 08/ .21.0/ 3/ I . I 333383—)INI//3/l I — 09011 . -‘/9., I 030883’IllH 0/IINOI±030NOD8M03 ,.) - 1 7 ONIG1II1S100I’IDS dddfl G3SOdOdd 1N3/10509 ( - . 0/190/33310318/ 08/ 6383911’ /‘8/I - 13731, V3l0’ 13 . /7 %, SS3000ADNSO83/13 I , 7 / 300830 3N11 3313838 / 89/03 / 1/9/3303/ ““ OpolH1l819/17 -.1——:-—-- _—‘ 0+1110/8/031308/ %OWOO ‘•S 8103303/8/1603 3106(84 •t,jyp — MO/Il 0.I9H0/3.3/1 / 110

‘ 5 — /i -L 301/093(08/ 0310001333001 - 1NVG8AH X3 . ,,]7”0 _WYlI%0zIof44’ 1 - 30j3/1l13V008/ f ,, 9 11—— I! -_ I 4 - - “‘ - - . . . / )0/ ——M--___ \ 90110VA83133 0006 / / ‘ 91.3318. 1310113’. ‘I’/I / 06d.0i0330l3IV/i8/ - .0108011/93138 L V t 08/fl7j -‘—137/1103330 ‘ /309*11/00/ / 3Nli33dl/lO.808/ 3 / I :0:; / - No31/o8382lo8d / // — 63/00S=(N)lflOAN/ 303801330 3/088(0183 4- 080 01/I A91N3/890 N3938VH /0 /10101310 0

NMOU o Jid INIS ‘----‘-...-.! I \\ i:—z-14—/—j-’-[4T.44.[J_/Ji_/_jjjjj:1”) IH / 1!’! \ 54\\ ______- __ __

-i--- IIj’jj/.[jj( , II --i ‘‘ ‘=5. Ill/I//U iIITI! ——4 ii’ IICI SEMPLE BROWN

I

AECB PESTS ABE EFE IE BEER - —=—=z—.7= IJMGBOFDIBTURBARDE I p , “? — a / •_J’ISl - -- ,•7 /4 \\\ ‘ / EEIS\ / /,T / VICESTYMAP EAS I7XZ7Y7, sIP q 1’ sr--- -. SI - Z- I I

B P5155511 SIBBLIRBPEMSBB

0 0 -c C) Cl) / I &:; a) /1 - c- a a ‘SS. D BTIE &JLRT ORO* 5TYP. ALL SWRLEE CROSEINOS ATSEREWNXS) lb a) 2EILFIGRASSEOSWALE .1 . , z ,: Em—= L:. . .‘ I I GRADING NOTES / IS IMMEDIATELY PUMP OR BAIL OUT WATER FOUND IN EXCAVATIONS. ‘ V’ a)

I ALL EARTHIAORX OF SHALL BE WHETHER RAIN OP SEEPAGE EXCAVATIONS MUST BE KEPT PREE , , REQUIRED ThIS CONSTRUCTION ‘._ ‘D . ‘B 03(’) COMPLETED IN ACCORDNHCE WITH ALL APPUCASLE SECTIONS OP THE FROM WATER AT ALL TIMES TARE ALL MEASURES AND FURNISH ALL _) ‘s “s Pj PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE EQUIPMENT MID LABOR NECESSARY TO CONTROL THE FLOW N’, C 5 SITE /510 THE APPEROPRIATE GOVERNING AGENCIES STANDARDS AND DRAINAGE AND ACCUMULATION OF WATER AS REQUIRED TO PERMIT ‘ (3 T.” —=== -. — N ‘ a) SPECIFICATIONS COMPLETION OF ThE W2BK WIlD TO AVOID DAMAGE TO THE WORK , 5 .4 — Co CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL CDPHE AND OSHA RULES AND S , . / p = C 2 A PRE CONSTRUCTION MEETING SHALL RE SCHEDULED WITH ThE REGULATIONS AT ALL TIMES S ‘ ‘ I (3 0 / / DEVELOPER. ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR AND THE APPROPRIATE S — — — I By— I Si, _, — 19 4- t’lO _i ‘ GOVERNINDADENCY PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION II WhEN FREEZING TEMPERATURES MAT BE EXPECTED. DO NOT — — CQ 0 EXCAVATE TO THE FULL DEPTH INDICATED UNLESS THE FOOTING OR C uJ3 3 REFER TO THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS SLABS ARE TO BE POURED IMMEDIATELY ALTER THE EXCAVATION HAS ‘ “ . I . a) FOR COMPACTION MID E,ARTHVsORA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BEEN COMPLETED IP PLACING OP CONCRETE IS DELAYED. PROTECT . . . (3 I o , C — / IYs’ I O BUILDING PADS MID ADJACENT AREAS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL THE BOTTOMS OF EXCAVATIONS FROM FROST UNTIL CONCRETE IE — __ . . ‘ 4 f HE W REFER TO THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL PLACED ‘sc S . . , / REQUIREMENTS — / / 12 ND FILL MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED SPREAD OR ROLLED WHILE IT IS ‘_, I,, , I 4 IF THE SUBGRADE SHOULD BECOME FROZEN, DESICCATED, FROZEN OR THAWING OR DURING UNPAVORASLE WEATHER ‘ ‘‘ / “s ‘ SATURATED OR DISTURBED. THE AFFECTED MATERIAL SHOULD BE CONDITIONS VINEN IRE WORK IN PROGRESS IS INTERRUPTED BY S ‘=‘s_ ‘ “0’ REMOVED OR THESE MATERIALS SHOULD BE SCARIFIED. MOISTURE HEAVY RAIN. FILL OPERATIONS SHALL NOT BE RESUMED UNTIL THE , 5’ 5 1/ CONDITiONED, MID RECOMPACTED PRIOR TO FOUNDATiON FLOOR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER INDICATES THAT THE MOISTURE CONTENT S ‘ l )==,r .1 , N, 5’s , SLAB AND PAVEMENT CDNETRUCTIDN AND DENSITY OP ThE PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL ARE AS SPECIFIED ‘Al -‘ 5’ -‘ — = _=L ,, 5’ 1 Z. “ I

‘ ‘II — 5 FILL SHOULD BE PLACED AND COMPACTED IN HORIZONTAL ILl LIFTS. 13 THE CONTRACTOR SHELL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ThE PROVISION OF ‘ , — N, p 5’ = AND THAT BRACING FACILITATE THE . / / USING EDUIPMENT PROCEDURES WILL PRODUCE ADEQUATE SHORING MID/OR NECESSART TO “<, N’ S . S .4 r : ... 4 RECOMMENGED MOISITJRE CONTENTS ANO DENSITIES THROUGHOUT EXCAVATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OP THE WALLS 1 S $ ‘/I “S 4” ._ ‘II’ . / ThE LIFE REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR COMPACTION PIPELINES AND POUNOATIONS THE BRACING ANDIOR SHORING OF N_U.” ‘s’s. — •‘I’ ,,,,= ,IJ / ‘ a,) S — — 5 REQUIREMENTS EXCAVATED WALLS OR TRENCHES SHELL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH , ,,, “ ,,,, “__._... .— ‘\ OSHA REGULATIONS AND SHALL BE DESIGNED BY A REGISTERED ““‘I, ‘, , .,‘ ‘V S S THE PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION OF FILL AND BACKFILL SHOULD BE PROPESSIDPLEL ENGINEER THE COST OF SNORING AND/OR BRACING = 5, 5.,, A’ \C. OBSERVED BY A REPRESENTATIVE OP THE OBOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE COST OF THE SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION — = = . - ‘5, ‘ —‘ — REFER TO THE COMPACTION REGUIREMENTS IN THE GEOTECHNICAL ITEM REOTISING THE SHORING ANDIOR BRACING 5’ ‘ . — — 0 REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS , ‘, 14 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL MID ‘ lb 7 All. SOILS USED PDR PILL AND BACKFILL MUST BE APPROVED BY THE HAULING OP UNSUITABLE FILL MATERIALS TO A SUITABLE SPOIL AREA I GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION ThE EXCESS EXCAVATION SHALL BECOME ‘THE PROPERTY OP THE < 5 — — GEOTSCHNCAL ENGINEER SHALL OBSERVE AND TEST THE FILL CONTRACTOR AND SHALL RE DISPOSED OF AT THE CONTRACTOR’S COMPACTION, APPROVE THE FILL MATERIALS MID COMMENT, AS EXPENSE THE COST OF HAULAGE AND SPOILING OP EXCESS NEEDED. ON THE METHOD OF PLACING AND COMPACTION. IN WRITING. ESCAVATED MATERIALS SHALL BE PAID FOR AS DOCUMENTED IN THE BENCHMARK GRADINGLEGEND TO THE OWNER’S REPRESENTATIVE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE PROJECT GPECVICATIONS RESPONSIBLE TO NOTIFY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER WHEN TESTS 4 ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON THE COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE BM ELSGPSSI A ARE TO BE MADE THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER TI’EAU.APPROVE ALL IS THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEWNO THE SITE PRIOR SLDPE COUNTY OP ARAPAHOE 3.144 BRASS CAP IN THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS MID GIVE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE TO BIDOINO TO VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS 0 EAST BELLVIEWAVENUE AND SOUTH COLORADO BOULEVARD ATANEST END COMPLETED FOUNDATIONS TO THE ARCHITECT OUALITY CONTROL BY OP SOUNDIPRIVACY WALL SE NORTH OP NORTH FLOTNTJNS OF EAST MAJOR CONTOUR SIX WI INDEPENDENT TESTING AGENCY AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER lB PROPOSED GRADING CONTOURS 5NOV44 ON THE PLAN ARE TO FINAL BELLVIEW AVENUE SHALL IN NO WAY REUEVE THE CONTRACTOR OF THE RESPONSIBIUTY OR ADS MINOR CONTOUR Bill FOR PERFORMING ALL WORK IN ACCOROARCE WITH ‘IRE CONTRACT N REQUIREMENTS 17 ALL VERTICAL SPOT ELEVATIOSS SHDWR1 ON THE ORAOINO PLAN ASE ELEVATION N454 BAPEST IBLAVDIBBRIDATUM S DULLS FLOWJNE OP CURB IFLI. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED SPOT ELEVATION ,,,=“s B NO RUBBLE OR DEBRIS INCLUDING TIMBER. CONCRETE RUBBLE. 0 DETENTION POND CALCULATIONS S ISEES. BRUSH. AND ASPHALT SHALL SE PLACED IN THE SACKFILL lB ALL SLOPES EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 41 SHALL REQUIRE 0 UNDER ANY OP THE PROPOSED BUILDIRDS. STREETS. CURS & OUSTER, EROSION CONTROL RLASKET. NORTH AMERICAN GREEN SC1SOBN S ES SIDEWALK ORAII’CASE STRUCTURES, WITHIN FIVE FEET OP A DOUBLE NETTED OR EOUAL AS A TEMPORARY STABILIZATION Q1SS,PRO ‘25 CFS 151 •SS1BXINCIIP_ISISE 17W/S 0 BUILDING FOOTPRINT OR BE IN THE PLACEMENT OF ANY UNCLASSIFIED MEASURE 0 PILL PROPERLY ORADED RUBBLE MAY IN SOME LOCATIONS STORAGE VOLUME RED. 1 EBP ACRE’FT BE USED EGOSIS AS SPECIFIED AND VERIFIED BY ThE ENGINEER ThE CDN’HRACTOR lB ALL SURFACES NOT RECEIVING PAVEMENT OR OTHER TREATMENT STORAGE VOLUME PROVIDED 2 SPG ACREFT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL AND HAULING OP SUCH SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED MATERIALS TO A SUITABLE SPOIL AREA COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ThE TOP OP POND = S42B AS REMOVAL OF SUCH MATERIALS SHALL BE FAD FOR AS DOCUMENTED 2B BUILDING CONTRACTDR(S} WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTING EOTTOM OP POND = S422 PS IN THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM ALL STRUCTURES SPILLWAT = S42SSS GRADING PLAN S S B. THE CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESIGN. 21 SIDEWALK SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED 20% MAXIMUMCROSS SLOPES PEAK IES’YR OUTFLOW —115 CFS 0 S MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OP ANY REQUIRED DEWATERING AND SAN MAXIMUM LONGITUDINAL SLOPES, UNLESS OTHERWISE 30’ 60’ 90 SYSTEM THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM SUCH INDEPENDENT NOTED THE SLOPS IN ThE HANDICAP PARKING SPACES AND INVESTIGATION AS DEEMED NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE ASSOCIATED STRIPED ISLAND SHRLL NOT EXCEED ZEN w—I SCALE: 1=30 C1.3 SUBSURFACE GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS AND UNSTABLE SOIL CONOIT1ONS TO BE ENCOUNTERED THROUGHDUTTHE CONSTRUCTiON 22 APPROXIMATE AREATO BE DISTURBED ‘2 SIB ACRES 9 I

9 0

. H

F. ,

000

I.. C

WA I

0’ 0 I

g

> z fl wcn C rn -I CM n Kent Denver: New Upper School -o •o n. 4000 East Quincy Ave. -o Englewood, CC 80113 Zm z OIA313 .0--I NOLIWIJ1N ONIO1WI9H.030N - MID

SNOII501110N 101101 _0N0 - S 0(033 30500 0 a .090 lId/C 050 11091/ NISlI OIlS/LI Ill S 010] S 11/111 010515 0/001.0 l_lE: *. 0Il I I I I I 4000 aIMS] Lifi

I I I I I I I I 1.1 i-f % 2- III II100VI 3000

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

‘SIP oLtvAflfbJiUiaia mo -

.0 - £3 a a

.0 - SN ‘3003’ 00.0.11,0,1 1orn . 1321-1.10115 CD CD 0’ 0050;.’ a0o -I.z o C o 0 [103103 J20 CD •0 09 0< -‘CD z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD

C .0_I-SI. /N £.‘. 7Th N011021313 oocoñaisv - MID ON303l vrn3Lwl 910U.5021313N.) V 1CD

Co S 1INNI.D 100.00 91)031.23 0000oba C,

-

z. - 3 .4 —______-__ •IImiiI CI: l10o2P 13000 N11.MrA.0 S VO - l 00d31._0_S AOl. trIo 9)2100110 )2•. 000 1•S0J 0 0 44 10 ‘032 waor:sI 0 .2. P.o. E7jO)1VVlS%

fbi-No0 j000 .1 U On-no: 13000 N ]M”1 .00)1_ND_S 0,]’, trW 932 SD’OO N2•.000 :944,a ‘03: .,Nsy-001 00TulO 1 iI’Os 3 ‘001 33_bOo

lao, 1003., CoD 01.91’’o 0 C-: 00@00 000 C lAfl,01.ONSOlm_S 0.], A.’Io 9119:1001.: POPS] 031 £0930101 0N1291’391091n39P 10.10109112

110(4350 000(1 000109 001-la ios In mi 0110011 l%OIl 00100 ONINNSONNIILVO 092000(1 921] 001 1d_1 N ION 3/I A01il)0000 09101 3301

%ON000000IOINOINN]1131 .0_I ‘Slim .0(0 0 32(5 NOLI52101I 00(01110 LOOM-21110 SO 10 NIb 03 4400

0N3031 NOILVAa1S ONIQ]Ifl 00 % 15900011006 00 03 aN:,‘II ‘ 13A91/ HIFIINIV/Il 0101 10013 001 001511 10104 115 50.0(111/4 NLMOIHSAOOIIII/.5 19001015910 INYHOISS /0041 1.009-5 NILM 000101NIJ dl 01 1000001 10 010 0010913] 095010] 1111 9 513/_I 10(900 [N ON 310011 NO NOILVPINOINI 03011 NOd 21432101001320030 LId009 5110ld 0001SOL 01113 1 °‘‘ ON 1 SNIddloiN NNH001M SLIM 01110150150000 0010910911 N ICON 005001 00300(000 000 0133010310 S SINflIXId 0011/1011 NOIN11,511101010110M NI 501519010 101210 Nd 0 000001 .1/C 100 20010140 10000013 100130110 N] 119112 005 000 000IONO11I 02000000. OOISIflO1MflIDYllV 105110003 Nl(IIJ100100IOI II 100050131105 201 031100000033(00001 30 0(9310 0/0303 003 S L15d 1000 100003010000 IMOONIM 000 00000 303 5001501010 0NpvNo10051I0No1013 309003001901.01 0001 0(0001 •11l10131150 30130] 01510130039 000015r1101101 lv C

51151.0 OSSNOON Nd/_k 110/4 NOd CONO IN - I NMOHB SnON NOIIVA]]] ONIO1IAS 3ld LASS Co® ®OW0000 z z C 0 -l r I ‘1, rn CD 0 -l -1 C, 0 C, :0 0 z :0 I,, rnz

m z -I

•7 :0 0

0 :0 z 0 r 0

a.

Co 0 C -1 I m I CD -l C-, 0 1 z m

Ci, I,, 0 C z -4 I m ,, CD -4 0 I 0 0 m >C z C., Ill -4 z 0 C m -1 CD 0 I 0 0 r

I

1 m C C r rn m Kent Denver: New Upper School 4000 East Quncy Ave. Englewood, CO 80113 Zr,, 0 76 pa

LOTE: 173 pa

ILOTA: 32 parking spacesi

LOT F: 95 parking spaces - 3 for new fire lane access in south row

Parking lot of 101 spaces completed Summer 2017, to account for: -21 spaces lost East of Existing Upper School / Gym -3 spaces lost at fire lane for new Middle School -8 spaces required for Middle School (see previous submittal) ‘-51 spaces lost during construction of New Upper School

I: 51 parking spaces to be removed forl New Upper School Classroom Bldg______

B: 9 parking spacesi -j Existing 7/8 Grade School I(future renovation with 970 sf [addition Spring 2018-Fall 2018)

182parking space NE/I Upper School I Classroom Bldg Site 21 parking spaces (eliminated to reduce pedestrian and vehicular traffic) Existing Upper School (future renovation with 980 Sf addition Fall 2018-Fall 2019) 125parking spaces CHVTrail #4O4 (along S. ColotØp SlvdaO\A

NEW Asphalt Campus Bike Path (Summer 2017’

CHV Trail (along S Dahlia# $R0W)

CHVTçaal#4349 (a)Ohgff cy AvaRQ

HighLine Canal Trail

NEW Upper School ‘Classroom Bldg Site

CHVTrail#4045 (along S Monroe Lane Rt3W)

CHVTrail#4047 (Sng Glenriloor Dr adway ejsement) . •., As part of traffic circle construction and traffic flow revisions, signage was modified to note that the Dining Hall and Business/DevelopmentlAlumni Office may be accessed by going east out of the traffic circle

EXHIBIT E

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building

TRAFFICIMPACT ANALYSIS

Prepared for:

Kent Denver School 400 East Quincy Avenue Englewood, CO 80113 Contact: Jerry Walker, Associate Head of School

Prepared by:

DESIGNMatrix%.GROUP

1601 Blake Street, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 572-0200 Contact: David Kline, PE., PTOE

October 5, 2017 Revised November 17, 2017 Revised December 1, 2017

Table of Contents Introduction ...... 1 Traffic Analysis Study Area ...... 1 Existing Conditions ...... 3 Existing Roadways...... 3 Existing Traffic Volumes ...... 3 Intersection Capacity Analysis ...... 5 Uniformed Traffic Control ...... 5 Existing School Start Times...... 6 Existing Traffic Condition ...... 6 Project Description ...... 9 Project Description...... 9 Existing KDS Site Traffic ...... 10 PM Peak Hour Traffic Condition ...... 10 Project Traffic ...... 10 Trip Distribution/ Trip Assignment ...... 11 2018 Total Traffic Analysis ...... 11 Traffic Analysis ...... 11 2038 Background Traffic ...... 14 Traffic Projections ...... 14 Traffic Analysis ...... 14 2038 Total Traffic Analysis ...... 17 Traffic Analysis ...... 17 Kent Denver School Traffic Condition ...... 20 Mitigation Measure Opportunities ...... 20 Alternative Intersection Configurations ...... 21 Intersection Analysis ...... 22 Results ...... 22 Intersection Impact Matrix ...... 22 Intersection Analysis ...... 23 Results ...... 24 Intersection Impact Matrix ...... 24 Intersection Analysis ...... 25 Results ...... 26 Intersection Impact Matrix ...... 26 Intersection Analysis ...... 27 Results ...... 28 Intersection Impact Matrix ...... 28 Intersection Analysis ...... 29 Results ...... 30 Intersection Impact Matrix ...... 30 Alternative Analysis Comparison Table ...... 31 Conclusion/ Recommendation ...... 32

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building ii Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Appendices:

Appendix A: Existing Traffic Counts Appendix B: Existing Level of Service / Site Total Traffic Level of Service Output Appendix C: 2018 Total Traffic Level of Service Output Appendix D: 2038 Background Traffic Level of Service Output Appendix E: 2038 Total Traffic Level of Service Output Appendix F: Alternative Analysis 2038 Total Traffic Level of Service Output List of Tables Table 1- Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria ...... 5 Table 2 - Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria ...... 5 Table 3 - Existing / 2018 Background AM Level of Service Summary ...... 7 Table 4 - Existing / 2018 Background PM Level of Service Summary ...... 7 Table 5 - Kent Denver School Campus Buildings ...... 9 Table 6 - Quincy Ave at KDS Campus Rd Turning Movement Volumes ...... 10 Table 7 - Quincy Ave at KDS West Access Turning Movement Volumes ...... 10 Table 8 - Quincy Ave at KDS Campus Rd Turning Movement Volumes ...... 10 Table 9 - Quincy Ave at KDS Secondary Access Turning Movement Volumes ...... 10 Table 10 - 2018 Total AM Level of Service Summary ...... 13 Table 11 - 2018 Total PM Level of Service Summary ...... 13 Table 12 - 2038 Background AM Level of Service Summary ...... 16 Table 13 - 2038 Background PM Level of Service Summary ...... 16 Table 14 - 2038 Total AM Level of Service Summary ...... 19 Table 15 - 2038 Total PM Level of Service Summary ...... 19 Table 16 - KDS Roundabout + CB UTC 2038 Total AM LOS Summary ...... 22 Table 17 - KDS Roundabout + CB UTC 2038 Total PM LOS Summary ...... 22 Table 18 - KDS Roundabout +CB UTC Intersection Impact Matrix ...... 22 Table 19 - KDS Roundabout + CB Signal 2038 Total AM LOS Summary ...... 23 Table 20 - KDS Roundabout + CB Signal 2038 Total PM LOS Summary ...... 24 Table 21 - KDS Roundabout + CB Signal Intersection Impact Matrix ...... 24 Table 22 - KDS Roundabout + CB Roundabout 2038 Total AM LOS Summary ...... 25 Table 23 - KDS Roundabout + CB Roundabout 2038 Total PM LOS Summary ...... 26 Table 24 - KDS Roundabout + CB Roundabout Intersection Impact Matrix ...... 26 Table 25 - New KDS at CB Traffic Signal 2038 Total AM LOS Summary ...... 27 Table 26 - New KDS at CB Traffic Signal 2038 Total PM LOS Summary ...... 28 Table 27 - New KDS at Colorado Blvd Traffic Signal Comparison ...... 28 Table 28 - New KDS at CB Roundabout 2038 Total AM LOS Summary ...... 29 Table 29 - New KDS at CB Roundabout 2038 Total PM LOS Summary ...... 30 Table 30 - New KDS at Colorado Blvd Roundabout Comparison ...... 30 Table 31 - Alternative Analysis Comparison Table ...... 31

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building iii Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

List of Figures Figure 1 - Vicinity Map ...... 2 Figure 2 - 2017 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 4 Figure 3 - Site Generation Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 8 Figure 4 - 2018 Total Traffic Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 12 Figure 5 - 2038 Background Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 15 Figure 6 - 2038 Total Traffic Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 18

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building iv Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Introduction The purpose of this Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is to evaluate the proposed Kent Denver School: New Upper School Classroom Building. The analysis looks at two traffic periods, the first studies the existing conditions with the site developed traffic. The second analysis examines 2038 background traffic with site traffic and includes the proposed 2038 roadway configuration. Kent Denver School (KDS) was established in 1922 and is a preparatory school offering a middle school (Grades 6-8) and an upper school (Grades 9-12) programs. The existing campus is comprised of 10 separate buildings. Classes are held in 4 buildings, with the other buildings servicing ancillary campus activities. An additional building, with additional class rooms to serve the Upper School is proposed. The purpose of the new building is to shift the existing student population to larger rooms while no increase in student enrollment is projected. The existing class rooms are small for the intended school need and the proposed building and class space will allow for larger class rooms. The existing and new buildings are served by an internal circulator roadway. The Campus Road is the primary KDS access off Quincy Avenue and the intersection is configured as a “T”. Quincy Avenue is a two-lane minor arterial or collector roadway with free flow condition at the intersection. The Campus Road is stop controlled with two exit lanes, one left turn and one right turn lane. During the morning peak period, a Cherry Hills Village Police officer controls traffic operations at the Quincy Avenue / Campus Road similar to a traffic signal. Another secondary campus access is located at the west end of the property. This Secondary KDS Access connects to an existing 65 vehicle parking lot which serves the existing adjacent sports fields. The primary purpose of this access is parking during sporting events and there is little to no activity during the school day. There is a maintenance access road located at the south end of the parking lot, but general use is prohibited. This entrance also serves emergency access. Figure 1 (Vicinity Map) shows the general location of the proposed development. As shown, the KDS is located along Quincy Avenue between Colorado Blvd and South Monroe Lane. Traffic Analysis Study Area The following study area intersections along Quincy Ave were analyzed in this study: • Dahlia Street • Colorado Boulevard • Kent Denver Main Access • Kent Denver Secondary Access

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 1 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 2 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Existing Conditions Existing Roadways Campus Road is the main internal roadway accessing the KDS campus. The internal roadway is paved and it circulates through the individual buildings and connects to the upper school parking lot and teacher and facility parking lots. The internal roadway is two lanes and at the “T” intersection with Quincy Avenue, the roadway widens to accommodate 200 feet exiting right and right turn lanes. Widening is accomplished through a 100-feet taper section. The Campus Road / Quincy Ave is Stop Controlled on Campus Road. Quincy Avenue runs east / west and is listed in the 2008 Cherry Hills Village Master Plan as a Local Connecting Street. This correlates to a minor arterial or collector roadway functional classification. These types of facilities are planned to carry between 1,500 and 10,000 vehicles per day. Traffic counts on Quincy Ave in the vicinity of the site indicate a 5,730 ADT. This volume is in the range of the capacity of a two-lane roadway of this classification. Colorado Boulevard runs north / south and is also listed in the 2008 Cherry Hills Village Master Plan as a Local Connecting Street and correlates to a minor arterial or collector roadway functional classification. Traffic counts on Colorado Blvd indicate a 6,570 ADT, which is in the range of the capacity of a two-lane roadway. Colorado Blvd connects to the south with Quincy Ave at a “T” intersection. The Colorado Blvd / Quincy Ave intersection is currently All-Way Stop controlled. Dahlia Street runs north / south and is a local roadway. Traffic counts on Dahlia St indicate a 1,590 ADT, north of Quincy Ave. South of Quincy Ave, Dahlia St. dead ends and traffic volumes are minimal. The Quincy Ave. / Dahlia St. intersection is All Way Stop controlled. Secondary KDS Access intersects with Quincy Avenue, through a driveway cut and accesses the 65-stall sports facility vehicle parking lot south of the intersection. The Secondary KDS Access / Quincy Ave intersection is stop controlled on the parking lot side. Existing Traffic Volumes AM and PM peak hour traffic counts were conducted on Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at the intersection of Quincy Ave. at Dahlia St., Quincy Ave. at Colorado Blvd, Quincy Ave. at the Campus Roadway and Quincy Ave. the Secondary KDS Access intersections. The counts were taken for a total of three hours in the AM and PM time period. The AM peak period generally occurs between 7:15 and 8:15 AM, and the PM peak period generally occurs between 5:00 and 6:00 PM. Figure 2 shows the existing AM and PM peak hour turning movements. Appendix A contains the raw count data.

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 3 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Figure 2 - 2017 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 4 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Intersection Capacity Analysis The intersections were analyzed using techniques published by the Transportation Research Board in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) and programmed into the Synchro 9.1 computer software. Intersection control scenarios consider both traffic signals and unsignalized intersection. The traffic signal analysis results are shown as Levels of Service (LOS). LOS is a qualitative measure used to describe the condition of traffic flow and delay, ranging from excellent conditions at LOS A to very poor conditions at LOS F. Generally, LOS D is considered the upper threshold for intersection operations, with LOS E representing the capacity of the intersection. Table 1 provides a description of conditions for each level of service at a signalized intersection.

Table 1- Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria Level of Service Average Stopped Delay Description (seconds per vehicle) A <10 Very low delay. Most vehicles do not stop. B >10 to 20 Generally good progression. Slight delays. C >20 to 35 Increased number of stopped vehicles D >35 to 55 Noticeable congestion. E >55 to 80 High delays and frequent cycle failures. F >80 Forced flow. Extensive queuing. Source: HCM2010 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010) For unsignalized (side-street stop controlled) intersections, the Synchro 9.1 software applies the HCM methodology for unsignalized intersections to determine average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds), for each stop-controlled movement. The method incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. For side street stop-controlled intersections, delay is represented as the average delay per vehicle for each approach, and the overall intersection. Table 2 summarizes the relationship between delay and level of service. Table 2 - Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria Level of Average Total Delay Service (seconds per vehicle) Description A < 10 Little or no conflicting traffic for minor street approach. B >10 to 15 Minor street begins to notice absence of available gaps. C >15 to 25 Minor street begins experiencing delay for available gaps. D >25 to 35 Minor street starts to experience queuing. E >35 to 50 Extensive minor street queuing due to insufficient gaps. F > 50 Insufficient gaps to allow minor street traffic to cross safely through the major street traffic stream. Source: HCM2010 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010) Uniformed Traffic Control

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 5 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

The main access to KDS is through the Campus Road / Quincy Ave. intersection, which is stop controlled on Campus Road. During the morning peak hour, KDS hires a Cherry Hills police officer to control the intersection. The Uniformed Traffic Control (UTC) regulates traffic flow based on active traffic conditions, which includes prioritizing through and turning movements. The Campus Roadway stop condition is legally changed per the direction of the UTC. Similarly, the free through movements on Quincy Avenue is legally changed at the direction of the UTC to include stop condition and protected turn movements. During the hours that the UTC operates the intersection, the traffic control is similar to that of a traffic signal controlled intersection. The HCM 2010 Highway Capacity Manual established LOS analysis based on the two intersection controlled types, 1) signalized, and 2) unsignalized. For this reason, in this study, to best reflect the actual intersection operations during the peak hours, the Campus Road / Quincy Ave. intersection is analyzed as a split phase signalized intersection. Although a UTC operated intersection is dynamic, since the analysis is comparative based on traffic scenarios, this approach will support an understanding of traffic operations. A calibration step was undertaken to match the traffic signal timing to the actual UTC field conditions. It was found through an iterative process of matching the traffic model queue with the experienced field queue that 90 second cycle best matched. Existing School Start Times The KDS campus offer two school programs, a middle school (Grades 6-8), and an upper school (Grades 9-12). Both of these programs have a start time of 8:00 am. In addition, a public elementary school located on Quincy Ave., less than a mile west of the KDS access also has a start time of 8:00 am. The intense trip pattern of these schools influences Quincy Ave. corridor and intersection operations. Existing Traffic Condition Traffic analysis for the existing 2017 peak hour traffic condition are presented in Tables 3 and 4 present the results of the analysis as Levels of Service for existing 2017 conditions. The existing lane geometry and intersection controlled for the two critical intersects are shown in the graphic below.

Existing Lane Geometry / Intersection Control

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 6 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Table 3 - Existing / 2018 Background AM Level of Service Summary Intersection EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR INT Quincy Ave & LOS n/a D n/a n/a D n/a n/a B n/a n/a B n/a D Dahlia Delay --4 Way Stop-- - 30.1 - - 28.9 - - 10.6 - - 13.6 - 26.9 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS n/a E n/a n/a C n/a n/a n/a n/a B n/a C C Colorado Blvd Delay --All Way Stop-- - 35.7 - - 19.4 - - - - 13.3 - 16 24.4 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS n/a E n/a n/a D n/a C n/a D n/a n/a n/a D Campus Road Delay --Signal-- - 66.8 - - 47.1 - 32.0 - 44.1 - - - 52.3 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS n/a A n/a A A n/a B n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a A Secondary Access Delay --NB Stop-- - 0 - 0 0 - 14.2 - - - - - 0.1 (sec.)

Table 4 - Existing / 2018 Background PM Level of Service Summary Intersection EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR INT Quincy Ave & LOS n/a F n/a n/a E n/a n/a B n/a n/a B n/a E Dahlia Delay --4 Way Stop-- - 62.1 - - 46.2 - - 11.9 - - 12.8 - 48.9 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS n/a F n/a n/a E n/a n/a n/a n/a D n/a B F Colorado Blvd Delay --All Way Stop-- - 84.4 - - 47.7 - - - - 25.1 - 14.3 52.6 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS n/a n/a n/a A n/a n/a E n/a B n/a n/a n/a Campus Road D Delay --NB Stop- - 39.0 - 8.4 - - 48.6 - 13.4 - - - 25.4 (sec.) Quincy Ave & Secondary LOS n/a A n/a A A n/a B n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a A Access Delay --NB Stop-- - 0 - 8.1 0 - 12.4 - - - - - 0.1 (sec.)

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 7 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Figure 3 - Site Generation Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 8 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Project Description Project Description KDS is a private school campus offering middle school and upper school programs. The existing campus is comprised of 10 separate buildings. Classes are held in 4 buildings, with the other buildings servicing ancillary campus activities. An additional building, with additional class rooms to serve the Upper School is propose. The additional building equates to total campus square foot area increase of 11 percent. The existing and proposed building and areas are presented in Table 5. Table 5 - Kent Denver School Campus Buildings Campus Facilities Existing Area (SF) Proposed Area (SF) Field House 25,000 25,000 Yates Pavilion 16,450 16,450 New Middle School 35,119 35,119 Existing 7th/8th 11,300 11,300 Existing Upper Level 90,000 90,000 El Pomar Theater 7,800 7,800 Student Art Center 30,000 30,000 Cafeteria 21,000 21,000 Administration 11,000 11,000 Residence 3,900 3,900 Proposed Upper School 28,000

Total 251,569 279,569 % Increase 11%

The purpose of the new building is to shift the existing student population to larger rooms and no increase in student enrollment is proposed. The existing class rooms are small for the intended school need, and the new building allows larger class rooms. The existing school enrollment is 702 students. Enrollment – Existing Campus: • Middle School – 220 Students • Upper School – 482 Students • Total 702 Students Enrollment – Proposed Campus: • Middle School – 220 Students • Upper School – 482 Students • Total 702 Student

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 9 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Existing KDS Site Traffic The existing traffic counts at the KDS Campus Road and the West Access reflect the actual site generated trips presented in Tables 6 and 7. Table 6 - Quincy Ave at KDS Campus Rd Turning Movement Volumes NB-L NB-R WB-L EB-R Total AM 83 142 328 172 725 PM 70 135 94 44 343

Table 7 - Quincy Ave at KDS West Access Turning Movement Volumes NB-L NB-R WB-L EB-R Total AM 1 1 0 5 7 PM 1 3 1 2 7

PM Peak Hour Traffic Condition In this study the background traffic peak period is study to reflect the afternoon rush hour. The site traffic in the afternoon is spread over several hours beginning with the school dismissal during the 3:00- 4:00 pm hour period and continues to 6:00pm. The background traffic peaks between 5:00-6:00pm. To understand the afternoon condition the 5:00-6:00 peak period is study and presented.

Project Traffic Although the purpose of the new building is to shift the existing student population to larger rooms and no increase in student enrollment is proposed, for study purposes, an estimate of increase traffic associated with the new building is included. The vehicle trips associated with the development change are calculated using the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition. The trip generation calculated from the ITE Code 530 High School, for the proposed new building is added to the existing site peak hour traffic counts and are presented in Tables 8 and 9. Table 8 - Quincy Ave at KDS Campus Rd Turning Movement Volumes NB-L NB-R WB-L EB-R Total AM 92 160 367 192 811 PM 80 153 106 51 390

Table 9 - Quincy Ave at KDS Secondary Access Turning Movement Volumes NB-L NB-R WB-L EB-R Total AM 1 1 0 6 8 PM 1 3 1 2 7

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 10 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Trip Distribution/ Trip Assignment The trip distribution was developed based on the distribution of the August 29, 2017 traffic counts. The outbound and inbound site generated trip distribution allocates 67% to / from the east and 33% of the trip distribution to / from the west along Quincy Ave. At the Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection, trips are distributed and assigned to and from Colorado Blvd at 50% and Quincy at 50%. At the Quincy Ave. / Dahlia St intersection, trips are distributed and assigned to and from Dahlia St. at 25% north and south, and Quincy at 50%. Figure 3 shows site generated weekday AM / PM peak hour traffic volumes for build-out.

2018 Total Traffic Analysis The study area intersections are analyzed with the existing street network which includes access to the site. Traffic Analysis To determine how site generated traffic will influence the study intersections, the background traffic volumes, plus the site generated traffic were analyzed with Synchro 9.1 software. The 2017 traffic volumes are used to represent the 2018 background traffic and no growth forecast is considered. To represent the Uniformed Traffic Control condition at the Quincy Ave./ Campus Rd. intersection a split phase traffic signals is analyzed and the cycle lengths and signal phases are optimized. For unsignalized intersections, average control delay for each stop-controlled approach are identified. Table 8 presents the results of the analysis as Levels of Service of Total Traffic with overall intersection delay in seconds. Appendix C contains the 2018 Total Traffic peak hour analysis output and Synchro traffic signal timing worksheets. Figure 4 shows the Existing/2018 Background AM and PM peak hour turning movements. The lane geometry and intersection controlled for the two critical intersects are shown in the graphic below.

2018 Lane Geometry / Intersection Control

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 11 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Figure 4 - 2018 Total Traffic Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 12 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Table 10 - 2018 Total AM Level of Service Summary Intersection EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR INT Quincy Ave & LOS n/a D n/a n/a D n/a n/a B n/a n/a B n/a D Dahlia Delay --4 Way Stop-- - 34.3 - - 33.5 - - 11.0 - - 14.2 - 30.5 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS n/a E n/a n/a C n/a n/a n/a n/a B n/a C D Colorado Blvd Delay --All Way Stop-- - 48.0 - - 23.3 - - - - 13.8 - 18.3 30.7 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS n/a F n/a n/a E n/a C n/a D n/a n/a n/a E Campus Road Delay --Signalized-- - 99.1 - - 62.3 - 32.2 - 50.8 - - - 70.4 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS n/a A n/a A A n/a B n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a A Secondary Access Delay --NB Stop-- - 0 - 0 0 - 14.5 - - - - - 0.1 (sec.)

Table 11 - 2018 Total PM Level of Service Summary Intersection EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR INT Quincy Ave & LOS n/a F n/a n/a E n/a n/a B n/a n/a B n/a F Dahlia Delay --4 Way Stop-- - 68.3 - - 48.8 - - 12.0 - - 13.0 - 52.8 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS n/a F n/a n/a F n/a n/a n/a n/a D n/a B F Colorado Blvd Delay --All Way Stop-- - 109.8 - - 51.0 - - - - 25.6 - 14.8 63.8 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS n/a n/a n/a C n/a n/a F n/a B n/a n/a n/a E Campus Road Delay --NB Stop-- - 46.4 - 8.5 - - 106.9 - 14.2 - - - 46.0 (sec.) Quincy Ave & Secondary LOS n/a A n/a A A n/a B n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a A Access Delay --NB Stop-- - 0 - 8.1 0 - 12.5 - - - - - 0.1 (sec.)

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 13 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

2038 Background Traffic The study area intersections are analyzed with the existing intersections, and roadway improvements, including a traffic signal at the Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection which is identified in the Cherry Hills Village 2017 Traffic Study. These improvements include a traffic signal at Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd and appropriate left turn lanes. Traffic Projections Quincy Ave. is a connecting regional roadway, and due to the existing surrounding build out condition traffic volume is anticipated to have moderate increase over the 20-year horizon year of 2038. A background traffic volume growth rate of 0.5 % annual growth is used and applied to, the intersections within the study area for a 20-year forecast factor of 1.10. Traffic Analysis To understand the 2038 background traffic condition the forecasted traffic volumes, were analyzed with Synchro 9.1 software. The Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection traffic signal is analyzed using optimized signal phases and cycle lengths. To represent the Uniformed Traffic Control condition at the Quincy Ave./ Campus Rd. intersection a split phase traffic signal is analyzed also using optimized signal phase and cycle lengths. For unsignalized intersections, average control delay for each stop-controlled movement is identified. Table 9 presents the results of the analysis as Levels of Service of Background Traffic with overall intersection delay. Appendix D contains the 2038 Background Traffic peak hour analysis output and Synchro traffic signal timing worksheets.

Figure 5 shows the 2038 Background AM and PM peak hour turning movements. The lane geometry and intersection controlled for the two critical intersects are shown in the graphic below.

2038 Lane Geometry / Intersection Control

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 14 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Figure 5 - 2038 Background Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 15 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Table 12 - 2038 Background AM Level of Service Summary Intersection EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR INT Quincy Ave & LOS n/a F n/a n/a F n/a n/a B n/a n/a C n/a E Dahlia Delay --4 Way Stop-- - 55 - - 52.4 - - 11.3 - - 15.4 - 47.5 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS C B n/a n/a B n/a n/a n/a n/a B n/a B B Colorado Blvd Delay --Signal-- 20.7 11.7 - - 12.7 - - - - 12.4 - 16.5 14.3 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS n/a F n/a n/a F n/a D n/a E n/a n/a n/a E Campus Road Delay --Signal-- - 101.1 - - 65.0 - 40.3 - 63.5 - - - 75.4 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS n/a A n/a A A n/a C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a A Secondary Access Delay --NB Stop-- - 0 - 0 0 - 15.2 - - - - - 0.1 (sec.)

Table 13 - 2038 Background PM Level of Service Summary Intersection EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR INT Quincy Ave & LOS n/a F n/a n/a F n/a n/a B n/a n/a B n/a F Dahlia Delay --4 Way Stop-- - 106.6 - - 76.2 - - 12.7 - - 13.8 - 81.6 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS C A n/a n/a B n/a n/a n/a n/a C n/a B B Colorado Blvd Delay --Signal-- 22.9 8.6 - - 11.0 - - - - 21.2 - 19.3 15.0 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS n/a E n/a n/a D n/a C n/a D n/a n/a n/a D Campus Road Delay --Signal-- - 71.2 - - 45.7 - 31.4 - 42.2 - - - 51.3 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS n/a A n/a A A n/a B n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a A Secondary Access Delay --NB Stop-- - 0 - 8.2 0 - 13 - - - - - 0.1 (sec.)

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 16 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

2038 Total Traffic Analysis The Total Traffic condition is established by adding the 2038 background traffic with the assumed site traffic. Traffic Analysis The 2038 Total Traffic condition is analyzed with Synchro 9.1 software. The Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection traffic signal is analyzed using a 120 second cycle lengths. To represent the Uniformed Traffic Control condition at the Quincy Ave./ Campus Rd. intersection a traffic signals is analyzed using optimized signal phases and cycle lengths. For unsignalized intersections, average control delay for each stop-controlled movement is identified. Table 10 presents the results of the analysis as Levels of Service of the Total Traffic condition with overall intersection delay. Appendix E contains the 2038 Total Traffic peak hour analysis output and Synchro traffic signal timing worksheets. Figure 6 shows the 2038 Total Traffic AM and PM peak hour turning movements. The lane geometry and intersection controlled for the two critical intersects are shown in the graphic below.

2038 Lane Geometry / Intersection Control

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 17 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Figure 6 - 2038 Total Traffic Peak Hour Traffic Volumes

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 18 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Table 14 - 2038 Total AM Level of Service Summary Intersection EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR INT Quincy Ave & LOS n/a F n/a n/a F n/a n/a B n/a n/a C n/a F Dahlia Delay --4 Way Stop-- - 66.2 - - 55.1 - - 11.7 - - 15.9 - 53 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS A A n/a n/a B n/a n/a n/a n/a B n/a B B Colorado Blvd Delay --Signal-- 7.5 1.6 - - 12.5 - - - - 12.8 - 18.0 10.4 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS n/a F n/a n/a F n/a D n/a F n/a n/a n/a E Campus Road Delay --Signal-- - 99.9 - - 52.2 - 50.0 - 101.5 - - - 76.4 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS n/a A n/a A A n/a C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a A Secondary Access Delay --NB Stop-- - 0 - 0 0 - 15.6 - - - - - 0.1 (sec.)

Table 15 - 2038 Total PM Level of Service Summary Intersection EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR INT Quincy Ave & LOS n/a F n/a n/a F n/a n/a B n/a n/a B n/a F Dahlia Delay --4 Way Stop-- - 115.2 - - 78.4 - - 12.9 - - 13.9 - 86.3 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS C A n/a n/a B n/a n/a n/a n/a C n/a B B Colorado Blvd Delay --Signal-- 25.2 8.9 - - 11.5 - - - - 20.6 - 19.1 15.4 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS n/a E n/a n/a D n/a C n/a D n/a n/a n/a D Campus Road Delay --Signal-- - 71.6 - - 47.3 - 33.1 - 52.1 - - - 53.7 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS n/a A n/a A A n/a B n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a A Secondary Access Delay --NB Stop-- - 0 - 8.2 0 - 13.1 - - - - - 0.1 (sec.)

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 19 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Kent Denver School Traffic Condition The near and long term traffic analysis indicates that the Quincy Ave corridor experiences heavy congested during the morning peak hour, 7:15-8:15 am, which is due to background/pass through traffic, the public school traffic, and KDS traffic. In the afternoon, a similar traffic condition exists, however not as intense since the school traffic does not coincide with the afternoon background traffic. Outside of the two traffic peak hours Quincy Ave traffic volume decrease significantly. Quincy Ave. / Campus Rd Intersection In the near term with project traffic the Quincy Ave / Campus Rd intersection operate at an acceptable LOS D or better in both the am and pm with extensive queuing. Once the peak period passes the Quincy Ave corridor congestion dissipates and the roadway returns to its rural roadway character. This intense congestion is typical to similar school traffic patterns, which generally experiences a concentrated am peak period. The challenge for schools and jurisdictions is whether to allocate resources to make roadway improvements that serve the peak hour condition but during the remainder of the day and non-school year are underutilized. The mitigation measures below are options for consideration along the corridor and at the Quincy Ave / Campus Rd intersection. In the long term Quincy Ave / Campus Rd intersection operates at a LOS F in both the am and pm traffic condition with extensive queuing. This is due to the background traffic growth and the studied forecasted site traffic. Similar to the near term condition mitigation measures may be applied, however consideration to controlling the intersection with a roundabout may be a future improvement. Mitigation Measure Opportunities Travel Demand Management – Currently the three schools, 1) the public elementary, 2) KDS Middle, and 3) KDS Upper start at the same time, 8:00am. The school traffic is concentrated in a 30-minute period before start. If the school starts were staggered the travel demand would be spread over a longer period thus improving congestion. Uniformed Traffic Control – There may be better intersection operation achieved at the Quincy Ave / Campus Rd intersection if the UTC is trained to operate the intersection similar the simulated signal timing studied. Although UTC is dynamic, adhering to a more defined traffic control plan based on signal timing may improve overall operation. Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd Intersection As presented in Cherry Hills Village traffic studies the Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersection is experiencing and will continue to experience excessive delay, congestion, and queuing. The Kent Denver School traffic is contributing to this condition is addition to the background traffic. As an adjacent intersection the Quincy Ave / Campus Rd intersection influences this condition. The following section discusses some alternative intersection configurations.

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 20 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Alternative Intersection Configurations Alternative intersection configurations are studied to address the level of service concerns at both the Quincy Ave / Campus Rd and Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersections. It is recognized that the Quincy Ave / Dahlia St traffic conditions are not directly related to KDS traffic and that the KDS West Access has low utilization, therefore neither intersections are included in the alternative intersection configuration study. The Quincy Ave / Campus Rd and Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersections are studied in the 2038 total traffic condition and scenarios include:

• Existing KDS Roundabout + Colorado Blvd Uniformed Traffic Control • Existing KDS Roundabout + Colorado Blvd Traffic Signal • Existing KDS Roundabout + Colorado Blvd Roundabout • New KDS at Colorado Blvd Traffic Signal • New KDS at Colorado Blvd Roundabout

The intersection 2038 traffic volumes remain the same in all scenarios, however intersection geometry and intersection control is modified according to the scenarios. Synchro 9.1 software is used for the analysis and approach level of service is presented for comparison purposes. Below are brief scenario narratives, approach level of service, and intersection impact matrix.

Existing KDS Roundabout + Colorado Blvd Uniformed Traffic Control

To improve traffic conditions at the Quincy Ave / Campus Rd and Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersections and roundabouts at Quincy Ave / Campus Rd and Uniformed Traffic Control at Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd are studied. The lane geometry and intersection traffic control in presented in the graphic below.

Lane Geometry / Intersection Control KDS Roundabout + Colorado Blvd Uniformed Traffic Control

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 21 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Intersection Analysis The Quincy Ave./ Campus Rd. intersection is analyzed with a roundabout intersection control. To represent the Uniformed Traffic Control condition at the Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection a traffic signals is analyzed using optimized traffic signal split phasing and cycle lengths. The approach LOS and overall intersection LOS are presented in the tables below.

Table 16 - KDS Roundabout + CB UTC 2038 Total AM LOS Summary Intersection EB WB NB SB INT Quincy Ave & LOS C D n/a C Colorado Blvd C Delay --UTC-- 28.8 41.4 - 31.3 (sec.) 33.3 Quincy Ave & LOS B C A n/a Campus Road B Delay --Roundabout-- 12.8 17.8 8.0 - (sec.) 13.8

Table 17 - KDS Roundabout + CB UTC 2038 Total PM LOS Summary Intersection EB WB NB SB INT Quincy Ave & LOS D D n/a D Colorado Blvd D Delay --UTC-- 39.3 39.6 - 38.3 (sec.) 39.1 Quincy Ave & LOS A C A n/a Campus Road B Delay --Roundabout-- 7.9 17.9 8.0 - (sec.) 12.7

Results The analysis results of the 2038 Total Traffic condition indicate that the Quincy Ave./ Campus Rd. roundabout is anticipated to operate at an overall LOS of B or better in both the am and pm peak hour condition. The Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection with Uniformed Traffic Control is anticipated to operate at an overall LOS of D or better in both the am and pm peak hour condition.

Intersection Impact Matrix The table below identifies the impact the intersection configuration will have on the ROW, Utilities, and construction costs. Construction costs are based on current 2017 pricing and conceptual intersection configuration.

Table 18 - KDS Roundabout +CB UTC Intersection Impact Matrix Intersection AM/PM LOS ROW Utility Total Cost

Quincy/Colo. Blvd C/D n/a n/a n/a Quincy/KDS B/B $0.0 $0.0 $0.6M

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 22 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Existing KDS Roundabout + Colorado Blvd Traffic Signal

To improve traffic conditions at the Quincy Ave / Campus Rd and Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersections a roundabout at Quincy Ave / Campus Rd and a traffic signal with an eastbound left turn lane at Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersections are studied. The lane geometry and intersection traffic control in presented in the graphic below.

Lane Geometry / Intersection Control KDS Roundabout + Colorado Blvd Traffic Signal

Intersection Analysis The Quincy Ave./ Campus Rd. intersection is controlled with a roundabout. The Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection is controlled with a traffic signal with optimized timing and phasing. The approach LOS and overall intersection LOS are presented in the tables below.

Table 19 - KDS Roundabout + CB Signal 2038 Total AM LOS Summary Intersection EB WB NB SB INT Quincy Ave & LOS A A n/a B Colorado Blvd B Delay --Signal-- 8.8 7.4 - 16.6 (sec.) 10.9 Quincy Ave & LOS B C A n/a Campus Road B Delay --Roundabout-- 12.8 17.8 8.0 - (sec.) 13.8

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 23 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Table 20 - KDS Roundabout + CB Signal 2038 Total PM LOS Summary Intersection EB WB NB SB INT Quincy Ave & LOS A A n/a C B Colorado Blvd Delay --Signal-- 9.4 7.7 - 20.1 12.0 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS A C A n/a Campus Road B Delay --Roundabout-- 7.9 17.9 8.0 - (sec.) 12.7

Results The analysis results of the 2038 Total Traffic condition indicate that the Quincy Ave./ Campus Rd. intersection controlled by a roundabout is anticipated to operate at an overall LOS of B or better in both the am and pm peak hour condition. The Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection controlled by a traffic signal is anticipated to operate at an overall LOS of B or better in both the am and pm peak hour condition.

Intersection Impact Matrix The table below identifies the impact the intersection configuration will have on the ROW, Utilities, and Costs. Construction costs are based on current 2017 pricing and conceptual intersection configuration.

Table 21 - KDS Roundabout + CB Signal Intersection Impact Matrix Intersection AM/PM LOS ROW Utility Total Cost

Quincy/Colo. Blvd B/B $0.0 $0.0 $0.9M Quincy/KDS B/B $0.0 $0.0 $0.6M

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 24 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Existing KDS Roundabout + Colorado Blvd Roundabout

To improve traffic conditions at the Quincy Ave / Campus Rd and Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersections a roundabout at Quincy Ave / Campus Rd and a roundabout at Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersections are studied. The lane geometry and intersection traffic control in presented in the graphic below.

Lane Geometry / Intersection Control KDS Roundabout + Colorado Blvd Roundabout

Intersection Analysis The 2038 Total Traffic condition is analyzed with Synchro 9.1 software. The Quincy Ave./ Campus Rd. intersection is controlled with a roundabout. The Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection is also controlled with a roundabout. The approach LOS and overall intersection LOS are presented in the tables below.

Table 22 - KDS Roundabout + CB Roundabout 2038 Total AM LOS Summary Intersection EB WB NB SB INT Quincy Ave & LOS B B n/a A B Colorado Blvd Delay --Roundabout-- 13.1 10.6 - 9.3 11.1 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS B C A n/a B Campus Road Delay --Roundabout-- 12.8 17.8 8.0 - 13.8 (sec.)

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 25 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Table 23 - KDS Roundabout + CB Roundabout 2038 Total PM LOS Summary Intersection EB WB NB SB INT Quincy Ave & LOS C C n/a B C Colorado Blvd Delay --Roundabout-- 20.6 18.2 - 10.8 16.8 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS A C A n/a Campus Road B Delay --Roundabout-- 7.9 17.9 8.0 - (sec.) 12.7

Results The analysis results of the 2038 Total Traffic condition indicate that the Quincy Ave./ Campus Rd. intersection controlled by a roundabout is anticipated to operate at an overall LOS of B or better in both the am and pm peak hour condition. The Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection controlled by a roundabout is anticipated to operate at an overall LOS of C or better in both the am and pm peak hour condition.

Intersection Impact Matrix The table below identifies the impact the intersection configuration will have on the ROW, Utilities, and Costs. The ROW costs are based on an assumed $12.50 square foot. Relocation of a high pressure gas line located along the south side of Quincy Ave is assumed at $375.00 per linear foot. Construction costs are based on current 2017 pricing and conceptual intersection configuration.

Table 24 - KDS Roundabout + CB Roundabout Intersection Impact Matrix Intersection AM/PM LOS ROW Utility Total Cost

Quincy/Colo. Blvd B/C $93,750 $117,188 $1.2M Quincy/KDS$0.0 B/B$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.$0.6M6M $0.6M $0.6M

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 26 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

New KDS at Colorado Blvd Signal

To improve traffic conditions at the Quincy Ave / Campus Rd and Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersections the Campus Rd is relocated to the Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersection. The four leg Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersection is studied with traffic signal control. This scenario includes relocating the KDS Campus Road which includes reconstruction of the new KDS access roadway an removal of the existing access roadway. This requires site modification and site cost associated with the new roadway and the demolition of the existing roadway and entrance. The lane geometry and intersection traffic control in presented in the graphic below.

Lane Geometry / Intersection Control New KDS at Colorado Blvd Signal

Intersection Analysis The 2038 Total Traffic condition is analyzed with Synchro 9.1 software. The Quincy Ave./ Campus Rd. intersection is relocated to the Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection. The reconfigured Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection is controlled with a traffic signal. The approach LOS and overall intersection LOS are presented in the tables below.

Table 25 - New KDS at CB Traffic Signal 2038 Total AM LOS Summary Intersection EB WB NB SB INT Quincy Ave & LOS A B B B B Colorado Blvd Delay & Campus Road 9.7 12.7 17.7 17.9 13.8 --Signal-- (sec.)

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 27 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Table 26 - New KDS at CB Traffic Signal 2038 Total PM LOS Summary Intersection EB WB NB SB INT Quincy Ave & LOS B B B B B Colorado Blvd Delay & Campus Road 13.7 14.2 14.1 17.7 15.0 --Signal-- (sec.)

Results The analysis results of the 2038 Total Traffic condition indicate that the reconfigured Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection controlled by a roundabout is anticipated to operate at an overall LOS of B or better in both the am and pm peak hour condition.

Intersection Impact Matrix The table below identifies the impact the intersection configuration will have on the ROW, Utilities, and Costs. The ROW costs are based on an assumed $12.50 square foot. Relocation of a high pressure gas line located along the south side of Quincy Ave is assumed at $375.00 per linear foot. Construction costs are based on current 2017 pricing and conceptual intersection configuration.

Table 27 - New KDS at Colorado Blvd Traffic Signal Comparison Intersection AM/PM LOS ROW Utility Total Cost * Quincy/Colo. Blvd B/B $65,500 $37,500 $1.3M Quincy/KDS n/a $0.0 $0.0 $0.6M *Costs include relocation demolition cost of a new Kent Denver School access roadway at the Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersection.

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 28 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

New KDS at Colorado Blvd Roundabout

To improve traffic conditions at the Quincy Ave / Campus Rd and Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersections the Campus Rd is relocated to the Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersection and the Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersection is studied with roundabout control. The lane geometry and intersection traffic control in presented in the graphic below.

2038 Lane Geometry / Intersection Control New KDS at Colorado Blvd Roundabout

Intersection Analysis The 2038 Total Traffic condition is analyzed with Synchro 9.1 software. The Quincy Ave./ Campus Rd. intersection is relocated to the Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection. The reconfigured Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection is controlled with a roundabout. Similarly, this scenario includes relocating the KDS Campus Road to the Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersection and removal of the existing access roadway, and requires site modification and site cost associated with the new roadway and the demolition of the existing roadway and entrance. The approach LOS and overall intersection LOS are presented in the tables below.

Table 28 - New KDS at CB Roundabout 2038 Total AM LOS Summary Intersection EB WB NB SB INT Quincy Ave & LOS C B B C C Colorado Blvd Delay & Campus Road 17.3 12.1 12.4 17.7 15.4 --Roundabout-- (sec.)

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 29 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Table 29 - New KDS at CB Roundabout 2038 Total PM LOS Summary Intersection EB WB NB SB INT Quincy Ave & LOS B C C D C Colorado Blvd Delay & Campus Road 14.6 23.2 15.9 33.2 22.9 --Roundabout-- (sec.)

Results The analysis results of the 2038 Total Traffic condition indicate that the reconfigured Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection controlled by a roundabout is anticipated to operate at an overall LOS of C or better in both the am and pm peak hour condition.

Intersection Impact Matrix The table below identifies the impact the intersection configuration will have on the ROW, Utilities, and Costs. These categories are rated on a Low, Medium and High scale system.

Table 30 - New KDS at Colorado Blvd Roundabout Comparison Intersection AM/PM LOS ROW Utility Total Cost * Quincy/Colo. Blvd B/B $117,188 $93,750 $1.5M Quincy/KDS n/a $0.0 $0.0 $0.6M *Costs include relocation demolition cost of a new Kent Denver School access roadway at the Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersection.

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 30 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Alternative Analysis Comparison Table The table below summarize alternative analysis scenarios intersection Level of Service and associated construction cost. The costs presented represent public improvements and includes the private improvements at the existing KDS access, which is estimated at $0.6M.

Table 31 - Alternative Analysis Comparison Table Intersection Quincy/Colo. Blvd Quincy/KDS Privately Publicly Total AM/PM LOS AM/PM LOS Funded Funded Construction * KDS Stop + CB All-Way Stop D/F E/E $18,000/year $0.00 $18,000/year KDS Roundabout + CB UTC C/D B/B $600,000 $0.0M $0.6M KDS Roundabout + CB Signal B/B B/B $600,000 $900,000 $1.5M KDS Roundabout + CB Roundabout B/C B/B $600,000 $1,196,000 $1.8M New KDS at CB Traffic Signal B/B n/a $600,000 $1,335,000 $1.9M New KDS at CB Roundabout B/B n/a $600,000 $1,521,000 $2.1M *Total Construction cost represent public improvements to the Quincy/Colorado Blvd intersection. Private roundabout improvements at the existing Kent Denver School access of $0.6 M are included.

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 31 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

Conclusion/ Recommendation The Quincy Ave corridor experiences heavy congested during the morning peak hour, 7:15-8:15 am, which is due to background/pass through traffic, the public school traffic, and KDS traffic. In the afternoon, a similar traffic condition exists, however not as intense since the school traffic does not coincide with the afternoon background traffic. This intense congestion is typical to similar schools traffic patterns, which generally experiences a concentrated am peak period. The challenge for schools and jurisdictions is whether to allocate resources to make roadway improvements that serve the peak hour condition but during the remainder of the day and non-school year are underutilized. Quincy Ave / Campus Rd Intersection Control Recommendation In the near term the mitigation measures below are recommended at the Quincy Ave / Campus Rd intersection. • Travel Demand Management – Currently the three schools, 1) the public elementary, 2) KDS Middle, and 3) KDS Upper start at the same time, 8:00am. The school traffic is concentrated in a 30-minute period before start. If the school starts were staggered the travel demand would be spread over a longer period thus improving congestion. • Uniformed Traffic Control – There may be better intersection operation achieved at the Quincy Ave / Campus Rd intersection if the UTC is trained to operate the intersection similar the simulated signal timing studied. Although UTC is dynamic, adhering to a more defined traffic control plan based on signal timing may improve overall operation. In the long term Quincy Ave / Campus Rd intersection operate at a LOS F in both the am and pm traffic condition with extensive queuing. This is due to the background traffic growth and the studied forecasted site traffic. Intersection control mitigation measures such as a traffic signal or roundabout are recommended. Due to the nature of the unique school peak period limited congestion a roundabout is preferred, since is does not introduce corridor delay during the off peak period. Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd Intersection Control Recommendation As presented in Cherry Hills Village traffic studies the Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersection is experiencing and will continue to experience excessive delay, congestion, and queuing. The Kent Denver School traffic is contributing to this condition is addition to the background traffic. With the proposed roundabout improvements implemented at the Quincy Ave / Campus Rd intersection Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersection, such as a traffic signal or roundabout as recommended in the Cherry Hills Village traffic studies.

The alternative intersection analysis identifies are a variety of improvements and associated utility, ROW, and construction cost implication with similar intersection Level Of Service. In the near term Uniformed Traffic Control (UTC) is recommended at the Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersection. This mitigation is proposed during the school year am peak period. The UTC currently being used at the Quincy Ave / Campus Rd would be reassigned to the Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersection

In the long term, a publicly funded traffic signal controlling a “T” configured intersection is recommend. A traffic signal is the preferred mitigation due to the lower construction cost and lower impacts to ROW and Utilities. The 4 –leg intersection with a re-aligned KDS access road is less desirable due the higher construction costs, and more extensive ROW and Utility impacts, and the hardships to the Kent Denver Campus.

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 32 Traffic Impact Analysis December 2017

APPENDIX A TRAFFIC COUNTS

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building Traffic Impact Analysis

APPENDIX B EXISTING / 2018 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE OUTPUT

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building Traffic Impact Analysis Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM Existing Traffic (2017) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 153 297 248 93 114 252 Future Volume (vph) 153 297 248 93 114 252 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.963 0.850 Flt Protected 0.983 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1831 1794 0 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.983 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1831 1794 0 1770 1583 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 541 2480 627 Travel Time (s) 12.3 56.4 14.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 178 345 285 107 136 300 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 523 392 0 136 300 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School AM Existing Traffic (2017)(UTC)(Split).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 1 HCM 2010 AWSC AM Existing Traffic (2017) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd Weekday Peak Hour

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 24.4 Intersection LOS C

Movement EBU EBL EBT WBU WBT WBR SBU SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 153 297 0 248 93 0 114 252 Future Vol, veh/h 0 153 297 0 248 93 0 114 252 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.84 0.84 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2222 2 Mvmt Flow 0 178 345 0 285 107 0 136 300 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 1001 1 Approach EB WB SB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left SB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 1 Conflicting Approach Right SB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 0 2 1 HCM Control Delay 35.7 19.4 15.2 HCM LOS E C C

Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 34% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 66% 73% 0% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 27% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 450 341 114 252 LT Vol 153 0 114 0 Through Vol 297 248 0 0 RT Vol 0 93 0 252 Lane Flow Rate 523 392 136 300 Geometry Grp 2277 Degree of Util (X) 0.864 0.647 0.284 0.526 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.946 5.947 7.541 6.314 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 607 604 474 567 Service Time 4.023 4.032 5.33 4.101 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.862 0.649 0.287 0.529 HCM Control Delay 35.7 19.4 13.3 16 HCM Lane LOS E C B C HCM 95th-tile Q 9.7 4.7 1.2 3

Kent Denver School AM Existing Traffic (2017)(UTC)(Split).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM Existing Traffic (2017) 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 25 368 6 4 301 96 4 3 5 93 10 37 Future Volume (vph) 25 368 6 4 301 96 4 3 5 93 10 37 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.998 0.968 0.941 0.964 Flt Protected 0.997 0.999 0.985 0.968 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1853 0 0 1801 0 0 1727 0 0 1738 0 Flt Permitted 0.997 0.999 0.985 0.968 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1853 0 0 1801 0 0 1727 0 0 1738 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 2480 508 485 395 Travel Time (s) 56.4 11.5 13.2 10.8 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 10 10 1 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7914 Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.71 0.71 0.71 Adj. Flow (vph) 34 504 8 6 418 133 5 4 7 131 14 52 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 546 0 0 557 0 0 16 0 0 197 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School AM Existing Traffic (2017)(UTC)(Split).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 3 HCM 2010 AWSC AM Existing Traffic (2017) 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 26.9 Intersection LOS D

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 25 368 6 0 4 301 96 0435 Future Vol, veh/h 0 25 368 6 0 4 301 96 0435 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.92 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.92 0.75 0.75 0.75 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 34 504 8 0 6 418 133 0547 Number of Lanes 001000100010 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB SB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 30.1 28.9 10.6 HCM LOS D D B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 33% 6% 1% 66% Vol Thru, % 25% 92% 75% 7% Vol Right, % 42% 2% 24% 26% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 12 399 401 140 LT Vol 4 25 4 93 Through Vol 3 368 301 10 RT Vol 5 6 96 37 Lane Flow Rate 16 547 557 197 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.033 0.833 0.827 0.365 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.333 5.485 5.344 6.67 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 491 656 674 536 Service Time 5.333 3.552 3.41 4.76 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.033 0.834 0.826 0.368 HCM Control Delay 10.6 30.1 28.9 13.6 HCM Lane LOS B D D B HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 9 8.9 1.7

Kent Denver School AM Existing Traffic (2017)(UTC)(Split).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 4 HCM 2010 AWSC AM Existing Traffic (2017) 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 93 10 37 Future Vol, veh/h 0 93 10 37 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.71 0.71 0.71 Heavy Vehicles, % 2222 Mvmt Flow 0 131 14 52 Number of Lanes 0010 Approach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCM Control Delay 13.6 HCM LOS B

Kent Denver School AM Existing Traffic (2017)(UTC)(Split).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 5 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM Existing Traffic (2017) 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 308 172 328 172 83 142 Future Volume (vph) 308 172 328 172 83 142 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 200 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 1.00 0.98 Frt 0.952 0.850 Flt Protected 0.968 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1766 0 0 1827 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.968 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1766 0 0 1825 1805 1580 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 31 229 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 661 541 572 Travel Time (s) 15.0 12.3 13.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.81 0.62 0.62 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 346 193 405 212 134 229 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 539 0 0 617 134 229 Turn Type NA Split NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 4 8822 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 30.3 35.2 35.2 24.5 24.5 Total Split (%) 33.7% 39.1% 39.1% 27.2% 27.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 25.8 30.7 11.3 11.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.38 0.14 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.93 0.90 0.54 0.55 Control Delay 51.0 42.7 40.6 10.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 51.0 42.7 40.6 10.1 LOS D D D B

Kent Denver School AM Existing Traffic (2017)(UTC)(Split).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 6 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM Existing Traffic (2017) 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Approach Delay 51.0 42.7 21.3 Approach LOS D D C Queue Length 50th (ft) 250 289 64 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #474 #441 77 6 Internal Link Dist (ft) 581 461 492 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 Base Capacity (vph) 581 689 444 561 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.93 0.90 0.30 0.41 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 81.4 Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.93 Intersection Signal Delay: 40.6 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.8% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave

Kent Denver School AM Existing Traffic (2017)(UTC)(Split).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 7 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary AM Existing Traffic (2017) 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 308 172 328 172 83 142 Future Volume (veh/h) 308 172 328 172 83 142 Number 4 14 3 8 5 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1876 1900 1900 1887 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 346 193 405 212 134 229 Adj No. of Lanes 100111 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.81 0.62 0.62 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222200 Cap, veh/h 347 193 430 225 306 273 Arrive On Green 0.31 0.31 0.36 0.36 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1119 624 1199 628 1810 1615 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 539 617 0 134 229 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1743 1827 0 1810 1615 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 25.7 27.2 0.0 5.5 11.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 25.7 27.2 0.0 5.5 11.4 Prop In Lane 0.36 0.66 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 540 655 0 306 273 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 1.00 0.94 0.00 0.44 0.84 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 540 674 0 435 388 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 28.7 25.9 0.0 31.0 33.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 38.1 21.3 0.0 1.0 10.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 18.0 17.6 0.0 2.8 5.9 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 66.8 47.1 0.0 32.0 44.1 LnGrp LOS E D C D Approach Vol, veh/h 539 617 363 Approach Delay, s/veh 66.8 47.1 39.6 Approach LOS E D D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.6 30.3 34.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.0 25.8 30.7 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.4 27.7 29.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 0.0 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 52.3 HCM 2010 LOS D

Kent Denver School AM Existing Traffic (2017)(UTC)(Split).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 8 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM Existing Traffic (2017) 9: Kent West Access & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 479 5 0 256 1 1 Future Volume (vph) 479 5 0 256 1 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.999 0.932 Flt Protected 0.976 Satd. Flow (prot) 1861 0 0 1863 1694 0 Flt Permitted 0.976 Satd. Flow (perm) 1861 0 0 1863 1694 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 410 661 441 Travel Time (s) 9.3 15.0 10.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 32 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.79 0.79 0.25 0.25 Adj. Flow (vph) 544 6 0 324 4 4 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 550 0 0 324 8 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School AM Existing Traffic (2017)(UTC)(Split).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 9 HCM 2010 TWSC AM Existing Traffic (2017) 9: Kent West Access & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 479 5 0 256 1 1 Future Vol, veh/h 479 5 0 256 1 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 2 2 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 88 88 79 79 25 25 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 544 6 0 324 4 4

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 552 0 873 549 Stage 1 - - - - 549 - Stage 2 - - - - 324 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1018 - 321 535 Stage 1 - - - - 579 - Stage 2 - - - - 733 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1018 - 320 534 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 320 - Stage 1 - - - - 578 - Stage 2 - - - - 733 -

Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 14.2 HCM LOS B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 400 - - 1018 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.02 ---- HCM Control Delay (s) 14.2 - - 0 - HCM Lane LOS B - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -

Kent Denver School AM Existing Traffic (2017)(UTC)(Split).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 10 Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM Existing Traffic (2018)(Unsignalized) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 170 288 364 140 237 170 Future Volume (vph) 170 288 364 140 237 170 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.962 0.850 Flt Protected 0.982 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1829 1792 0 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.982 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1829 1792 0 1770 1583 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 541 2480 627 Travel Time (s) 12.3 56.4 14.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.96 0.96 0.81 0.81 Adj. Flow (vph) 218 369 379 146 293 210 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 587 525 0 293 210 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School PM Existing Taffic (2017)(Unsignalized).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 1 HCM 2010 AWSC PM Existing Traffic (2018)(Unsignalized) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd Weekday Peak Hour

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 52.6 Intersection LOS F

Movement EBU EBL EBT WBU WBT WBR SBU SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 170 288 0 364 140 0 237 170 Future Vol, veh/h 0 170 288 0 364 140 0 237 170 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.78 0.78 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.81 0.81 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2222 2 Mvmt Flow 0 218 369 0 379 146 0 293 210 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 1001 1 Approach EB WB SB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left SB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 1 Conflicting Approach Right SB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 0 2 1 HCM Control Delay 84.4 47.7 20.6 HCM LOS F E C

Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 37% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 63% 72% 0% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 28% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 458 504 237 170 LT Vol 170 0 237 0 Through Vol 288 364 0 0 RT Vol 0 140 0 170 Lane Flow Rate 587 525 293 210 Geometry Grp 2277 Degree of Util (X) 1.071 0.925 0.65 0.397 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.565 6.575 8.29 7.053 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 552 557 439 514 Service Time 4.649 4.575 5.99 4.753 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.063 0.943 0.667 0.409 HCM Control Delay 84.4 47.7 25.1 14.3 HCM Lane LOS F E D B HCM 95th-tile Q 17.3 11.5 4.5 1.9

Kent Denver School PM Existing Taffic (2017)(Unsignalized).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM Existing Traffic (2018)(Unsignalized) 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 31 429 19 7 465 78 18 7 10 47 12 34 Future Volume (vph) 31 429 19 7 465 78 18 7 10 47 12 34 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.995 0.981 0.961 0.950 Flt Protected 0.997 0.999 0.975 0.975 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1848 0 0 1826 0 0 1745 0 0 1725 0 Flt Permitted 0.997 0.999 0.975 0.975 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1848 0 0 1826 0 0 1745 0 0 1725 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 2480 508 485 395 Travel Time (s) 56.4 11.5 13.2 10.8 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 4 4 1 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7712 Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.73 0.73 0.73 Adj. Flow (vph) 42 588 26 8 517 87 33 13 19 64 16 47 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 656 0 0 612 0 0 65 0 0 127 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School PM Existing Taffic (2017)(Unsignalized).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 3 HCM 2010 AWSC PM Existing Traffic (2018)(Unsignalized) 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 48.9 Intersection LOS E

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 31 429 19 0 7 465 78 0 18 7 10 Future Vol, veh/h 0 31 429 19 0 7 465 78 0 18 7 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.54 0.54 0.54 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 42 588 26 0 8 517 87 0 33 13 19 Number of Lanes 001000100010 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB SB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 62.1 46.2 11.9 HCM LOS F E B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 51% 6% 1% 51% Vol Thru, % 20% 90% 85% 13% Vol Right, % 29% 4% 14% 37% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 35 479 550 93 LT Vol 18 31 7 47 Through Vol 7 429 465 12 RT Vol 10 19 78 34 Lane Flow Rate 65 656 611 127 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.136 1.012 0.942 0.255 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.698 5.552 5.549 7.338 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 469 650 648 493 Service Time 5.698 3.642 3.642 5.338 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.139 1.009 0.943 0.258 HCM Control Delay 11.9 62.1 46.2 12.8 HCM Lane LOS B F E B HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 16 12.9 1

Kent Denver School PM Existing Taffic (2017)(Unsignalized).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 4 HCM 2010 AWSC PM Existing Traffic (2018)(Unsignalized) 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 47 12 34 Future Vol, veh/h 0 47 12 34 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.73 0.73 0.73 Heavy Vehicles, % 2222 Mvmt Flow 0 64 16 47 Number of Lanes 0010 Approach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCM Control Delay 12.8 HCM LOS B

Kent Denver School PM Existing Taffic (2017)(Unsignalized).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 5 Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM Existing Traffic (2018)(Unsignalized) 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 323 44 94 440 70 135 Future Volume (vph) 323 44 94 440 70 135 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 200 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.984 0.850 Flt Protected 0.991 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1837 0 0 1852 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.991 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1837 0 0 1852 1805 1615 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 661 541 572 Travel Time (s) 15.0 12.3 13.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 6 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 14 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.86 0.86 0.55 0.55 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 347 47 109 512 127 245 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 394 0 0 621 127 245 Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.0% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School PM Existing Taffic (2017)(Unsignalized).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 6 HCM 2010 TWSC PM Existing Traffic (2018)(Unsignalized) 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 7.5 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 323 44 94 440 70 135 Future Vol, veh/h 323 44 94 440 70 135 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 6 6 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 200 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 86 86 55 55 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 0 0 2 0 0 Mvmt Flow 347 47 109 512 127 245

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 401 0 1107 377 Stage 1 - - - - 377 - Stage 2 - - - - 730 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1169 - 235 674 Stage 1 - - - - 698 - Stage 2 - - - - 481 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1169 - 203 670 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 203 - Stage 1 - - - - 694 - Stage 2 - - - - 418 -

Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.5 25.4 HCM LOS D

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 203 670 - - 1169 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.627 0.366 - - 0.094 - HCM Control Delay (s) 48.6 13.4 - - 8.4 0 HCM Lane LOS E B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 3.6 1.7 - - 0.3 -

Kent Denver School PM Existing Taffic (2017)(Unsignalized).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 7 Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM Existing Traffic (2018)(Unsignalized) 9: Kent West Access & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 364 2 1 509 1 3 Future Volume (vph) 364 2 1 509 1 3 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.999 0.899 Flt Protected 0.988 Satd. Flow (prot) 1861 0 0 1863 1655 0 Flt Permitted 0.988 Satd. Flow (perm) 1861 0 0 1863 1655 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 410 661 441 Travel Time (s) 9.3 15.0 10.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.50 0.50 Adj. Flow (vph) 396 2 1 536 2 6 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 398 0 0 537 8 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School PM Existing Taffic (2017)(Unsignalized).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 8 HCM 2010 TWSC PM Existing Traffic (2018)(Unsignalized) 9: Kent West Access & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 364 2 1 509 1 3 Future Vol, veh/h 364 2 1 509 1 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 5 5 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 95 95 50 50 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 396 2 1 536 2 6

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 403 0 940 402 Stage 1 - - - - 402 - Stage 2 - - - - 538 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1156 - 293 648 Stage 1 - - - - 676 - Stage 2 - - - - 585 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1156 - 291 645 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 291 - Stage 1 - - - - 673 - Stage 2 - - - - 584 -

Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 12.4 HCM LOS B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 495 - - 1156 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.016 - - 0.001 - HCM Control Delay (s) 12.4 - - 8.1 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 -

Kent Denver School PM Existing Taffic (2017)(Unsignalized).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 9

APPENDIX C 2018 TOTAL TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE OUTPUT

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building Traffic Impact Analysis Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM Total Traffic (2018) (UTC) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 162 306 268 93 114 271 Future Volume (vph) 162 306 268 93 114 271 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.965 0.850 Flt Protected 0.983 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1831 1798 0 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.983 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1831 1798 0 1770 1583 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 541 2480 627 Travel Time (s) 12.3 56.4 14.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 188 356 308 107 136 323 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 544 415 0 136 323 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2018)(UTC)(split).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 1 HCM 2010 AWSC AM Total Traffic (2018) (UTC) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd Weekday Peak Hour

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 30.7 Intersection LOS D

Movement EBU EBL EBT WBU WBT WBR SBU SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 162 306 0 268 93 0 114 271 Future Vol, veh/h 0 162 306 0 268 93 0 114 271 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.84 0.84 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2222 2 Mvmt Flow 0 188 356 0 308 107 0 136 323 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 1001 1 Approach EB WB SB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left SB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 1 Conflicting Approach Right SB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 0 2 1 HCM Control Delay 48 23.3 17 HCM LOS E C C

Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 35% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 65% 74% 0% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 26% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 468 361 114 271 LT Vol 162 0 114 0 Through Vol 306 268 0 0 RT Vol 0 93 0 271 Lane Flow Rate 544 415 136 323 Geometry Grp 2277 Degree of Util (X) 0.936 0.715 0.294 0.589 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.194 6.201 7.806 6.576 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 588 585 461 552 Service Time 4.214 4.24 5.53 4.299 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.925 0.709 0.295 0.585 HCM Control Delay 48 23.3 13.8 18.3 HCM Lane LOS E C B C HCM 95th-tile Q 12.1 5.9 1.2 3.8

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2018)(UTC)(split).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM Total Traffic (2018) (UTC) 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 27 373 7 4 311 96 9 3 5 93 10 42 Future Volume (vph) 27 373 7 4 311 96 9 3 5 93 10 42 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.998 0.969 0.959 0.961 Flt Protected 0.997 0.999 0.975 0.969 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1853 0 0 1803 0 0 1742 0 0 1735 0 Flt Permitted 0.997 0.999 0.975 0.969 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1853 0 0 1803 0 0 1742 0 0 1735 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 2480 508 485 395 Travel Time (s) 56.4 11.5 13.2 10.8 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 10 10 1 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7914 Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.71 0.71 0.71 Adj. Flow (vph) 37 511 10 6 432 133 12 4 7 131 14 59 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 558 0 0 571 0 0 23 0 0 204 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.3% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2018)(UTC)(split).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 3 HCM 2010 AWSC AM Total Traffic (2018) (UTC) 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 30.5 Intersection LOS D

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 27 373 7 0 4 311 96 0935 Future Vol, veh/h 0 27 373 7 0 4 311 96 0935 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.92 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.92 0.75 0.75 0.75 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 37 511 10 0 6 432 133 0 12 4 7 Number of Lanes 001000100010 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB SB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 34.3 33.5 11 HCM LOS D D B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 53% 7% 1% 64% Vol Thru, % 18% 92% 76% 7% Vol Right, % 29% 2% 23% 29% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 17 407 411 145 LT Vol 9 27 4 93 Through Vol 3 373 311 10 RT Vol 5 7 96 42 Lane Flow Rate 23 558 571 204 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.048 0.865 0.864 0.39 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.619 5.588 5.446 6.87 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 472 641 656 527 Service Time 5.633 3.683 3.541 4.872 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.049 0.871 0.87 0.387 HCM Control Delay 11 34.3 33.5 14.2 HCM Lane LOS B D D B HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 10 10 1.8

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2018)(UTC)(split).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 4 HCM 2010 AWSC AM Total Traffic (2018) (UTC) 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 93 10 42 Future Vol, veh/h 0 93 10 42 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.71 0.71 0.71 Heavy Vehicles, % 2222 Mvmt Flow 0 131 14 59 Number of Lanes 0010 Approach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCM Control Delay 14.2 HCM LOS B

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2018)(UTC)(split).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 5 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM Total Traffic (2018) (UTC) 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 308 191 367 172 92 160 Future Volume (vph) 308 191 367 172 92 160 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 200 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 1.00 0.98 Frt 0.948 0.850 Flt Protected 0.967 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1758 0 0 1826 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.967 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1758 0 0 1824 1805 1580 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 35 258 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 661 541 572 Travel Time (s) 15.0 12.3 13.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.81 0.62 0.62 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 346 215 453 212 148 258 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 561 0 0 665 148 258 Turn Type NA Split NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 4 8822 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 30.0 36.0 36.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split (%) 33.3% 40.0% 40.0% 26.7% 26.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 25.5 31.5 12.0 12.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.38 0.15 0.15 v/c Ratio 0.99 0.95 0.56 0.57 Control Delay 64.6 52.0 41.4 9.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 64.6 52.0 41.4 9.8 LOS E D D A

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2018)(UTC)(split).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 6 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM Total Traffic (2018) (UTC) 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Approach Delay 64.6 52.0 21.3 Approach LOS E D C Queue Length 50th (ft) 272 327 72 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #516 #499 85 3 Internal Link Dist (ft) 581 461 492 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 Base Capacity (vph) 567 697 426 570 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.99 0.95 0.35 0.45 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 82.6 Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.99 Intersection Signal Delay: 48.7 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2018)(UTC)(split).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 7 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary AM Total Traffic (2018) (UTC) 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 308 191 367 172 92 160 Future Volume (veh/h) 308 191 367 172 92 160 Number 4 14 3 8 5 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1877 1900 1900 1888 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 346 215 453 212 148 258 Adj No. of Lanes 100111 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.81 0.62 0.62 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222200 Cap, veh/h 316 196 453 212 334 298 Arrive On Green 0.29 0.29 0.36 0.36 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1070 665 1244 582 1810 1615 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 561 665 0 148 258 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1735 1826 0 1810 1615 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 25.5 31.5 0.0 6.3 13.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 25.5 31.5 0.0 6.3 13.4 Prop In Lane 0.38 0.68 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 512 665 0 334 298 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 1.10 1.00 0.00 0.44 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 512 665 0 408 364 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 30.5 27.5 0.0 31.3 34.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 68.6 34.8 0.0 0.9 16.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 21.8 22.1 0.0 3.2 7.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 99.1 62.3 0.0 32.2 50.8 LnGrp LOS F E C D Approach Vol, veh/h 561 665 406 Approach Delay, s/veh 99.1 62.3 44.0 Approach LOS F E D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.5 30.0 36.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 25.5 31.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.4 27.5 33.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 70.4 HCM 2010 LOS E

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2018)(UTC)(split).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 8 Lanes, Volumes, Timings AM Total Traffic (2018) (UTC) 9: Kent West Access & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 498 6 0 265 1 1 Future Volume (vph) 498 6 0 265 1 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.998 0.932 Flt Protected 0.976 Satd. Flow (prot) 1859 0 0 1863 1694 0 Flt Permitted 0.976 Satd. Flow (perm) 1859 0 0 1863 1694 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 410 661 441 Travel Time (s) 9.3 15.0 10.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 32 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.79 0.79 0.25 0.25 Adj. Flow (vph) 566 7 0 335 4 4 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 573 0 0 335 8 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2018)(UTC)(split).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 9 HCM 2010 TWSC AM Total Traffic (2018) (UTC) 9: Kent West Access & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 498 6 0 265 1 1 Future Vol, veh/h 498 6 0 265 1 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 2 2 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 88 88 79 79 25 25 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 566 7 0 335 4 4

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 575 0 906 571 Stage 1 - - - - 571 - Stage 2 - - - - 335 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 998 - 307 520 Stage 1 - - - - 565 - Stage 2 - - - - 725 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 998 - 306 519 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 306 - Stage 1 - - - - 564 - Stage 2 - - - - 725 -

Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 14.5 HCM LOS B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 385 - - 998 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.021 ---- HCM Control Delay (s) 14.5 - - 0 - HCM Lane LOS B - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2018)(UTC)(split).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 10 Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM Total Traffic (2018)(Unsignalized) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 179 307 370 140 237 176 Future Volume (vph) 179 307 370 140 237 176 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.963 0.850 Flt Protected 0.982 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1829 1794 0 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.982 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1829 1794 0 1770 1583 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 541 2480 627 Travel Time (s) 12.3 56.4 14.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.96 0.96 0.81 0.81 Adj. Flow (vph) 229 394 385 146 293 217 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 623 531 0 293 217 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 77.2% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School PM Total Taffic (2018)(Unsignalized).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 1 HCM 2010 AWSC PM Total Traffic (2018)(Unsignalized) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd Weekday Peak Hour

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 63.8 Intersection LOS F

Movement EBU EBL EBT WBU WBT WBR SBU SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 179 307 0 370 140 0 237 176 Future Vol, veh/h 0 179 307 0 370 140 0 237 176 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.78 0.78 0.92 0.96 0.96 0.92 0.81 0.81 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2222 2 Mvmt Flow 0 229 394 0 385 146 0 293 217 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 1001 1 Approach EB WB SB Opposing Approach WB EB Opposing Lanes 1 1 0 Conflicting Approach Left SB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 0 1 Conflicting Approach Right SB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 0 2 1 HCM Control Delay 109.8 51 21 HCM LOS F F C

Lane EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 37% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 63% 73% 0% 0% Vol Right, % 0% 27% 0% 100% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 486 510 237 176 LT Vol 179 0 237 0 Through Vol 307 370 0 0 RT Vol 0 140 0 176 Lane Flow Rate 623 531 293 217 Geometry Grp 2277 Degree of Util (X) 1.146 0.94 0.653 0.412 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.622 6.684 8.408 7.169 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 548 547 433 506 Service Time 4.683 4.684 6.108 4.869 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 1.137 0.971 0.677 0.429 HCM Control Delay 109.8 51 25.6 14.8 HCM Lane LOS F F D B HCM 95th-tile Q 20.9 11.9 4.5 2

Kent Denver School PM Total Taffic (2018)(Unsignalized).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM Total Traffic (2018)(Unsignalized) 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 33 432 22 7 468 78 19 7 10 47 12 35 Future Volume (vph) 33 432 22 7 468 78 19 7 10 47 12 35 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.994 0.981 0.962 0.949 Flt Protected 0.997 0.999 0.975 0.976 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1846 0 0 1826 0 0 1747 0 0 1725 0 Flt Permitted 0.997 0.999 0.975 0.976 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1846 0 0 1826 0 0 1747 0 0 1725 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 2480 508 485 395 Travel Time (s) 56.4 11.5 13.2 10.8 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 4 4 1 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7712 Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.73 0.73 0.73 Adj. Flow (vph) 45 592 30 8 520 87 35 13 19 64 16 48 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 667 0 0 615 0 0 67 0 0 128 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School PM Total Taffic (2018)(Unsignalized).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 3 HCM 2010 AWSC PM Total Traffic (2018)(Unsignalized) 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 52.8 Intersection LOS F

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 33 432 22 0 7 468 78 0 19 7 10 Future Vol, veh/h 0 33 432 22 0 7 468 78 0 19 7 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.54 0.54 0.54 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 45 592 30 0 8 520 87 0 35 13 19 Number of Lanes 001000100010 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB SB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 68.3 48.8 12 HCM LOS F E B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 53% 7% 1% 50% Vol Thru, % 19% 89% 85% 13% Vol Right, % 28% 5% 14% 37% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 36 487 553 94 LT Vol 19 33 7 47 Through Vol 7 432 468 12 RT Vol 10 22 78 35 Lane Flow Rate 67 667 614 129 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.141 1.034 0.954 0.259 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.772 5.581 5.59 7.396 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 464 647 645 489 Service Time 5.772 3.674 3.688 5.396 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.144 1.031 0.952 0.264 HCM Control Delay 12 68.3 48.8 13 HCM Lane LOS B F E B HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 17.1 13.3 1

Kent Denver School PM Total Taffic (2018)(Unsignalized).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 4 HCM 2010 AWSC PM Total Traffic (2018)(Unsignalized) 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 47 12 35 Future Vol, veh/h 0 47 12 35 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.73 0.73 0.73 Heavy Vehicles, % 2222 Mvmt Flow 0 64 16 48 Number of Lanes 0010 Approach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCM Control Delay 13 HCM LOS B

Kent Denver School PM Total Taffic (2018)(Unsignalized).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 5 Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM Total Traffic (2018)(Unsignalized) 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 323 51 106 440 80 153 Future Volume (vph) 323 51 106 440 80 153 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 200 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.982 0.850 Flt Protected 0.990 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1834 0 0 1851 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.990 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1834 0 0 1851 1805 1615 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 661 541 572 Travel Time (s) 15.0 12.3 13.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 6 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 14 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.86 0.86 0.55 0.55 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 347 55 123 512 145 278 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 402 0 0 635 145 278 Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School PM Total Taffic (2018)(Unsignalized).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 6 HCM 2010 TWSC PM Total Traffic (2018)(Unsignalized) 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 14 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 323 51 106 440 80 153 Future Vol, veh/h 323 51 106 440 80 153 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 6 6 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 200 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 86 86 55 55 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 0 0 2 0 0 Mvmt Flow 347 55 123 512 145 278

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 408 0 1139 381 Stage 1 - - - - 381 - Stage 2 - - - - 758 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 7.1 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 6.1 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 6.1 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1162 - 180 671 Stage 1 - - - - 645 - Stage 2 - - - - 402 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1162 - 159 667 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 159 - Stage 1 - - - - 645 - Stage 2 - - - - 343 -

Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1.6 46 HCM LOS E

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 159 667 - - 1162 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.915 0.417 - - 0.106 - HCM Control Delay (s) 106.9 14.2 - - 8.5 0 HCM Lane LOS F B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 6.6 2.1 - - 0.4 -

Kent Denver School PM Total Taffic (2018)(Unsignalized).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 7 Lanes, Volumes, Timings PM Total Traffic (2018)(Unsignalized) 9: Kent West Access & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 371 2 1 519 1 3 Future Volume (vph) 371 2 1 519 1 3 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.999 0.899 Flt Protected 0.988 Satd. Flow (prot) 1861 0 0 1863 1655 0 Flt Permitted 0.988 Satd. Flow (perm) 1861 0 0 1863 1655 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 410 661 441 Travel Time (s) 9.3 15.0 10.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.50 0.50 Adj. Flow (vph) 403 2 1 546 2 6 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 405 0 0 547 8 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School PM Total Taffic (2018)(Unsignalized).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 8 HCM 2010 TWSC PM Total Traffic (2018)(Unsignalized) 9: Kent West Access & Quincy Ave Weekday Peak Hour

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 371 2 1 519 1 3 Future Vol, veh/h 371 2 1 519 1 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 5 5 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 95 95 50 50 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 403 2 1 546 2 6

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 410 0 957 409 Stage 1 - - - - 409 - Stage 2 - - - - 548 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1149 - 286 642 Stage 1 - - - - 671 - Stage 2 - - - - 579 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1149 - 284 639 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 284 - Stage 1 - - - - 668 - Stage 2 - - - - 578 -

Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 12.5 HCM LOS B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 487 - - 1149 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.016 - - 0.001 - HCM Control Delay (s) 12.5 - - 8.1 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -

Kent Denver School PM Total Taffic (2018)(Unsignalized).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 9

APPENDIX D 2038 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE OUTPUT

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building Traffic Impact Analysis Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 168 327 273 102 125 277 Future Volume (vph) 168 327 273 102 125 277 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 120 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 144 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.97 Frt 0.963 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1784 0 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.320 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 596 1863 1784 0 1770 1534 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 44 330 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 541 2480 627 Travel Time (s) 12.3 56.4 14.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 195 380 314 117 149 330 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 195 380 431 0 149 330 Turn Type Perm NA NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 34.0 34.0 34.0 26.0 26.0 Total Split (%) 56.7% 56.7% 56.7% 43.3% 43.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max Act Effct Green (s) 20.9 20.9 20.9 30.1 30.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.50 0.50 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.59 0.66 0.17 0.35 Control Delay 68.1 18.6 18.8 11.3 3.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 68.1 18.6 18.8 11.3 3.1 LOS EBB BA Approach Delay 35.4 18.8 5.7

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 AM Background Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Approach LOS D B A Queue Length 50th (ft) 66 109 113 27 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #136 130 142 68 35 Internal Link Dist (ft) 461 2400 547 Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 100 Base Capacity (vph) 293 915 899 888 933 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.67 0.42 0.48 0.17 0.35 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2: and 6:SBL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 50 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.94 Intersection Signal Delay: 21.0 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.1% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 AM Background Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd 11/16/2017

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 168 327 273 102 125 277 Future Volume (veh/h) 168 327 273 102 125 277 Number 7 4 8 18 1 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 195 380 314 117 149 330 Adj No. of Lanes 111011 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.84 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 Cap, veh/h 376 834 576 215 714 637 Arrive On Green 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 953 1863 1287 479 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 195 380 0 431 149 330 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 953 1863 0 1766 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 11.3 8.5 0.0 10.7 3.3 9.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 22.0 8.5 0.0 10.7 3.3 9.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 376 834 0 790 714 637 V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.46 0.00 0.55 0.21 0.52 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 419 916 0 868 714 637 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.49 0.49 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.1 11.5 0.0 12.1 11.7 13.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.7 3.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.0 4.4 0.0 5.3 1.7 4.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.7 11.7 0.0 12.7 12.4 16.5 LnGrp LOS C B B B B Approach Vol, veh/h 575 431 479 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.7 12.7 15.2 Approach LOS B B B Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 31.3 28.7 31.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.5 21.5 29.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 24.0 11.4 12.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.9 1.2 5.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 14.3 HCM 2010 LOS B

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 AM Background Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 28 405 7 4 331 106 4 3 6 102 11 41 Future Volume (vph) 28 405 7 4 331 106 4 3 6 102 11 41 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.998 0.968 0.936 0.964 Flt Protected 0.997 0.986 0.968 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1853 0 0 1803 0 0 1719 0 0 1738 0 Flt Permitted 0.997 0.986 0.968 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1853 0 0 1803 0 0 1719 0 0 1738 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 2480 508 485 395 Travel Time (s) 56.4 11.5 13.2 10.8 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 10 10 1 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7914 Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.71 0.71 0.71 Adj. Flow (vph) 38 555 10 6 460 147 5 4 8 144 15 58 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 603 0 0 613 0 0 17 0 0 217 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 AM Background Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 4 HCM 2010 AWSC 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 47.5 Intersection LOS E

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 28 405 7 0 4 331 106 0436 Future Vol, veh/h 0 28 405 7 0 4 331 106 0436 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.92 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.92 0.75 0.75 0.75 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 38 555 10 0 6 460 147 0548 Number of Lanes 001000100010 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB SB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 55 52.4 11.3 HCM LOS F F B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 31% 6% 1% 66% Vol Thru, % 23% 92% 75% 7% Vol Right, % 46% 2% 24% 27% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 13 440 441 154 LT Vol 4 28 4 102 Through Vol 3 405 331 11 RT Vol 6 7 106 41 Lane Flow Rate 17 603 612 217 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.038 0.978 0.97 0.429 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.897 5.843 5.703 7.115 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 451 621 637 505 Service Time 5.986 3.863 3.723 5.169 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.038 0.971 0.961 0.43 HCM Control Delay 11.3 55 52.4 15.4 HCM Lane LOS B F F C HCM 95th-tile Q 0.1 14.2 14 2.1

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 AM Background Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 5 HCM 2010 AWSC 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 102 11 41 Future Vol, veh/h 0 102 11 41 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.71 0.71 0.71 Heavy Vehicles, % 2222 Mvmt Flow 0 144 15 58 Number of Lanes 0010 Approach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCM Control Delay 15.4 HCM LOS C

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 AM Background Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 6 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 339 189 361 189 91 156 Future Volume (vph) 339 189 361 189 91 156 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 200 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 1.00 0.98 Frt 0.952 0.850 Flt Protected 0.968 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1766 0 0 1827 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.968 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1766 0 0 1825 1805 1579 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 29 252 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 661 541 572 Travel Time (s) 15.0 12.3 13.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.81 0.62 0.62 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 381 212 446 233 147 252 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 593 0 0 679 147 252 Turn Type NA Split NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 4 8822 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.6 41.4 41.4 23.0 23.0 Total Split (%) 35.6% 41.4% 41.4% 23.0% 23.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None C-Min C-Min Act Effct Green (s) 36.2 36.9 13.4 13.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.37 0.13 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.90 1.01 0.61 0.59 Control Delay 48.8 69.3 51.1 10.8 Queue Delay 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 48.8 76.0 51.1 10.8 LOS D E D B

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 AM Background Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 7 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Approach Delay 48.8 76.0 25.7 Approach LOS D E C Queue Length 50th (ft) 339 ~434 90 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #599 #562 96 1 Internal Link Dist (ft) 581 461 492 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 Base Capacity (vph) 658 674 333 497 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 15 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.90 1.03 0.44 0.51 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 100 Actuated Cycle Length: 100 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 100 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.01 Intersection Signal Delay: 54.3 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 AM Background Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 8 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 339 189 361 189 91 156 Future Volume (veh/h) 339 189 361 189 91 156 Number 4 14 3 8 5 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1876 1900 1900 1887 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 381 212 446 233 147 252 Adj No. of Lanes 100111 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.81 0.62 0.62 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222200 Cap, veh/h 348 194 443 231 335 299 Arrive On Green 0.31 0.31 0.37 0.37 0.18 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1120 623 1200 627 1810 1615 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 593 679 0 147 252 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1743 1827 0 1810 1615 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 31.1 36.9 0.0 7.2 15.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 31.1 36.9 0.0 7.2 15.1 Prop In Lane 0.36 0.66 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 542 674 0 335 299 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 1.09 1.01 0.00 0.44 0.84 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 542 674 0 335 299 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.83 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 34.5 31.6 0.0 36.1 39.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 66.7 33.4 0.0 4.1 24.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 25.0 24.8 0.0 4.0 8.7 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 101.1 65.0 0.0 40.3 63.5 LnGrp LOS F F D E Approach Vol, veh/h 593 679 399 Approach Delay, s/veh 101.1 65.0 55.0 Approach LOS F E D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.0 35.6 41.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.5 31.1 36.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.1 33.1 38.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 75.4 HCM 2010 LOS E

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 AM Background Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 9 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: Kent West Access & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 527 6 0 282 1 1 Future Volume (vph) 527 6 0 282 1 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.998 0.932 Flt Protected 0.976 Satd. Flow (prot) 1859 0 0 1863 1694 0 Flt Permitted 0.976 Satd. Flow (perm) 1859 0 0 1863 1694 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 410 661 441 Travel Time (s) 9.3 15.0 10.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 32 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.79 0.79 0.25 0.25 Adj. Flow (vph) 599 7 0 357 4 4 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 606 0 0 357 8 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 AM Background Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 10 HCM 2010 TWSC 9: Kent West Access & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 527 6 0 282 1 1 Future Vol, veh/h 527 6 0 282 1 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 2 2 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 88 88 79 79 25 25 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 599 7 0 357 4 4

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 608 0 961 604 Stage 1 - - - - 604 - Stage 2 - - - - 357 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 970 - 284 498 Stage 1 - - - - 546 - Stage 2 - - - - 708 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 970 - 283 497 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 283 - Stage 1 - - - - 545 - Stage 2 - - - - 708 -

Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 15.2 HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 361 - - 970 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 ---- HCM Control Delay (s) 15.2 - - 0 - HCM Lane LOS C - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 AM Background Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 11 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 187 317 400 154 261 187 Future Volume (vph) 187 317 400 154 261 187 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 120 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 144 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.98 Frt 0.963 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1784 0 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.270 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 503 1863 1784 0 1770 1546 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 49 231 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 541 2480 627 Travel Time (s) 12.3 56.4 14.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.96 0.96 0.81 0.81 Adj. Flow (vph) 240 406 417 160 322 231 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 240 406 577 0 322 231 Turn Type Perm NA NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 36.4 36.4 36.4 23.6 23.6 Total Split (%) 60.7% 60.7% 60.7% 39.3% 39.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max Act Effct Green (s) 27.4 27.4 27.4 23.6 23.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.39 0.39 v/c Ratio 1.05 0.48 0.69 0.46 0.31 Control Delay 91.7 12.4 15.6 18.3 3.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 91.7 12.4 15.6 18.3 3.9 LOS F B B B A Approach Delay 41.9 15.6 12.3

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 Background PM 2038 Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Approach LOS D B B Queue Length 50th (ft) 72 81 119 95 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #161 110 203 145 30 Internal Link Dist (ft) 461 2400 547 Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 100 Base Capacity (vph) 267 990 971 696 748 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.90 0.41 0.59 0.46 0.31 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2: and 6:SBL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.05 Intersection Signal Delay: 24.1 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 Background PM 2038 Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd 11/16/2017

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 187 317 400 154 261 187 Future Volume (veh/h) 187 317 400 154 261 187 Number 7 4 8 18 1 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 240 406 417 160 322 231 Adj No. of Lanes 111011 Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.96 0.96 0.81 0.81 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 Cap, veh/h 373 990 678 260 565 504 Arrive On Green 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 833 1863 1275 489 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 240 406 0 577 322 231 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 833 1863 0 1764 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 16.9 7.8 0.0 13.7 9.1 7.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 30.6 7.8 0.0 13.7 9.1 7.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 373 990 0 938 565 504 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.41 0.00 0.62 0.57 0.46 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 373 990 0 938 565 504 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.65 0.65 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.4 8.4 0.0 9.8 17.0 16.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.4 0.2 0.0 1.2 4.1 3.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.1 4.0 0.0 6.9 5.0 3.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.9 8.6 0.0 11.0 21.2 19.3 LnGrp LOS C A B C B Approach Vol, veh/h 646 577 553 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.9 11.0 20.4 Approach LOS B B C Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 36.4 23.6 36.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.9 19.1 31.9 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 32.6 11.1 15.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.2 7.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.0 HCM 2010 LOS B

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 Background PM 2038 Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 34 472 21 8 512 86 20 8 11 52 13 37 Future Volume (vph) 34 472 21 8 512 86 20 8 11 52 13 37 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.995 0.981 0.962 0.951 Flt Protected 0.997 0.999 0.975 0.975 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1848 0 0 1826 0 0 1747 0 0 1727 0 Flt Permitted 0.997 0.999 0.975 0.975 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1848 0 0 1826 0 0 1747 0 0 1727 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 2480 508 485 395 Travel Time (s) 56.4 11.5 13.2 10.8 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 4 4 1 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7712 Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.73 0.73 0.73 Adj. Flow (vph) 47 647 29 9 569 96 37 15 20 71 18 51 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 723 0 0 674 0 0 72 0 0 140 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 Background PM 2038 Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 4 HCM 2010 AWSC 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 81.6 Intersection LOS F

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 34 472 21 0 8 512 86 0 20 8 11 Future Vol, veh/h 0 34 472 21 0 8 512 86 0 20 8 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.54 0.54 0.54 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 47 647 29 0 9 569 96 0 37 15 20 Number of Lanes 001000100010 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB SB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 106.6 76.2 12.7 HCM LOS F F B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 51% 6% 1% 51% Vol Thru, % 21% 90% 84% 13% Vol Right, % 28% 4% 14% 36% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 39 527 606 102 LT Vol 20 34 8 52 Through Vol 8 472 512 13 RT Vol 11 21 86 37 Lane Flow Rate 72 722 673 140 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.154 1.148 1.057 0.284 Departure Headway (Hd) 8.19 5.878 5.902 7.755 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 441 621 619 467 Service Time 6.19 3.878 3.902 5.755 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.163 1.163 1.087 0.3 HCM Control Delay 12.7 106.6 76.2 13.8 HCM Lane LOS B F F B HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 22.9 17.9 1.2

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 Background PM 2038 Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 5 HCM 2010 AWSC 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 52 13 37 Future Vol, veh/h 0 52 13 37 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.73 0.73 0.73 Heavy Vehicles, % 2222 Mvmt Flow 0 71 18 51 Number of Lanes 0010 Approach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCM Control Delay 13.8 HCM LOS B

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 Background PM 2038 Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 6 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 355 44 103 484 70 135 Future Volume (vph) 355 44 103 484 70 135 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 200 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 1.00 0.98 Frt 0.985 0.850 Flt Protected 0.991 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1827 0 0 1852 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.991 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1827 0 0 1850 1805 1580 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 6 245 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 661 541 572 Travel Time (s) 15.0 12.3 13.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 6 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 14 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.86 0.86 0.55 0.55 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 382 47 120 563 127 245 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 429 0 0 683 127 245 Turn Type NA Split NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 4 8822 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 26.2 40.0 40.0 23.8 23.8 Total Split (%) 29.1% 44.4% 44.4% 26.4% 26.4% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None C-Min C-Min Act Effct Green (s) 26.2 35.4 14.9 14.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.39 0.17 0.17 v/c Ratio 0.80 0.94 0.43 0.53 Control Delay 42.2 48.8 39.4 9.1 Queue Delay 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 42.2 50.0 39.4 9.1 LOS D D D A

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 Background PM 2038 Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 7 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Approach Delay 42.2 50.0 19.5 Approach LOS D D B Queue Length 50th (ft) 212 360 69 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #386 #545 68 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 581 461 492 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 Base Capacity (vph) 535 741 395 537 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 11 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.80 0.94 0.32 0.46 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.94 Intersection Signal Delay: 40.1 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 Background PM 2038 Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 8 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 355 44 103 484 70 135 Future Volume (veh/h) 355 44 103 484 70 135 Number 4 14 3 8 5 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1867 1900 1900 1869 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 382 47 120 563 127 245 Adj No. of Lanes 100111 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.86 0.86 0.55 0.55 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222200 Cap, veh/h 390 48 126 591 402 358 Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.39 0.39 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1619 199 326 1527 1810 1615 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 429 683 0 127 245 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1818 1853 0 1810 1615 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 21.1 32.2 0.0 5.3 12.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 21.1 32.2 0.0 5.3 12.5 Prop In Lane 0.11 0.18 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 438 717 0 402 358 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.98 0.95 0.00 0.32 0.68 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 438 731 0 402 358 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.79 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 33.9 26.8 0.0 29.3 32.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 37.2 19.0 0.0 2.1 10.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 15.1 20.1 0.0 2.9 6.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 71.2 45.7 0.0 31.4 42.2 LnGrp LOS E D C D Approach Vol, veh/h 429 683 372 Approach Delay, s/veh 71.2 45.7 38.5 Approach LOS E D D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.5 26.2 39.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.3 21.7 35.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.5 23.1 34.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 0.0 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 51.3 HCM 2010 LOS D

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 Background PM 2038 Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 9 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: Kent West Access & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 400 2 1 560 1 3 Future Volume (vph) 400 2 1 560 1 3 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.999 0.899 Flt Protected 0.988 Satd. Flow (prot) 1861 0 0 1863 1688 0 Flt Permitted 0.988 Satd. Flow (perm) 1861 0 0 1863 1688 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 410 661 441 Travel Time (s) 9.3 15.0 10.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.50 0.50 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 435 2 1 589 2 6 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 437 0 0 590 8 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 Background PM 2038 Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 10 HCM 2010 TWSC 9: Kent West Access & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 400 2 1 560 1 3 Future Vol, veh/h 400 2 1 560 1 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 5 5 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 95 95 50 50 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 0 0 2 0 0 Mvmt Flow 435 2 1 589 2 6

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 442 0 1033 441 Stage 1 - - - - 441 - Stage 2 - - - - 592 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1129 - 260 621 Stage 1 - - - - 653 - Stage 2 - - - - 557 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1129 - 259 618 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 259 - Stage 1 - - - - 650 - Stage 2 - - - - 556 -

Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 13 HCM LOS B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 459 - - 1129 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - - 0.001 - HCM Control Delay (s) 13 - - 8.2 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 Background PM 2038 Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 11

APPENDIX E 2038 TOTAL TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE OUTPUT

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building Traffic Impact Analysis Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 177 336 293 102 125 296 Future Volume (vph) 177 336 293 102 125 296 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 120 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 144 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.97 Frt 0.965 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1788 0 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.316 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 589 1863 1788 0 1770 1534 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 42 352 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 541 2480 627 Travel Time (s) 12.3 56.4 14.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 206 391 337 117 149 352 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 206 391 454 0 149 352 Turn Type Perm NA NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 25.0 25.0 Total Split (%) 58.3% 58.3% 58.3% 41.7% 41.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None C-Min C-Min Act Effct Green (s) 22.3 22.3 22.3 28.7 28.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.48 0.48 v/c Ratio 0.94 0.57 0.66 0.18 0.38 Control Delay 65.0 21.4 17.8 12.4 3.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 Total Delay 65.0 21.4 18.4 12.4 3.6 LOS E C B B A Approach Delay 36.5 18.4 6.2

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 AM Total Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Approach LOS D B A Queue Length 50th (ft) 124 220 118 29 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m98 m166 140 72 38 Internal Link Dist (ft) 461 2400 547 Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 100 Base Capacity (vph) 301 953 935 853 921 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 191 0 121 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.68 0.41 0.61 0.17 0.44 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2: and 6:SBL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 55 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.94 Intersection Signal Delay: 21.4 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Splits and Phases: 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 AM Total Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd 11/16/2017

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 177 336 293 102 125 296 Future Volume (veh/h) 177 336 293 102 125 296 Number 7 4 8 18 1 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 206 391 337 117 149 352 Adj No. of Lanes 111011 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.84 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 Cap, veh/h 373 852 602 209 696 621 Arrive On Green 0.92 0.92 0.46 0.46 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 933 1863 1314 456 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 206 391 0 454 149 352 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 933 1863 0 1771 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.9 1.8 0.0 11.2 3.3 10.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 22.1 1.8 0.0 11.2 3.3 10.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 373 852 0 810 696 621 V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.46 0.00 0.56 0.21 0.57 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 420 947 0 900 696 621 HCM Platoon Ratio 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.46 0.46 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 6.9 1.5 0.0 11.9 12.1 14.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.7 3.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 0.7 0.0 5.6 1.8 5.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 7.5 1.6 0.0 12.5 12.8 18.0 LnGrp LOS A A B B B Approach Vol, veh/h 597 454 501 Approach Delay, s/veh 3.7 12.5 16.4 Approach LOS A B B Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 32.0 28.0 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.5 20.5 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 24.1 12.4 13.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.4 1.2 6.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 10.4 HCM 2010 LOS B

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 AM Total Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 30 411 10 4 334 106 10 3 6 102 11 47 Future Volume (vph) 30 411 10 4 334 106 10 3 6 102 11 47 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.997 0.968 0.957 0.960 Flt Protected 0.997 0.975 0.969 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1852 0 0 1803 0 0 1738 0 0 1733 0 Flt Permitted 0.997 0.975 0.969 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1852 0 0 1803 0 0 1738 0 0 1733 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 2480 508 485 395 Travel Time (s) 56.4 11.5 13.2 10.8 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 10 10 1 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7914 Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.71 0.71 0.71 Adj. Flow (vph) 41 563 14 6 464 147 13 4 8 144 15 66 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 618 0 0 617 0 0 25 0 0 225 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.9% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 AM Total Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 4 HCM 2010 AWSC 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 53 Intersection LOS F

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 30 411 10 0 4 334 106 0 10 3 6 Future Vol, veh/h 0 30 411 10 0 4 334 106 0 10 3 6 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.92 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.92 0.75 0.75 0.75 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 41 563 14 0 6 464 147 0 13 4 8 Number of Lanes 001000100010 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB SB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 66.2 55.1 11.7 HCM LOS F F B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 53% 7% 1% 64% Vol Thru, % 16% 91% 75% 7% Vol Right, % 32% 2% 24% 29% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 19 451 444 160 LT Vol 10 30 4 102 Through Vol 3 411 334 11 RT Vol 6 10 106 47 Lane Flow Rate 25 618 617 225 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.056 1.021 0.979 0.444 Departure Headway (Hd) 8.26 5.95 5.851 7.264 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 436 612 623 498 Service Time 6.26 3.95 3.851 5.264 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.057 1.01 0.99 0.452 HCM Control Delay 11.7 66.2 55.1 15.9 HCM Lane LOS B F F C HCM 95th-tile Q 0.2 16 14.2 2.2

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 AM Total Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 5 HCM 2010 AWSC 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 102 11 47 Future Vol, veh/h 0 102 11 47 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.71 0.71 0.71 Heavy Vehicles, % 2222 Mvmt Flow 0 144 15 66 Number of Lanes 0010 Approach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCM Control Delay 15.9 HCM LOS C

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 AM Total Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 6 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 339 208 400 189 80 160 Future Volume (vph) 339 208 400 189 80 160 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 200 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 1.00 0.98 Frt 0.949 0.850 Flt Protected 0.967 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1760 0 0 1826 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.967 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1760 0 0 1824 1805 1579 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 27 258 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 661 541 572 Travel Time (s) 15.0 12.3 13.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.81 0.62 0.62 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 381 234 494 233 129 258 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 615 0 0 727 129 258 Turn Type NA Split NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 4 8822 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 44.0 52.0 52.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split (%) 36.7% 43.3% 43.3% 20.0% 20.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None C-Min C-Min Act Effct Green (s) 45.2 47.5 13.8 13.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.40 0.12 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.91 1.01 0.62 0.63 Control Delay 53.2 68.5 63.1 12.9 Queue Delay 0.0 32.6 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 53.2 101.1 63.1 12.9 LOS D F E B

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 AM Total Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 7 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Approach Delay 53.2 101.1 29.6 Approach LOS D F C Queue Length 50th (ft) 430 ~590 97 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #704 #691 102 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 581 461 492 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 Base Capacity (vph) 679 722 293 472 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 61 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.91 1.10 0.44 0.55 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 120 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.01 Intersection Signal Delay: 68.1 Intersection LOS: E Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.3% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 ~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 AM Total Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 8 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 339 208 400 189 80 160 Future Volume (veh/h) 339 208 400 189 80 160 Number 4 14 3 8 5 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1877 1900 1900 1888 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 381 234 494 233 129 258 Adj No. of Lanes 100111 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.81 0.62 0.62 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222200 Cap, veh/h 354 218 491 232 294 262 Arrive On Green 0.33 0.33 0.66 0.66 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1076 661 1241 585 1810 1615 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 615 727 0 129 258 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1737 1826 0 1810 1615 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 39.5 47.5 0.0 7.7 19.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 39.5 47.5 0.0 7.7 19.1 Prop In Lane 0.38 0.68 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 572 723 0 294 262 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 1.08 1.01 0.00 0.44 0.98 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 572 723 0 294 262 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.83 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 40.3 20.3 0.0 45.3 50.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 59.7 31.9 0.0 4.7 51.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 28.4 29.8 0.0 4.3 12.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 99.9 52.2 0.0 50.0 101.5 LnGrp LOS F F D F Approach Vol, veh/h 615 727 387 Approach Delay, s/veh 99.9 52.2 84.3 Approach LOS F D F Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 24.0 44.0 52.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 39.5 47.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 21.1 41.5 49.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 76.4 HCM 2010 LOS E

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 AM Total Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 9 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: Kent West Access & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 546 6 0 291 1 1 Future Volume (vph) 546 6 0 291 1 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.998 0.932 Flt Protected 0.976 Satd. Flow (prot) 1859 0 0 1863 1694 0 Flt Permitted 0.976 Satd. Flow (perm) 1859 0 0 1863 1694 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 410 661 441 Travel Time (s) 9.3 15.0 10.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 32 Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.79 0.79 0.25 0.25 Adj. Flow (vph) 620 7 0 368 4 4 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 627 0 0 368 8 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 39.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 AM Total Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 10 HCM 2010 TWSC 9: Kent West Access & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 546 6 0 291 1 1 Future Vol, veh/h 546 6 0 291 1 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 2 2 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 88 88 79 79 25 25 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 620 7 0 368 4 4

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 629 0 994 626 Stage 1 - - - - 626 - Stage 2 - - - - 368 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 953 - 272 484 Stage 1 - - - - 533 - Stage 2 - - - - 700 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 953 - 271 483 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 271 - Stage 1 - - - - 532 - Stage 2 - - - - 700 -

Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 15.6 HCM LOS C

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 347 - - 953 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.023 ---- HCM Control Delay (s) 15.6 - - 0 - HCM Lane LOS C - - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 AM Total Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 11

APPENDIX F ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS 2038 TOTAL TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE OUTPUT

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building Traffic Impact Analysis Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 196 326 406 154 261 193 Future Volume (vph) 196 326 406 154 261 193 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 120 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 144 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.98 Frt 0.963 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1784 0 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.278 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 518 1863 1784 0 1770 1546 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 48 238 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 541 2480 627 Travel Time (s) 12.3 56.4 14.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.96 0.96 0.81 0.81 Adj. Flow (vph) 251 418 423 160 322 238 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 251 418 583 0 322 238 Turn Type Perm NA NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 36.0 36.0 36.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split (%) 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 40.0% 40.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None C-Max C-Max Act Effct Green (s) 28.4 28.4 28.4 22.6 22.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.38 0.38 v/c Ratio 1.03 0.47 0.67 0.48 0.33 Control Delay 85.0 12.0 14.8 18.8 3.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 85.0 12.0 14.8 18.8 3.9 LOS F B B B A Approach Delay 39.4 14.8 12.5

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 PM Total Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Approach LOS D B B Queue Length 50th (ft) 76 84 121 95 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #169 116 211 143 30 Internal Link Dist (ft) 461 2400 547 Turn Bay Length (ft) 120 100 Base Capacity (vph) 271 978 959 667 731 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.93 0.43 0.61 0.48 0.33 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 60 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2: and 6:SBL, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.03 Intersection Signal Delay: 23.2 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 PM Total Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd 11/16/2017

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 196 326 406 154 261 193 Future Volume (veh/h) 196 326 406 154 261 193 Number 7 4 8 18 1 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 251 418 423 160 322 238 Adj No. of Lanes 111011 Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.96 0.96 0.81 0.81 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 Cap, veh/h 361 978 672 254 577 515 Arrive On Green 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.32 0.32 Sat Flow, veh/h 828 1863 1281 484 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 251 418 0 583 322 238 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 828 1863 0 1765 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 17.4 8.2 0.0 14.1 9.0 7.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 31.5 8.2 0.0 14.1 9.0 7.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 361 978 0 927 577 515 V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.43 0.00 0.63 0.56 0.46 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 361 978 0 927 577 515 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.61 0.61 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.6 8.7 0.0 10.1 16.7 16.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.6 0.2 0.0 1.4 3.9 3.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.5 4.2 0.0 7.2 5.0 3.5 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.2 8.9 0.0 11.5 20.6 19.1 LnGrp LOS C A B C B Approach Vol, veh/h 669 583 560 Approach Delay, s/veh 15.0 11.5 19.9 Approach LOS B B B Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 36.0 24.0 36.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 31.5 19.5 31.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 33.5 11.0 16.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.3 7.5 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.4 HCM 2010 LOS B

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 PM Total Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 36 475 24 8 512 86 22 8 11 52 13 38 Future Volume (vph) 36 475 24 8 512 86 22 8 11 52 13 38 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.994 0.981 0.964 0.950 Flt Protected 0.997 0.999 0.974 0.975 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1846 0 0 1826 0 0 1749 0 0 1725 0 Flt Permitted 0.997 0.999 0.974 0.975 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1846 0 0 1826 0 0 1749 0 0 1725 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 25 25 Link Distance (ft) 2480 508 485 395 Travel Time (s) 56.4 11.5 13.2 10.8 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 4 4 1 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7712 Peak Hour Factor 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.73 0.73 0.73 Adj. Flow (vph) 49 651 33 9 569 96 41 15 20 71 18 52 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 733 0 0 674 0 0 76 0 0 141 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.2% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 PM Total Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 4 HCM 2010 AWSC 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 86.3 Intersection LOS F

Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 36 475 24 0 8 512 86 0 22 8 11 Future Vol, veh/h 0 36 475 24 0 8 512 86 0 22 8 11 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.92 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.54 0.54 0.54 Heavy Vehicles, % 222222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 49 651 33 0 9 569 96 0 41 15 20 Number of Lanes 001000100010 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB SB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 115.2 78.4 12.9 HCM LOS F F B

Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 54% 7% 1% 50% Vol Thru, % 20% 89% 84% 13% Vol Right, % 27% 4% 14% 37% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 41 535 606 103 LT Vol 22 36 8 52 Through Vol 8 475 512 13 RT Vol 11 24 86 38 Lane Flow Rate 76 733 673 141 Geometry Grp 1111 Degree of Util (X) 0.163 1.171 1.063 0.287 Departure Headway (Hd) 8.26 5.912 5.958 7.819 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 437 623 613 463 Service Time 6.26 3.912 3.958 5.819 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.174 1.177 1.098 0.305 HCM Control Delay 12.9 115.2 78.4 13.9 HCM Lane LOS B F F B HCM 95th-tile Q 0.6 24.1 18.1 1.2

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 PM Total Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 5 HCM 2010 AWSC 5: Dahlia St & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS

Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 52 13 38 Future Vol, veh/h 0 52 13 38 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.73 0.73 0.73 Heavy Vehicles, % 2222 Mvmt Flow 0 71 18 52 Number of Lanes 0010 Approach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 1 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 HCM Control Delay 13.9 HCM LOS B

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 PM Total Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 6 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 355 51 115 484 80 153 Future Volume (vph) 355 51 115 484 80 153 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 0 0 200 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 1.00 0.98 Frt 0.983 0.850 Flt Protected 0.990 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1823 0 0 1851 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.990 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1823 0 0 1848 1805 1580 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 8 278 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 661 541 572 Travel Time (s) 15.0 12.3 13.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 6 6 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 14 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.86 0.86 0.55 0.55 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 382 55 134 563 145 278 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 437 0 0 697 145 278 Turn Type NA Split NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 4 8822 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 26.6 40.0 40.0 23.4 23.4 Total Split (%) 29.6% 44.4% 44.4% 26.0% 26.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None C-Min C-Min Act Effct Green (s) 25.8 35.9 14.8 14.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.29 0.40 0.16 0.16 v/c Ratio 0.83 0.94 0.49 0.57 Control Delay 44.8 49.9 40.6 9.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 44.8 50.7 40.6 9.2 LOS D D D A

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 PM Total Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 7 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Approach Delay 44.8 50.7 19.9 Approach LOS D D B Queue Length 50th (ft) 217 377 78 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #411 #563 75 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 581 461 492 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 Base Capacity (vph) 528 744 381 552 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 6 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.83 0.94 0.38 0.50 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 90 Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:NBL and 6:, Start of Green Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Coordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.94 Intersection Signal Delay: 40.7 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 PM Total Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 8 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 355 51 115 484 80 153 Future Volume (veh/h) 355 51 115 484 80 153 Number 4 14 3 8 5 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1867 1900 1900 1870 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 382 55 134 563 145 278 Adj No. of Lanes 100111 Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.86 0.86 0.55 0.55 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222200 Cap, veh/h 389 56 140 586 385 343 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.39 0.39 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 1584 228 356 1496 1810 1615 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 437 697 0 145 278 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 0 1812 1852 0 1810 1615 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 21.6 33.0 0.0 6.2 14.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 21.6 33.0 0.0 6.2 14.7 Prop In Lane 0.13 0.19 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 0 445 726 0 385 343 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.98 0.96 0.00 0.38 0.81 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 0 445 731 0 385 343 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 0.80 0.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 33.8 26.7 0.0 30.3 33.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 37.8 20.6 0.0 2.8 18.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 15.5 21.0 0.0 3.4 8.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 71.6 47.3 0.0 33.1 52.1 LnGrp LOS E D C D Approach Vol, veh/h 437 697 423 Approach Delay, s/veh 71.6 47.3 45.6 Approach LOS E D D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.6 26.6 39.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 18.9 22.1 35.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.7 23.6 35.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.0 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 53.7 HCM 2010 LOS D

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 PM Total Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 9 Lanes, Volumes, Timings 9: Kent West Access & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 407 2 1 570 1 3 Future Volume (vph) 407 2 1 570 1 3 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.999 0.899 Flt Protected 0.988 Satd. Flow (prot) 1861 0 0 1863 1688 0 Flt Permitted 0.988 Satd. Flow (perm) 1861 0 0 1863 1688 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 410 661 441 Travel Time (s) 9.3 15.0 10.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.50 0.50 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 442 2 1 600 2 6 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 444 0 0 601 8 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 PM Total Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 10 HCM 2010 TWSC 9: Kent West Access & Quincy Ave 11/16/2017

Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 407 2 1 570 1 3 Future Vol, veh/h 407 2 1 570 1 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 5 5 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 95 95 50 50 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 0 0 2 0 0 Mvmt Flow 442 2 1 600 2 6

Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 450 0 1050 448 Stage 1 - - - - 448 - Stage 2 - - - - 602 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1121 - 254 615 Stage 1 - - - - 648 - Stage 2 - - - - 551 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1121 - 253 612 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 253 - Stage 1 - - - - 645 - Stage 2 - - - - 550 -

Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 13.1 HCM LOS B

Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 452 - - 1121 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.018 - - 0.001 - HCM Control Delay (s) 13.1 - - 8.2 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -

Kent Denver School 09/13/2017 PM Total Traffic 2038(UTC)(CB Signal) Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 11

APPENDIX F(a) KDS Roundabout + CB UTC

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building Traffic Impact Analysis Lanes, Volumes, Timings Ex KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd (UTC) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd AM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 177 336 293 102 125 296 Future Volume (vph) 177 336 293 102 125 296 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.97 Frt 0.965 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1788 0 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1788 0 1770 1531 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 24 352 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 541 2480 627 Travel Time (s) 12.3 56.4 14.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 206 391 337 117 149 352 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 206 391 454 0 149 352 Turn Type Split NA NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 4 4 8 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 23.0 23.0 23.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split (%) 32.9% 32.9% 32.9% 34.3% 34.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 16.5 16.5 17.9 10.4 10.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.28 0.28 0.31 0.18 0.18 v/c Ratio 0.41 0.74 0.81 0.47 0.63 Control Delay 20.9 30.4 33.1 27.6 8.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 20.9 30.4 33.1 27.6 8.5 LOS C C C C A Approach Delay 27.1 33.1 14.2

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundabout)(CB UTC).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Ex KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd (UTC) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd AM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Approach LOS C C B Queue Length 50th (ft) 59 125 144 50 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 116 #244 #307 89 46 Internal Link Dist (ft) 461 2400 547 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 100 Base Capacity (vph) 568 598 590 599 751 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.36 0.65 0.77 0.25 0.47 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 70 Actuated Cycle Length: 58.5 Natural Cycle: 70 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.81 Intersection Signal Delay: 24.7 Intersection LOS: C Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundabout)(CB UTC).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Ex KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd (UTC) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd AM Peak Hour

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 177 336 293 102 125 296 Future Volume (veh/h) 177 336 293 102 125 296 Number 7 4 8 18 5 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 206 391 337 117 149 352 Adj No. of Lanes 111011 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.84 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 Cap, veh/h 442 464 371 129 454 405 Arrive On Green 0.25 0.25 0.28 0.28 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 1863 1314 456 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 206 391 0 454 149 352 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1863 0 1771 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 12.7 0.0 15.7 4.3 13.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 12.7 0.0 15.7 4.3 13.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 442 464 0 500 454 405 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.84 0.00 0.91 0.33 0.87 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 517 543 0 516 545 486 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.3 22.7 0.0 22.0 19.2 22.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 10.2 0.0 19.5 0.4 13.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.1 7.8 0.0 10.3 2.2 7.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.0 32.9 0.0 41.4 19.6 36.2 LnGrp LOS C C D B D Approach Vol, veh/h 597 454 501 Approach Delay, s/veh 28.8 41.4 31.3 Approach LOS C D C Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 20.7 20.3 22.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 18.5 18.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.5 14.7 17.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.7 1.1 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 33.3 HCM 2010 LOS C

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundabout)(CB UTC).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Ex KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd (UTC) 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave AM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 339 208 400 189 92 160 Future Volume (vph) 339 208 400 189 92 160 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 25 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.967 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1615 0 1826 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.967 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1615 0 1826 1805 1615 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 661 541 572 Travel Time (s) 15.0 12.3 13.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.81 0.62 0.62 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 381 234 494 233 148 258 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 381 234 0 727 148 258 Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Roundabout Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundabout)(CB UTC).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 4 HCM 2010 Roundabout Ex KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd (UTC) 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave AM Peak Hour

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.8 Intersection LOS B Approach EB WB NB Entry Lanes 2 1 2 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 615 727 406 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 623 732 406 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 494 148 389 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 386 647 728 Follow-Up Headway, s 3.186 3.186 3.186 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 1 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 0.999 Approach Delay, s/veh 12.8 17.8 8.0 Approach LOS B C A Lane Left Right Left Left Right Designated Moves LT R LT L TR Assumed Moves LT R LT L TR RT Channelized Lane Util 0.624 0.376 1.000 0.365 0.635 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 389 234 732 148 258 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 689 689 974 766 766 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 1.000 0.994 1.000 1.000 Flow Entry, veh/h 381 234 727 148 258 Cap Entry, veh/h 676 689 968 765 765 V/C Ratio 0.564 0.339 0.751 0.193 0.337 Control Delay, s/veh 14.8 9.6 17.8 6.8 8.8 LOS B A C A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 4 2 7 1 1

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundabout)(CB UTC).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 5 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Ex KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd (UTC) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 196 326 406 154 261 193 Future Volume (vph) 196 326 406 154 261 193 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.96 Frt 0.963 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1783 0 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1770 1863 1783 0 1770 1525 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 25 194 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 541 2480 627 Travel Time (s) 12.3 56.4 14.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 228 379 467 177 311 230 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 228 379 644 0 311 230 Turn Type Split NA NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 4 8 2 Permitted Phases 2 Detector Phase 4 4 8 2 2 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 25.0 25.0 39.0 26.0 26.0 Total Split (%) 27.8% 27.8% 43.3% 28.9% 28.9% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 19.5 19.5 32.3 18.6 18.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.23 0.23 0.38 0.22 0.22 v/c Ratio 0.56 0.88 0.92 0.80 0.47 Control Delay 35.9 55.6 45.3 47.9 10.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 35.9 55.6 45.3 47.9 10.4 LOS D E D D B Approach Delay 48.2 45.3 31.9

Kent Denver School PM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundabout)(CB UTCl).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Ex KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd (UTC) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Approach LOS D D C Queue Length 50th (ft) 115 209 329 164 16 Queue Length 95th (ft) 179 #345 #519 235 63 Internal Link Dist (ft) 461 2400 547 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 100 Base Capacity (vph) 437 460 755 458 538 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.52 0.82 0.85 0.68 0.43 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 84.2 Natural Cycle: 90 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.92 Intersection Signal Delay: 42.3 Intersection LOS: D Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd

Kent Denver School PM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundabout)(CB UTCl).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary Ex KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd (UTC) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd PM Peak Hour

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 196 326 406 154 261 193 Future Volume (veh/h) 196 326 406 154 261 193 Number 7 4 8 18 5 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 228 379 467 177 311 230 Adj No. of Lanes 111011 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.84 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 Cap, veh/h 411 431 505 191 366 326 Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.39 0.39 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 1774 1863 1280 485 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 228 379 0 644 311 230 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1774 1863 0 1765 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.1 15.8 0.0 28.0 13.6 10.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 9.1 15.8 0.0 28.0 13.6 10.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 411 431 0 697 366 326 V/C Ratio(X) 0.55 0.88 0.00 0.92 0.85 0.70 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 451 474 0 756 473 422 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.3 29.9 0.0 23.2 30.8 29.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.2 16.0 0.0 16.4 11.1 3.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.6 10.0 0.0 16.8 7.8 5.1 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.5 45.8 0.0 39.6 41.9 33.4 LnGrp LOS C D D D C Approach Vol, veh/h 607 644 541 Approach Delay, s/veh 39.3 39.6 38.3 Approach LOS D D D Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2 4 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.1 23.2 36.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 21.5 20.5 34.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.6 17.8 30.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.0 0.9 1.8 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 39.1 HCM 2010 LOS D

Kent Denver School PM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundabout)(CB UTCl).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Ex KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd (UTC) 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 355 51 115 484 80 153 Future Volume (vph) 355 51 115 484 80 153 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 25 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.990 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1615 0 1851 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.990 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1615 0 1851 1805 1615 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 661 541 572 Travel Time (s) 15.0 12.3 13.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.81 0.62 0.62 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 399 57 142 598 129 247 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 399 57 0 740 129 247 Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Roundabout Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School PM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundabout)(CB UTCl).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 4 HCM 2010 Roundabout Ex KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd (UTC) 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave PM Peak Hour

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.7 Intersection LOS B Approach EB WB NB Entry Lanes 2 1 2 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 456 740 376 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 464 752 376 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 142 129 407 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 739 654 199 Follow-Up Headway, s 3.186 3.186 3.186 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 1 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 0.999 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.9 17.9 8.0 Approach LOS A C A Lane Left Right Left Left Right Designated Moves LT R LT L TR Assumed Moves LT R LT L TR RT Channelized Lane Util 0.877 0.123 1.000 0.343 0.657 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 407 57 752 129 247 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 980 980 993 752 752 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 1.000 0.984 1.000 1.000 Flow Entry, veh/h 399 57 740 129 247 Cap Entry, veh/h 961 980 977 752 752 V/C Ratio 0.415 0.058 0.757 0.172 0.329 Control Delay, s/veh 8.5 4.2 17.9 6.6 8.8 LOS A A C A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 2 0 7 1 1

Kent Denver School PM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundabout)(CB UTCl).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 5

APPENDIX F(b) KDS Roundabout + CB Signal

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building Traffic Impact Analysis Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd Signal (2038) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd AM Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 177 336 293 102 125 296 Future Volume (vph) 177 336 293 102 125 296 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.97 Frt 0.965 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1788 0 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.450 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 838 1863 1788 0 1770 1534 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 42 352 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 541 2480 627 Travel Time (s) 12.3 56.4 14.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 206 391 337 117 149 352 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 206 391 454 0 149 352 Turn Type Perm NA NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 25.0 25.0 Total Split (%) 58.3% 58.3% 58.3% 41.7% 41.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 15.5 15.5 15.5 9.0 9.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.26 0.26 v/c Ratio 0.55 0.47 0.55 0.32 0.53 Control Delay 12.9 8.3 8.7 14.6 5.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 12.9 8.3 8.7 14.6 5.6 LOS BAA BA Approach Delay 9.9 8.7 8.3

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundaboutl)(CB Signal).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd Signal (2038) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd AM Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Approach LOS A A A Queue Length 50th (ft) 21 38 42 19 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 70 98 111 72 40 Internal Link Dist (ft) 461 2400 547 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 100 Base Capacity (vph) 727 1617 1557 1158 1125 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.28 0.24 0.29 0.13 0.31 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 34.4 Natural Cycle: 55 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.55 Intersection Signal Delay: 9.0 Intersection LOS: A Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15

Splits and Phases: 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundaboutl)(CB Signal).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection SummaryExisting KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd Signal (2038) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd AM Weekday Peak Hour

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 177 336 293 102 125 296 Future Volume (veh/h) 177 336 293 102 125 296 Number 7 4 8 18 1 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 206 391 337 117 149 352 Adj No. of Lanes 111011 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.84 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 Cap, veh/h 490 964 681 236 496 442 Arrive On Green 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 933 1863 1314 456 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 206 391 0 454 149 352 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 933 1863 0 1771 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.1 5.7 0.0 7.4 2.9 9.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.5 5.7 0.0 7.4 2.9 9.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 490 964 0 917 496 442 V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.41 0.00 0.50 0.30 0.80 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 649 1281 0 1218 820 732 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.0 6.5 0.0 6.9 12.6 14.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.3 3.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.1 2.9 0.0 3.6 1.5 4.3 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.5 6.8 0.0 7.4 12.9 18.1 LnGrp LOS B A A B B Approach Vol, veh/h 597 454 501 Approach Delay, s/veh 8.8 7.4 16.6 Approach LOS A A B Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 27.5 16.9 27.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.5 20.5 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.5 11.1 9.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 5.4 1.3 6.9 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 10.9 HCM 2010 LOS B

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundaboutl)(CB Signal).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd Signal (2038) 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave AM Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 339 208 400 189 92 160 Future Volume (vph) 339 208 400 189 92 160 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 25 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.967 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1615 0 1826 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.967 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1615 0 1826 1805 1615 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 661 541 572 Travel Time (s) 15.0 12.3 13.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.81 0.62 0.62 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 381 234 494 233 148 258 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 381 234 0 727 148 258 Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Roundabout Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundaboutl)(CB Signal).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 4 HCM 2010 Roundabout Existing KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd Signal (2038) 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave AM Weekday Peak Hour

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.8 Intersection LOS B Approach EB WB NB Entry Lanes 2 1 2 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 615 727 406 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 623 732 406 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 494 148 389 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 386 647 728 Follow-Up Headway, s 3.186 3.186 3.186 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 1 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 0.999 Approach Delay, s/veh 12.8 17.8 8.0 Approach LOS B C A Lane Left Right Left Left Right Designated Moves LT R LT L TR Assumed Moves LT R LT L TR RT Channelized Lane Util 0.624 0.376 1.000 0.365 0.635 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 389 234 732 148 258 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 689 689 974 766 766 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 1.000 0.994 1.000 1.000 Flow Entry, veh/h 381 234 727 148 258 Cap Entry, veh/h 676 689 968 765 765 V/C Ratio 0.564 0.339 0.751 0.193 0.337 Control Delay, s/veh 14.8 9.6 17.8 6.8 8.8 LOS B A C A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 4 2 7 1 1

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundaboutl)(CB Signal).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 5 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd Signal (2038) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd PM Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 196 326 406 154 261 193 Future Volume (vph) 196 326 406 154 261 193 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.97 Frt 0.963 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1863 1784 0 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.299 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 557 1863 1784 0 1770 1534 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 46 230 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 541 2480 627 Travel Time (s) 12.3 56.4 14.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 228 379 467 177 311 230 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 228 379 644 0 311 230 Turn Type Perm NA NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Detector Phase 4 4 8 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 35.0 35.0 35.0 25.0 25.0 Total Split (%) 58.3% 58.3% 58.3% 41.7% 41.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 29.2 29.2 29.2 14.2 14.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.27 0.27 v/c Ratio 0.74 0.37 0.64 0.65 0.40 Control Delay 29.6 8.6 11.9 24.1 4.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 29.6 8.6 11.9 24.1 4.8 LOS C A B C A Approach Delay 16.5 11.9 15.9

Kent Denver School PM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundabout)(CB Signal).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd Signal (2038) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd PM Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Approach LOS B B B Queue Length 50th (ft) 47 58 110 88 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) #171 124 242 141 32 Internal Link Dist (ft) 461 2400 547 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 100 Base Capacity (vph) 328 1098 1070 701 746 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.70 0.35 0.60 0.44 0.31 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 52.6 Natural Cycle: 60 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.74 Intersection Signal Delay: 14.7 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd

Kent Denver School PM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundabout)(CB Signal).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection SummaryExisting KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd Signal (2038) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd PM Weekday Peak Hour

Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 196 326 406 154 261 193 Future Volume (veh/h) 196 326 406 154 261 193 Number 7 4 8 18 1 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 228 379 467 177 311 230 Adj No. of Lanes 111011 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.84 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222 Cap, veh/h 420 1097 754 286 410 366 Arrive On Green 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 783 1863 1280 485 1774 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 228 379 0 644 311 230 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 783 1863 0 1765 1774 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 13.3 5.2 0.0 11.8 8.2 6.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 25.1 5.2 0.0 11.8 8.2 6.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.27 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 420 1097 0 1040 410 366 V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.35 0.00 0.62 0.76 0.63 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 437 1136 0 1077 727 649 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.8 5.3 0.0 6.6 17.9 17.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.2 0.0 1.0 2.9 1.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.0 2.7 0.0 5.8 4.3 3.0 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.0 5.5 0.0 7.7 20.8 19.1 LnGrp LOS B A A C B Approach Vol, veh/h 607 644 541 Approach Delay, s/veh 9.4 7.7 20.1 Approach LOS A A C Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 34.0 16.0 34.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 30.5 20.5 30.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 27.1 10.2 13.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 2.4 1.4 8.0 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 12.0 HCM 2010 LOS B

Kent Denver School PM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundabout)(CB Signal).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Existing KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd Signal (2038) 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave PM Weekday Peak Hour

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 355 51 115 484 80 153 Future Volume (vph) 355 51 115 484 80 153 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 25 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.990 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1615 0 1851 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.990 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1615 0 1851 1805 1615 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 661 541 572 Travel Time (s) 15.0 12.3 13.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.81 0.62 0.62 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 399 57 142 598 129 247 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 399 57 0 740 129 247 Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Roundabout Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.9% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School PM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundabout)(CB Signal).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 4 HCM 2010 Roundabout Existing KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd Signal (2038) 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave PM Weekday Peak Hour

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.7 Intersection LOS B Approach EB WB NB Entry Lanes 2 1 2 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 456 740 376 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 464 752 376 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 142 129 407 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 739 654 199 Follow-Up Headway, s 3.186 3.186 3.186 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 1 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 0.999 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.9 17.9 8.0 Approach LOS A C A Lane Left Right Left Left Right Designated Moves LT R LT L TR Assumed Moves LT R LT L TR RT Channelized Lane Util 0.877 0.123 1.000 0.343 0.657 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 407 57 752 129 247 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 980 980 993 752 752 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 1.000 0.984 1.000 1.000 Flow Entry, veh/h 399 57 740 129 247 Cap Entry, veh/h 961 980 977 752 752 V/C Ratio 0.415 0.058 0.757 0.172 0.329 Control Delay, s/veh 8.5 4.2 17.9 6.6 8.8 LOS A A C A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 2 0 7 1 1

Kent Denver School PM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundabout)(CB Signal).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 5

APPENDIX F(c)

KDS Roundabout + CB Roundabout

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building Traffic Impact Analysis Lanes, Volumes, Timings Ex. KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd Roundabout (2038) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd AM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 177 336 293 102 125 296 Future Volume (vph) 177 336 293 102 125 296 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 0 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.965 0.850 Flt Protected 0.983 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1831 1798 0 1770 1583 Flt Permitted 0.983 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1831 1798 0 1770 1583 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 541 2480 627 Travel Time (s) 12.3 56.4 14.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 206 391 337 117 149 352 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 597 454 0 149 352 Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Roundabout Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.4% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundabout)(CB Roundabout).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 1 HCM 2010 Roundabout Ex. KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd Roundabout (2038) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd AM Peak Hour

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.1 Intersection LOS B Approach EB WB SB Entry Lanes 1 1 2 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 597 454 501 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 609 463 511 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 152 210 344 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 703 551 329 Follow-Up Headway, s 3.186 3.186 3.186 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 7 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 0.999 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.1 10.6 9.3 Approach LOS B B A Lane Left Left Left Right Designated Moves LT TR L TR Assumed Moves LT TR L TR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 0.297 0.703 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 609 463 152 359 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 971 916 801 801 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 0.981 0.980 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 597 454 149 352 Cap Entry, veh/h 951 899 785 785 V/C Ratio 0.628 0.506 0.190 0.448 Control Delay, s/veh 13.1 10.6 6.6 10.5 LOS B B A B 95th %tile Queue, veh 5 3 1 2

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundabout)(CB Roundabout).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings Ex. KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd Roundabout (2038) 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave AM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 339 208 400 189 92 160 Future Volume (vph) 339 208 400 189 92 160 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 25 0 0 100 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.850 0.850 Flt Protected 0.967 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1863 1615 0 1826 1805 1615 Flt Permitted 0.967 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1863 1615 0 1826 1805 1615 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 661 541 572 Travel Time (s) 15.0 12.3 13.0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 1 1 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 7 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.81 0.81 0.62 0.62 Heavy Vehicles (%) 2% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 381 234 494 233 148 258 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 381 234 0 727 148 258 Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Roundabout Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.0% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundabout)(CB Roundabout).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 3 HCM 2010 Roundabout Ex. KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd Roundabout (2038) 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave AM Peak Hour

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.8 Intersection LOS B Approach EB WB NB Entry Lanes 2 1 2 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 615 727 406 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 623 732 406 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 494 148 389 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 386 647 728 Follow-Up Headway, s 3.186 3.186 3.186 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 1 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 0.999 Approach Delay, s/veh 12.8 17.8 8.0 Approach LOS B C A Lane Left Right Left Left Right Designated Moves LT R LT L TR Assumed Moves LT R LT L TR RT Channelized Lane Util 0.624 0.376 1.000 0.365 0.635 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 389 234 732 148 258 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 689 689 974 766 766 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 1.000 0.994 1.000 1.000 Flow Entry, veh/h 381 234 727 148 258 Cap Entry, veh/h 676 689 968 765 765 V/C Ratio 0.564 0.339 0.751 0.193 0.337 Control Delay, s/veh 14.8 9.6 17.8 6.8 8.8 LOS B A C A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 4 2 7 1 1

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundabout)(CB Roundabout).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 4 HCM 2010 Roundabout Ex KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd Roundabout (2038) 3: Quincy Ave & Colorado Blvd Pm Peak Hour

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 16.8 Intersection LOS C Approach EB WB SB Entry Lanes 1 1 2 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 607 644 541 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 620 657 552 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 317 233 476 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 711 704 414 Follow-Up Headway, s 3.186 3.186 3.186 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 7 0 0 Ped Cap Adj 0.999 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 20.6 18.2 10.8 Approach LOS C C B Lane Left Left Left Right Designated Moves LT TR L TR Assumed Moves LT TR L TR RT Channelized Lane Util 1.000 1.000 0.574 0.426 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 620 657 317 235 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 823 895 702 702 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.980 0.981 0.979 Flow Entry, veh/h 607 644 311 230 Cap Entry, veh/h 805 877 689 687 V/C Ratio 0.754 0.734 0.452 0.335 Control Delay, s/veh 20.6 18.2 11.7 9.5 LOS C C B A 95th %tile Queue, veh 7 7 2 1

Kent Denver School PM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundabout)(CB Roundabout).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 1 HCM 2010 Roundabout Ex KDS Roundabout + Colo Blvd Roundabout (2038) 7: Kent Main Access & Quincy Ave Pm Peak Hour

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.7 Intersection LOS B Approach EB WB NB Entry Lanes 2 1 2 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1 1 1 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 456 740 376 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 464 752 376 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 142 129 407 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 739 654 199 Follow-Up Headway, s 3.186 3.186 3.186 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 0 0 1 Ped Cap Adj 1.000 1.000 0.999 Approach Delay, s/veh 7.9 17.9 8.0 Approach LOS A C A Lane Left Right Left Left Right Designated Moves LT R LT L TR Assumed Moves LT R LT L TR RT Channelized Lane Util 0.877 0.123 1.000 0.343 0.657 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 407 57 752 129 247 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 980 980 993 752 752 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 1.000 0.984 1.000 1.000 Flow Entry, veh/h 399 57 740 129 247 Cap Entry, veh/h 961 980 977 752 752 V/C Ratio 0.415 0.058 0.757 0.172 0.329 Control Delay, s/veh 8.5 4.2 17.9 6.6 8.8 LOS A A C A A 95th %tile Queue, veh 2 0 7 1 1

Kent Denver School PM Total Traffic (2038)(Roundabout)(CB Roundabout).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 2

APPENDIX F(d) New KDS at CB Signal

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building Traffic Impact Analysis Lanes, Volumes, Timings New KDS at Colo Blvd Signal 3: Colorado Blvd AM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 97 256 208 200 93 102 92 80 80 125 200 96 Future Volume (vph) 97 256 208 200 93 102 92 80 80 125 200 96 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 0 150 0 200 100 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 120 120 120 120 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.99 Frt 0.935 0.922 0.925 0.948 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1742 0 1770 1699 0 1770 1723 0 1770 1747 0 Flt Permitted 0.619 0.357 0.485 0.647 Satd. Flow (perm) 1153 1742 0 665 1699 0 903 1723 0 1205 1747 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 96 117 87 47 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 432 489 426 627 Travel Time (s) 9.8 11.1 9.7 14.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.84 0.92 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 113 298 226 217 107 117 100 87 87 149 217 114 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 113 524 0 217 224 0 100 174 0 149 331 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 Total Split (%) 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 18.7 18.7 18.7 18.7 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.63 0.73 0.27 0.36 0.29 0.40 0.58 Control Delay 8.4 10.9 25.9 4.7 17.9 8.9 17.4 16.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 8.4 10.9 25.9 4.7 17.9 8.9 17.4 16.5 LOS AB CA BA BB Approach Delay 10.4 15.1 12.2 16.7

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2038)(No KDS Access(CB Signal).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings New KDS at Colo Blvd Signal 3: Colorado Blvd AM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Approach LOS BBBB Queue Length 50th (ft) 14 63 36 13 17 14 25 50 Queue Length 95th (ft) 41 152 #148 44 63 61 78 153 Internal Link Dist (ft) 352 409 346 547 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 150 200 Base Capacity (vph) 898 1378 518 1350 506 1004 676 1000 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.38 0.42 0.17 0.20 0.17 0.22 0.33 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 41.7 Natural Cycle: 55 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.73 Intersection Signal Delay: 13.5 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.0% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 3: Colorado Blvd

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2038)(No KDS Access(CB Signal).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary New KDS at Colo Blvd Signal 3: Colorado Blvd AM Peak Hour

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 97 256 208 200 93 102 92 80 80 125 200 96 Future Volume (veh/h) 97 256 208 200 93 102 92 80 80 125 200 96 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 113 298 226 217 107 117 100 87 87 149 217 114 Adj No. of Lanes 110110110110 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.84 0.92 0.84 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 649 516 391 407 422 461 289 268 268 415 360 189 Arrive On Green 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 1152 984 747 875 805 880 1039 856 856 1206 1146 602 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 113 0 524 217 0 224 100 0 174 149 0 331 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1152 0 1731 875 0 1685 1039 0 1712 1206 0 1748 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 0.0 11.5 12.5 0.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 4.3 6.0 0.0 8.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.4 0.0 11.5 23.9 0.0 4.0 13.9 0.0 4.3 10.3 0.0 8.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.43 1.00 0.52 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.34 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 649 0 907 407 0 883 289 0 537 415 0 548 V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.00 0.58 0.53 0.00 0.25 0.35 0.00 0.32 0.36 0.00 0.60 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 701 0 984 447 0 959 329 0 603 461 0 616 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 9.3 0.0 9.0 17.2 0.0 7.2 22.0 0.0 14.5 18.4 0.0 16.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.0 0.7 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 1.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 0.0 5.6 3.1 0.0 1.9 1.5 0.0 2.1 2.0 0.0 4.4 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 9.4 0.0 9.7 18.3 0.0 7.4 22.7 0.0 14.9 19.0 0.0 17.5 LnGrp LOS A A B A C B B B Approach Vol, veh/h 637 441 274 480 Approach Delay, s/veh 9.7 12.7 17.7 17.9 Approach LOS ABBB Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.9 33.5 21.9 33.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.5 31.5 19.5 31.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.9 13.5 12.3 25.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 1.5 6.7 2.5 3.1 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 13.8 HCM 2010 LOS B

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2038)(No KDS Access(CB Signal).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 3 Lanes, Volumes, Timings New KDS at Colo Blvd Signal 3: Colorado Blvd PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 120 249 51 58 348 154 80 76 77 261 57 136 Future Volume (vph) 120 249 51 58 348 154 80 76 77 261 57 136 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 0 150 0 150 0 200 100 Storage Lanes 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Taper Length (ft) 120 120 120 120 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.99 0.98 Frt 0.976 0.954 0.925 0.892 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1770 1818 0 1770 1766 0 1770 1723 0 1770 1624 0 Flt Permitted 0.273 0.507 0.619 0.651 Satd. Flow (perm) 509 1818 0 944 1766 0 1153 1723 0 1213 1624 0 Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 21 49 84 162 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 432 489 426 627 Travel Time (s) 9.8 11.1 9.7 14.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.84 0.92 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 140 290 55 63 400 177 87 83 84 311 62 162 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 140 345 0 63 577 0 87 167 0 311 224 0 Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4826 Permitted Phases 4826 Detector Phase 4 4 8 8 2 2 6 6 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 Total Split (s) 32.0 32.0 32.0 32.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 Total Split (%) 53.3% 53.3% 53.3% 53.3% 46.7% 46.7% 46.7% 46.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lead/Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Recall Mode None None None None Min Min Min Min Act Effct Green (s) 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 v/c Ratio 0.65 0.44 0.16 0.74 0.21 0.25 0.71 0.32 Control Delay 28.9 11.4 10.3 17.5 13.0 7.5 24.0 5.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 28.9 11.4 10.3 17.5 13.0 7.5 24.0 5.7 LOS CB BB BA CA Approach Delay 16.5 16.8 9.4 16.4

Kent Denver School PM Total Traffic (2038)(No KDS Access(CB Signal).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 1 Lanes, Volumes, Timings New KDS at Colo Blvd Signal 3: Colorado Blvd PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Approach LOS BBAB Queue Length 50th (ft) 29 59 10 114 16 15 71 11 Queue Length 95th (ft) #104 121 32 231 47 52 152 52 Internal Link Dist (ft) 352 409 346 547 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 150 150 200 Base Capacity (vph) 327 1176 606 1152 633 984 666 965 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.43 0.29 0.10 0.50 0.14 0.17 0.47 0.23 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 60 Actuated Cycle Length: 46.8 Natural Cycle: 55 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.74 Intersection Signal Delay: 15.6 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.5% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Splits and Phases: 3: Colorado Blvd

Kent Denver School PM Total Traffic (2038)(No KDS Access(CB Signal).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 2 HCM 2010 Signalized Intersection Summary New KDS at Colo Blvd Signal 3: Colorado Blvd PM Peak Hour

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 120 249 51 58 348 154 80 76 77 261 57 136 Future Volume (veh/h) 120 249 51 58 348 154 80 76 77 261 57 136 Number 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 1863 1863 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 140 290 55 63 400 177 87 83 84 311 62 162 Adj No. of Lanes 110110110110 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.84 0.92 0.84 Percent Heavy Veh, % 222222222222 Cap, veh/h 304 719 136 485 574 254 436 315 319 493 168 439 Arrive On Green 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 Sat Flow, veh/h 833 1523 289 1031 1216 538 1146 850 861 1214 454 1186 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 140 0 345 63 0 577 87 0 167 311 0 224 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 833 0 1812 1031 0 1754 1146 0 1711 1214 0 1640 Q Serve(g_s), s 9.1 0.0 7.1 2.4 0.0 14.8 3.4 0.0 3.9 13.7 0.0 5.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 23.8 0.0 7.1 9.5 0.0 14.8 9.1 0.0 3.9 17.6 0.0 5.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.31 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.72 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 304 0 855 485 0 828 436 0 634 493 0 607 V/C Ratio(X) 0.46 0.00 0.40 0.13 0.00 0.70 0.20 0.00 0.26 0.63 0.00 0.37 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 312 0 873 495 0 845 484 0 704 543 0 675 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.2 0.0 9.8 12.9 0.0 11.9 16.4 0.0 12.5 18.7 0.0 13.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 2.5 0.2 0.0 0.2 2.0 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 0.0 3.6 0.7 0.0 7.6 1.1 0.0 1.8 4.9 0.0 2.6 LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.3 0.0 10.1 13.1 0.0 14.3 16.7 0.0 12.8 20.7 0.0 13.5 LnGrp LOS C B B B B B C B Approach Vol, veh/h 485 640 254 535 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.7 14.2 14.1 17.7 Approach LOS BBBB Timer 12345678 Assigned Phs 2468 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 25.6 31.5 25.6 31.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 23.5 27.5 23.5 27.5 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.1 25.8 19.6 16.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 3.3 1.1 1.5 5.3 Intersection Summary HCM 2010 Ctrl Delay 15.0 HCM 2010 LOS B

Kent Denver School PM Total Traffic (2038)(No KDS Access(CB Signal).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 3

APPENDIX F(e) New KDS at CB Roundabout

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building Traffic Impact Analysis Lanes, Volumes, Timings New KDS at Colo Blvd Roundabout 3: KDS Main Access/Colorado Blvd & Quincy Ave AM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 97 256 208 200 93 102 92 80 80 125 200 96 Future Volume (vph) 97 256 208 200 93 102 92 80 80 125 200 96 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 100 150 0 150 0 200 100 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 120 120 120 120 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.850 0.964 0.957 0.968 Flt Protected 0.986 0.976 0.982 0.985 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1837 1583 0 1753 0 0 1751 0 0 1776 0 Flt Permitted 0.986 0.976 0.982 0.985 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1837 1583 0 1753 0 0 1751 0 0 1776 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 432 489 426 627 Travel Time (s) 9.8 11.1 9.7 14.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.84 0.92 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 113 298 226 217 107 117 100 87 87 149 217 114 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 411 226 0 441 0 0 274 0 0 480 0 Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Roundabout Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.6% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2038)(No KDS Access(CB Roundabout).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 1 HCM 2010 Roundabout New KDS at Colo Blvd Roundabout 3: KDS Main Access/Colorado Blvd & Quincy Ave AM Peak Hour

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 15.4 Intersection LOS C Approach EB WB NB SB Entry Lanes 2111 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1111 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 637 441 274 480 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 650 449 280 489 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 594 306 571 432 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 327 545 673 323 Follow-Up Headway, s 3.186 3.186 3.186 3.186 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 7000 Ped Cap Adj 0.996 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 17.3 12.1 12.4 17.7 Approach LOS C B B C Lane Left Right Left Left Left Designated Moves LT R LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LT R LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 0.645 0.355 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 419 231 449 280 489 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 624 624 832 638 734 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.981 0.978 0.982 0.979 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 411 226 441 274 480 Cap Entry, veh/h 610 608 817 625 720 V/C Ratio 0.674 0.372 0.540 0.439 0.667 Control Delay, s/veh 20.6 11.2 12.1 12.4 17.7 LOS C B B B C 95th %tile Queue, veh 5 2 3 2 5

Kent Denver School AM Total Traffic (2038)(No KDS Access(CB Roundabout).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 2 Lanes, Volumes, Timings New KDS at Colo Blvd Roundabout 3: KDS Main Access/Colorado Blvd & Quincy Ave PM Peak Hour

Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 120 249 51 58 348 154 80 76 77 261 57 136 Future Volume (vph) 120 249 51 58 348 154 80 76 77 261 57 136 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 150 100 150 0 150 0 200 100 Storage Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taper Length (ft) 120 120 120 120 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor Frt 0.850 0.963 0.955 0.959 Flt Protected 0.984 0.995 0.983 0.972 Satd. Flow (prot) 0 1833 1583 0 1785 0 0 1749 0 0 1736 0 Flt Permitted 0.984 0.995 0.983 0.972 Satd. Flow (perm) 0 1833 1583 0 1785 0 0 1749 0 0 1736 0 Link Speed (mph) 30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 432 489 426 627 Travel Time (s) 9.8 11.1 9.7 14.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 7 Confl. Bikes (#/hr) 1 Peak Hour Factor 0.86 0.86 0.92 0.92 0.87 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.84 0.92 0.84 Adj. Flow (vph) 140 290 55 63 400 177 87 83 84 311 62 162 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 430 55 0 640 0 0 254 0 0 535 0 Sign Control Yield Yield Yield Yield Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Control Type: Roundabout Intersection Capacity Utilization 103.1% ICU Level of Service G Analysis Period (min) 15

Kent Denver School PM Total Traffic (2038)(No KDS Access(CB Roundabout).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 1 HCM 2010 Roundabout New KDS at Colo Blvd Roundabout 3: KDS Main Access/Colorado Blvd & Quincy Ave PM Peak Hour

Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 22.9 Intersection LOS C Approach EB WB NB SB Entry Lanes 2111 Conflicting Circle Lanes 1111 Adj Approach Flow, veh/h 485 640 254 535 Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 495 653 260 545 Vehicles Circulating, veh/h 444 317 756 561 Vehicles Exiting, veh/h 662 699 183 409 Follow-Up Headway, s 3.186 3.186 3.186 3.186 Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h 7000 Ped Cap Adj 0.995 1.000 1.000 1.000 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.6 23.2 15.9 33.2 Approach LOS B C C D Lane Left Right Left Left Left Designated Moves LT R LTR LTR LTR Assumed Moves LT R LTR LTR LTR RT Channelized Lane Util 0.887 0.113 1.000 1.000 1.000 Critical Headway, s 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 5.193 Entry Flow, veh/h 439 56 653 260 545 Cap Entry Lane, veh/h 725 725 823 531 645 Entry HV Adj Factor 0.980 0.982 0.980 0.978 0.981 Flow Entry, veh/h 430 55 640 254 535 Cap Entry, veh/h 707 708 807 519 633 V/C Ratio 0.609 0.078 0.793 0.490 0.845 Control Delay, s/veh 15.7 5.9 23.2 15.9 33.2 LOS C A C C D 95th %tile Queue, veh 4 0 8 3 9

Kent Denver School PM Total Traffic (2038)(No KDS Access(CB Roundabout).syn Synchro 9 Report Matrix Design Group Page 2 Conclusion/ Recommendation The Quincy Ave corridor experiences heavy congested during the morning peak hour, 7:15-8:15 am, which is due to background/pass through traffic, the public school traffic, and KDS traffic. In the afternoon, a similar traffic condition exists, however not as intense since the school traffic does not coincide with the afternoon background traffic. This intense congestion is typical to similar schools traffic patterns, which generally experiences a concentrated am peak period. The challenge for schools and jurisdictions is whether to allocate resources to make roadway improvements that serve the peak hour condition but during the remainder of the day and non-school year are underutilized. Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd Intersection with a Reconfigured KDS Entrance As presented in Cherry Hills Village traffic studies the Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersection is experiencing and will continue to experience excessive delay, congestion, and queuing. The Kent Denver School traffic is contributing to this condition is addition to the background regional pass through traffic. Cherry Hill Village has requested studying the Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersection with a reconfigured KDS entrance. The four leg intersection is studied with all-way stop condition, and a roundabout as recommended in the Cherry Hills Village traffic studies.

Intersection analysis results indicate that in the near term (2018) condition the intersection with all-way stop control is anticipated to experience overall LOS of F with excessive queue lengths and delay. The current engineering/construction estimate for the at grade intersection with all-way stop condition is $850,000 ($475,000 for the intersection, plus $375,000 KDS internal roadway). These costs include engineering, roadway construction associated with the intersection and internal roadway, drainage, erosion control, landscaping, ROW, and utilities.

In the near term (2018) condition the Intersection with roundabout control, analysis results indicate the intersection is anticipated to operate at an overall LOS of C. The current engineering/construction estimate for the at grade intersection with roundabout control is $1.9M ($1.5M for the intersection plus $375,000 KDS internal roadway). These costs include engineering, roadway construction associated with the intersection and internal roadway, drainage, erosion control, landscaping, ROW, and utilities.

The Quincy Ave corridor experiences heavy congested with an estimate corridor travel time of approximately 10 minutes during the morning peak hour, 7:15-8:15 am, which is typical to similar schools traffic patterns. With the 4-leg all-way stop condition the corridor travel time is anticipated to see a reduction of several minutes. With the 4 - leg roundabout condition the corridor travel time is anticipated to see a reduction of 5-7 minutes. Outside of the peak period the Quincy Ave corridor operates well with minimal delay in travel time due to reduced volume. The challenge for CHV is deciding whether allocating $850,000 in the case of the all-way stop condition or $1.9 M for several minutes of travel time saving in worth.

Cherry Hills Village also requested the 4-leg intersection to be studied in the long term 2038 condition. In the all-way stop condition the LOS is F and with roundabout control is LOS C. 2018 Total Traffic Analysis The study area intersections are analyzed with the existing street network which includes access to the site. Traffic Analysis To determine how site generated traffic will influence the study intersections, the background traffic volumes, plus the site generated traffic were analyzed with Synchro 9.1 software. The 2017 traffic volumes are used to represent the 2018 background traffic and no growth forecast is considered. To represent the Uniformed Traffic Control condition at the Quincy Ave./ Campus Rd. intersection a split phase traffic signals is analyzed and the cycle lengths and signal phases are optimized. For unsignalized intersections, average control delay for each stop-controlled approach are identified. Table 8 presents the results of the analysis as Levels of Service of Total Traffic with overall intersection delay in seconds. Appendix C contains the 2018 Total Traffic peak hour analysis output and Synchro traffic signal timing worksheets. Figure 4 shows the Existing/2018 Background AM and PM peak hour turning movements. The lane geometry and intersection controlled for the two critical intersects are shown in the graphic below.

2018 Lane Geometry / Intersection Control

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building Traffic Impact Analysis (DRAFT) January 2018 1 Table 1 - 2018 Total AM Level of Service Summary Intersection EB WBT NBL NBR SBL SBR INT Quincy Ave & LOS E C n/a n/a B C D Colorado Blvd Delay --All Way Stop-- 48.0 23.3 - - 13.8 18.3 30.7 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS F E C D n/a n/a E Campus Road Delay --UTC-- 99.1 62.3 32.2 50.8 - - 70.4 (sec.)

Table 2 - 2018 Total PM Level of Service Summary Intersection EBT WBT NBL NBR SBL SBR INT Quincy Ave & LOS F F n/a n/a D B F Colorado Blvd Delay --All Way Stop-- 109.8 51.0 - - 25.6 14.8 63.8 (sec.) Quincy Ave & LOS D D C D n/a n/a D Campus Road Delay --UTC-- 46.4 35.3 28.1 43.5 - - 39.2 (sec.)

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building Traffic Impact Analysis (DRAFT) January 2018 New KDS at Colorado Blvd All-Way Stop (NB and SB Left Turn Lanes) (2018)

Intersection Analysis The 2018 Total Traffic condition is analyzed with Synchro 9.1 software. The Quincy Ave./ Campus Rd. intersection is relocated to the Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection. The reconfigured Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection is controlled with All-Way stop and no eastbound or westbound left turn lanes and an northbound and southbound left turn lane. The approach LOS and overall intersection LOS are presented in the tables below. Table x – 2018 Total AM Level Of Service Summary Intersection EB WB NB SB INT Quincy Ave & LOS F F C D F Colorado Blvd Delay & Campus Road 231.9 76.4 19.7 34.1 110.8 --All Way-- (sec.)

Table x – 2018 Total PM Level Of Service Summary Intersection EB WB NB SB INT Quincy Ave & LOS F F C B F Colorado Blvd Delay & Campus Road 70.7 172.1 18.5 27.9 84.9 --All Way Stop-- (sec.)

New KDS at Colorado Blvd -Roundabout (2018)

Intersection Analysis The 2018 Total Traffic condition is analyzed with Synchro 9.1 software. The Quincy Ave./ Campus Rd. intersection is relocated to the Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection. The reconfigured Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection is controlled with a roundabout. The approach LOS and overall intersection LOS are presented in the tables below. Table x – 2018 Total AM Level Of Service Summary Intersection EB WB NB SB INT Quincy Ave & LOS F B C D D Colorado Blvd Delay & Campus Road 74.0 12.1 8.7 10.8 32.6 --Roundabout-- (sec.)

Table x – 2018 Total PM Level Of Service Summary Intersection EB WB NB SB INT Quincy Ave & LOS C C A B B Colorado Blvd Delay & Campus Road 15.1 18.0 9.9 10.7 14.1 --Roundabout-- (sec.)

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building Traffic Impact Analysis (DRAFT) January 2018 New KDS at Colorado Blvd All-Way Stop With Left Turns (2038)

Intersection Analysis The 2038 Total Traffic condition is analyzed with Synchro 9.1 software. The Quincy Ave./ Campus Rd. intersection is relocated to the Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection. The reconfigured Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection is controlled with All-Way stop and eastbound or westbound left turn lanes. The approach LOS and overall intersection LOS are presented in the tables below. Table x – 2038 Total AM Level Of Service Summary Intersection EB WB NB SB INT Quincy Ave & LOS F C C D F Colorado Blvd Delay & Campus Road 109.2 21.8 17.8 29.9 53.7 --All Way Stop- (sec.)

Table x – 2038 Total PM Level Of Service Summary Intersection EB WB NB SB INT Quincy Ave & LOS F F C D F Colorado Blvd Delay & Campus Road 108.8 234.6 19.6 34.8 118.4 --All Way Stop-- (sec.)

New KDS at Colorado Blvd Roundabout (2038)

Intersection Analysis The 2038 Total Traffic condition is analyzed with Synchro 9.1 software. The Quincy Ave./ Campus Rd. intersection is relocated to the Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection. The reconfigured Quincy Ave. / Colorado Blvd intersection is controlled with a roundabout. Similarly, this scenario includes relocating the KDS Campus Road to the Quincy Ave / Colorado Blvd intersection and removal of the existing access roadway, and requires site modification and site cost associated with the new roadway and the demolition of the existing roadway and entrance. The approach LOS and overall intersection LOS are presented in the tables below. Table 1 - New KDS at CB Roundabout 2038 Total AM LOS Summary Intersection EB WB NB SB INT Quincy Ave & LOS C B B C C Colorado Blvd Delay & Campus Road 17.3 12.1 12.4 17.7 15.4 --Roundabout-- (sec.)

Table 2 - New KDS at CB Roundabout 2038 Total PM LOS Summary Intersection EB WB NB SB INT Quincy Ave & LOS B C C D C Colorado Blvd Delay & Campus Road 14.6 23.2 15.9 33.2 22.9 --Roundabout-- (sec.)

Kent Denver: New Upper School Classroom Building 1 Traffic Impact Analysis January 14, 2018 Lkjjd

cc,

CD C U) C. (I) “1 z 0: b-I

1’, C zCD

• 3_’— z - - I I J --

rP,v ‘—P £.. — ._: — ..1_,.. I ig asphalt what? a

F-.

I - Rotomill -10,563SF

12-New Fence -152 LF

J3 - Remove Fence -72 L4 - Culvert -106 LF

5-Concrete V Pan -1,315 LF

- On Site Paving -20,800SF

7-Speed bumps -131 LF 8- Bike Path Patch -355SF

9-Crusher Fine Bike Path -11 LF

I—

— 7,

2018_01_12 Kent Denver revised entry drive options.pdf (6) (176% of Scale); Takeoff in Active Area: AllAreas; KDS - Entry Roads; 2012 NOV; 1118/2018 04:38 PM M 0

0

M

CD D C CD D CD

CD C Co aCD CD

a C CD -oC 0 S 0) 0 0.

“3 “3

0

C)

CD

m CD 0

S

C, C CD

CD 0)

CD Co

C m S

0 a (0

0 NJ z C

N) 0 OD 0

0) C) -C .. — .. -______

EXHIBIT G

KENTDENVERSCHOOL CMCGROUP,INC Chern’ Hills Village CO New Entrance Roads

SEMPLE BROWN DESIGN January 17, 2018 Preliminary Cost Estimate

‘,

DES( RIPTION 4 so stop ‘ Traffic (ircli Comments Indirect Costs SMFD review 1.00 1,500.00 1.500 1.00 2,500.00 2.500 Fire Department Building Permit (Entry structure) 1.00 1,500.00 1.500 .00 1,500.00 1.500 Cherry lIlIls Village Architeclure & Engineering 1.00 50,000.00 50.000 100 75,000.00 75,000 SlID & Engineers Survey & Topo 1.00 6,500.00 6,500 1.00 10,500.00 10,500 SlID & Engineers Traffic Engineer 1.00 10,000.00 10,000 1.00 20,000.00 20,000 KDS /1 ClIi’ Easements 1.00 5,000.00 5,000 1.00 5,000.00 j 5.000 TBD Geolechnical Report 1.00 6,500.00 6,500 1.00 10,500.00 10,500 Cole Garner

Materials Testing 1.00 10,500.00 10,500 1.00 - 22,500.00 22,500 ColeGarner General Conditions & Supervision 2.50 21,500.00 53,750 4.50 21,500.00 96.750 CNIC Umbrel!a& General Liability Insurani 1.00 6,750.00 1.00 17,420.00 7.420 ‘lotal Indirect Costs 152,000 261,670

Direct Costs Construction Staking 1.00 8,500.00 8,500 1.00 27,500.00 27,500 On site & Off site Barricades & Traffic Control 1.00 7,500.00 7,500 1.00 75,000.00 75,000 Off site R&R wood fencing 224.00 35.00 7,840 224.00 35.00 7,840 Wood fence Sav cut, access roads, misc, etc 200.00 15.00 3,000 200.00 15.00 3,000 On site

Relocate Street Light 1.00 8,500.00 8,500 1.00 . 8.50000 8.500 Existing Erosion Control 1,250.00 4.25 5,313 2,150.00 9,138 On site & Offsite . Roto Mill 1058300 I IS 12 170 4047800 135 51 64i On sile& Ottsite Grading & E’ecaation 38 00000 275 104 500 13445100 275 369 740 On site & Off site Storm Drain Culverts 155.00 125.00 19,375 569.00 125.00 71,125 On site & Off site

Soil Cement - 11.65 0 — 1.00 1.00 I TBD

Site Concrete 2,626.00 5.75 15,100 - 1.00 56,229.00 56.229 On site & Off site Asphalt Paving 20,800.00 3.95 82,160 27,919.00 3.95 110,280 { OnSiie OffSite Paving 20,981.00 6.75 141.622 Offsite

Bike Path Paving 4,182.00 7.35 -— 30,738 Off sUe Paving patch & speed bumps 6.00 1.275,00 7,650 12.00 1,275.00 15,300 On Site Lightpole Bases 1.00 1,675.00 1.675 1.00 1,675.00 1,675 Offsite______Lights / Power 1.00 20,000.00 20.000 1.00 20,000.00 20,000 From Existing entry Conduils for camera’s 1.00 - 0 1.00 1.00 , i TRO Fiber Relocation & manhole l.00J 15,000.00 15.000 1.00 15,000.00 15,000 Need to lower??

Striping & Signage — 1.00 3,250.00’ 3,250 1.00 10,500.00 I 10,500 On sue & Oft’site Temporary siriping & signage 1.00 I 1,650.00 1.650 1.00 9,500.00 9.500 On site & Off site

Bike path grading & granite 9,000.00 1.65 14,850 9,000.00 1.65 , 14,850 On Site Final Seeding & Hydro Mulch 15,000.00 - 0.85 12.750 28,000.00 , 85 23,800 On site Landscape & Irrigation & burms 10,000.00 3.35 33.500 27,044.00 3.35 90,597 Off’site Entry Monument

Concrete Caissons & Caps 22.00 1,450.00 , 31,900 22.00 1,450.00 — 31,900 Siniialrto existing Concrete Foundations 75.00 135.00 10,125 75.00 135.00 10.125 Masonry walls, brick, stone cap 2,000.00 25.00 50,000 2,000.00 25.00 50,000 Planters & landscaping 2.00 7,500.00 15,000 2.00 7,500.00 15,000 Signage 2.00 1,485.00 2,970 2.00 1,485.00 Total Direct Cost 494,277 1,276,576 -—

Total Indirect & Direct Cost 646,277 1,538,246

Project Contingency 64,628 153,825

(‘MC Group, Inc OHP 71,091 169,207

A. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 781,996 1,861,278 EXHIBIT H

Febnaaiy2. 2018 >>> KimleyHorn’ Engineers Opinion of Probable Conotniction Costs lsitnwork( Kent DenverAcceno

ItemDenenipt%n Qaantity Unit UnitCost Total 9n SMFDReview - - SI 50054

BuildingPemnil - - - SI 50054

Engineesing - - - 555,000.00

Losrdscopekchiteclurn - - - $00,000.00

DesignSurvey - - -

GestechnicalRepool - - - 55,500.00

Sab-tolalSite&mofstlon $79,00m54

ItemDeecripton Quanni Unit UnitCost Total SiteDemolition RemoveExistingBikePath 555 Sf $0000 5554550

RdscoleEnislingLightPole I EA $2,500.00 $2,50000

RelocateEnislingMonumentSign I EA S50, 00 500)0000

RelocateEntitlingTrafficSigns 7 EA 525000 SIJ5O00

RelocateExistingAirVmnlPost I LA 52$00.)0 52,50000

RemoveExistingWoodFence 15 LF St 50 St 12.50 RemoveEue’stingTree IS LA 375000 Sn2,054.00

RemoveExistingConcrei.eValleyGsoer 545 LF $4.00 $3,52000

ResetExistingW NayfindingSigns 3 LA St.540.00 $3,054.54 RemoveWoodPoslslgsllaids 20 LA $1000 $254.00

RetroveEnsuingRoadwayandBase t .417 SY $12.00 51,55400

SiteCteatepandRennosalst MincellmeousItems I LS S$,320.00 SE000.&0 Sub-totalSite&molitior $tg4,00Z00

ItemDescription Qaanti Unit UnitCost Total Coinsthactten

Mobilization1—5%oflnlalConstructionCosIsI I LS $15,54500 $15,005.00

Ccorolnoctio,Staking(-2%ofIstelConratnuctionCoats) I LS $6,54200 $5,002.54

EnsaicorConlrol(‘-2%ot totalCmnstnucitmCosts) t LS $6,00200 $6,002.54

TrafficCcettxcl-2% ot totalConstmcsoosCosts) I LS 56,00200 56,002.00

MeteniatsTesnng(—2%ottctalCanstrscsonrCoste) I LS 5600200 56,002,00

RcoighGnoting I IS S50,,00 $50,000.00 FineGtading 2,155 SY 54)0 56,032.00 InstallAsphaltPavementandbase 2,150 SY $45.00 $07.100.00 InstallConcreteValleyCutlet(alongroadway) 9,216 LF $1800 $21,55400

InstallPavementMankings I LS $1,000.00 37,05400

InstallSpend tempt 3 LA 51,000.00 S3, 00 InstallWondPosts/Odlands(assumeenenylOt alongtoot) 60 EA $5000 32.00000 natalWondFence ISO IF $30.00 5450000

tsstallSignandPost 6 El $500.00 $3,00000

InstallBikePath 4,282 SF $400 $11,12600

tsstallCenncnvteCuib Ramps(tonbikepvth( 3 EA 52,50000 57,55454

tnstall24 RCPPipe ISO LF $75.00 Sr1,25000

Install24 ConcneleFES 4 EA S300000 312.00000 InstallLandscaping(sod replaceoldtoad) 13,4/3 SF $1.00 $1347300

InstallEntranceLandscaping(Eeeslstnnabslgnasslighting( I LS SnS,00000 515,00000 InstallSeedsthtslctr(alongnewroaot( 080 AC S3M0000 $2,40000 InstaltSceutesardOnens(alongtee raad( 20 EA $50000 $10,000.00

Sub-totalSiteCosatnonotimo $325,894.06

Summary Sab Total 1500.916,06 15%Contingency $71,347.01 Total 1585,333.97

Thn OPC ceo .nlmdned Is. bourn Fiu’eoi assume. on eessoe tseannon Srentnmiee-Honseod dosaseem. iso tan iesoead none amenonel moss races eq,pa,s,s ox nosornee ennbed be aexen. senses neesvde & anemnusig pesa e oem oseposens bdodo0en,orbon nansasnes °5e end.’ opines. mix ste evenfrets.,.ixeindive biael a5tne to spines onto tie ssetn of ss.s5,sstnae mamas. eOns be e&o ants., baum ampenimsoord bed eamabaxado Kwtoitdorr end Aesonatee. im need ned dons ‘efgoa.eooeshao poopsnOn bids m enii&000io a,’ mfseej nooseiieop.rena oneno.0. noes,, hero., ce-caste shut be senpenbe te boa eaelaaso sensed bid ei,seen ln.qoeaonten ness, inmeoniol not so need tee b00’e onepeens ad coy so be a) stress

Banis for Cant Pro(pction: D IoasesonCmnpleted U PnsjimiiaoyDesign U neat Design Febrenry2. 2018 Kimley‘>>Honil Engineers Opinion of Probable Construction Costs Sttework) Kent Denver Traffic Circle

torn Description Ouanti Unit UnitCoot Total Qna

SMFDRevies - - - $150080 Au’l4’nqPerrrrir - - - 51.50080 Crr3naesng - - - $75. 93

LsrrdscapeArchitecture — — — $1 0.80000

Denugn Survey - - 55.58090

GeyrechnicalRegal - - 90 Seb-ldaISleGeylyehSye s99.%

ItemDeacription 0uun6 Unit UnitCone renal Silo Otrniulluiar.

ReenactEatsongBikePath 350 50 $1600 53,50080

Relocate7aistc Mesumnr Signl’l ES 556.060 06 550.08000 Runy.e Li.os laSs S or, 0.4 525008 5540CC

Peruse Eeusc ‘,tOcc417eece 5 S 50 5375CC Ra”.u.v E.rs.c ue 575.330 57580CC

Rt’ve.a Ea,ct.g Comsocay‘its XC 3-I 3) $5fl

Rose 0a.sMc’.%Y41Wae’:r:S;’s SIOW CO $3803 SO Rteroee Wsec P.’ta7tit”a- ES 503CC 503CC Re-oee 0t,oLn Roa±*uy a’c Oust 1000 Sy 52CC $23400CC

Ole Ooanr.p aol Ret541 c’ 4oss- areas .:e-r’s CS 55 308’30 55,CCC73 550540141540 Gecqaouoq 50456500

KeenDotcr*eion Quant Unit Unitcost ToW CoMtrucnjon

Wcrvlyon -5% c sos Cesstclc Ceslal I .5 S63S25 $5130 25 CesucKerS:aeiugi-2% o’sOa Co-s9rcoq Cestol I $ St 90533 5659530

EtevionD,,l i-2%oltc’aCc.rsoucrorCoulsl I uS 56.69530 5650530

r,aotCe,ta:.2%otaK.,,C,.n I CS 56,605* S6$55.30

Materials0050081-2%091000 COeiOlftlCOonCosts) I LS 56,50500 $669530

Rou’jt Gra4ing 4,606 93’ 50063 540.000Ott FreGsn-,c 43)3 SY 5435 50.3)006 biral Ascha: 2aveersl s-c base 2, S 545CC $08,003CC bsoralt’ Vyrca C.,’nrlG.ul:er 730 $2500 SIt 293CC frus:i4’RoesCatta’dGro’ 250 LI 520.30 55.20008

I,o:a’ SIMr.e4 psvae.re. 43)3 51 $5.33 54C3)300 Vooa’C&ycre:eVa Si G-::eeiso-c Icuowayt 0)3 LF 58.30 56300CC ‘soaPs rsul’.tuutu’u LS 5500000 5530080 ‘sta WsotFeue 533 LF 5343)3 $1508033 d’s!. &08 0140041 EA 553363 52)3380 -sos 6se5r 5601 SF $430 $23008 33 sl Ccete0stRs.ncu(bkepti ES 5250080 53003)3 5 24RC’e $3 LF 575)3 5300333 -c!& 21Co-rre!OFES 2 ES 53.3)300 0533

‘S3 514 M.osr Lalucar g I LS 555,30363 560)3

uld Irarce Lt,cw,1 ttees’sfrbu3’uus.’ ;‘35g3 I LS 55 COO83 9503)303 u’aiSeeail,:o, ‘tWsO reediest.’ 523 AC 53.30303 5688 fl InstallTries 10 7.4 Sl. 63 510.083033 5600

Sub-10141Sde Cooslto,csro, 5354.40816

Summary 063CC astarur.KereOnrsa AaenRadb.suItab.esw.utusadOuinnattCadunbd Sub 03121 $54797315 10% Costisgerrey $10959403

Total $t57,56i 79

Th CrC s so irriurail ii. nus,rr Oeaes.iduurou. n’ures.o.g bofl S edasHou.uiatusvot ye yes ,00000e-a- tree int’l lye. snurooys enraeee-r sasesrud by Slsau 0510 n.een Cdednsot-e pies 00501 sorpObie tothu or reaIie 50.44.0(05 airyard ‘irs is Icrhe nest hire,. .5I01rç Cl 55 thIrd is 0510005 to tee uso, a eo.osoor, saoa, nO—Ci SM,. 00 no tour ueew545x,. art tees osMatle data Kiehiydteer aid Aesee4es Its ‘or’s a’s *rs no si000’I,s ha o.ssuah ted. u .tal Sri 55 ‘sq I,,.,. no,. 15t015 01 teSs .500,. hureis Catado .5-to ropusbte to Oil 005 tobt 5ff ord be coCos Thi qorintin shier’ tOes IhOl 55 he Oat ted bdd•r5 to pous — sly no toil Wilai.05

Basis tsr Cost Projection: 0 rIo bison Cnrryeled U PishmeuryDesign U ItoulDes4n EXHIBIT I

HCI ENGINEERING A division of HABERER CARPENTRY INC.

PHASE III DRAINAGE REPORT

FOR:

Kent Denver Schools Located @4000 E.Quincy Avenue Englewood, CO80113

Associate Head of School: Jerry Walker PH: 303-770-7660

Engineer Contact(s): HCIEngineering Cole C. Haberer, P.E. 621 Southpark Dr., Suite 1600 Littleton, CO80120 PH: 303-979-3900 EX:303-278-7814

12/04/ 2017

Estimated Project Dates:

Project Start Date: 04/03/2018 Project Completion Date: 12/31/2018

HCIEngineering, -621 SouthPark Dr., Suite 1600, Littleton CD, 8D120 - 720-252-3484 Page 1 of 13 ______

Signature Page:

Project Owner / Developer Signature Block:

Kent Denver Schools hereby certifies that the drainage facilities for Kent Denver Schools shall be constructed according to the design presented in this report. I understand that Arapahoe County does not and will not assume liability for the drainage facilities designed plans pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes Title 31, Article 23: but cannot, on behalf of Kent Denver Schools guarantee that final drainage design review will absolve Kent Denver Schools and/or their successor and/or assigns of future liability for improper design. I further understand that approval of the Final Plat and/or Final Plat(s) and/or Final Development Plans does not imply approval of my engineer’s drainage design.

Permittee / Affiliation Date Jerry Walker

Certification Statement:

“1 hereby affirm that this report for the Phase Ill Drainage Report for Kent Denver Schools was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, for the owners thereof in accordance with the provisions of the Arapahoe County Stormwater Management Manual and the Urban Storm Drainage

Criteria Manual and approved variances and exceptions thereto. I understand that Arapahoe County does not and will not assume liability for drainage facilities designed by others.

By: CO Professional Engineer Date Cole C. Haberer, P.E. -43259

HCIEngineering, -621 southPark Dr., suite 1600, Littleton CO. 80120- 720-252-3484 Page 2 of 13 Table of Contents:

General Location& Description 4 A. Project Location 4 B. Description of property 4 C. Soils Information 5 D. Topograpluc Data 5 E. Existing Site Drainage S F. FEMA and Flood Zone Data S II. Drainage DesignCriteria 6 A. References 6 B. Hydrological Criteria 6 C. Hydraulic Criteria 6 D. Detention and Water Quality 6 E. Drainage Basins 7 F. Sub-Basins 7 Ill. Stormwater Management FacilityDesign 8 A. Stormwater Conveyance Facilities 8 B. Storrnwater Storage Facilities S C. Water Quality Enhancement BMP 8 D. Erosion Control. Operation & Maintenance 9 IV. Conclusions 9 A. Compliance with Standards 9 B. Summary of Concept 9 V. References 10

VI, Appendix — A, Maps & Reference Materials 11

VII. Appendix — B, Hydrology Calculations 12

VIII. Appendix — C, Maps 13

HCIEngineering, -621 SouthPark Dr., Suite 1500, Littleton CO, 80120-720-252-3484 Page 3 of 13 I. General Location & Description

A. Project Location The Site, an area consisting of 2.65 acres of disturbed land within the 205-acre Kent Denver Schools Campus, is located at 4000 East Quincy Avenue, Englewood, CO, located in the NW Quarter of Section 7, Township 5 South, and Range 68 west of the 6th principle meridian, Arapahoe County, State of Colorado. The Site is surrounded by the existing school campus. The campus is bordered by Quincy Avenue to the north and existing residential properties to the east, south and west. Refer to the following map.

SITEMAP

The Site is approximately located at

Latitude, 39° 38’ 04” N — Longitude, 104° 56’ 25” W

B. Description of property The Site currently consists of an existing parking lot, sidewalks and landscape areas. Construction will consist of the demolition of the existing parking lot, re-routing of existing utility lines, overlot grading, utility installation and building construction, paving, fine grading and landscaping. The overall disturbed area and construction limits totals about 2.65 acres, within an 18.56-acre tributary basin to an existing regional pond (hereafter referred to as ‘The Pond’). The existing and developed site and basin percent impervious values are listed in Table 1 below:

HCIEngineering, -621 SouthPark Dr., Suite 1600, Littleton CD, 80120- 720-252-3484 Page 4 of 13 Table 1 ONSITE % Impervious Existing Basin 43.1% (18.56 acres) Proposed Basin 45.5% (18.56 acres) Allowable Basin 54.1% 11856 acres) Existing Site 40.9% (2.65 acres) Proposed Site 56.7% (2.65 acres) Allowable Site 84.9% (2.65 acres)

C. Soils Information

Soil Classifications for The Site are reported by N.R.C.S,as consisting of Type C & D soil for

100% of The Site (Renohill-Buick Loam — RhD and Renohill-Litle-Thedalund Complex — RtE). Refer to Appendix A for the included ‘N.R.C.S.Websoil Survey Report’.

D. Topographic Data

The General Existing Site Topographic Conditions for The Site are itemized in Table 2 below: Table 2 Description Result Location of Occurrence Highest Elevation 5467 Southeast corner of The Site Lowest Elevation 5448 Northwest corner of The Site Steepest Slope 25% Landscape swales Average Slope 2 - 3% Most of The Site.

E. Existing Site Drainage The Site currently drains from southeast to northwest and outfalls into a series of existing riprap lined swales located northwest of The Site. Flows captured in these swales are routed into an existing storm sewer system, which directs the flows to The Pond. From The Pond, flows are discharged to “Blackmer Gulch” (Channelized) and eventually make their way to Little Dry Creek, and then to the South Platte River.

F. FEMAand Flood Zone Data

The Site is located in Zone X unshaded, areas determined to be outside of the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map: Community-Panel No. 08005C0164K, Dated December 17, 2010. The Regulatory Flood Elevation adjacent to The Site is coincident with the project survey elevation of 5429 (worst-case scenario).

[id Engineering, -521 SouthPark Dr., suite 1600, Littleton dO, 80120- 720-252-3484 Page 5 of 13 II. Drainage Design Criteria

A. References This report was prepared based on procedures, criteria, and standards set forth by the local governing bodies. The drainage design presented herein, is in accordance with current engineering standards reflected within the “Arapahoe County Stormwater Management Manual (ACSMM)”and the “Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manuals (USDCMVols. 1-3)”.

FEMAfloodplain maps were consulted to determine the limits of regulatory flood plain. Also, the Natural Resources Conservation Services web site was consulted for soil type and conditions. In addition to these, the report titled “Phase Ill Drainage Report for Kent Denver Schools” (here after referred to as The Master Report), dated 12/29/2016, was referred to.

B. Hydrological Criteria Due to the size of this site, the rational method was used to determine the runoff for the 5-yr and 100-yr storm event. The rainfall intensities were derived from ACSMMcriteria, Table 6-1:

TABLE6-1 1-HOUR POINTRAINFALLVALUESFORARAPAHOECOUNTY(INCHES)

2-YR 5-YR 10-YR 50-YR 100-YR 0.97 1.38 1.65 2.32 2.67

The weighted runoff coefficients were used from Table 6-S of the USDCMVol. 1 (Refer to Appendix A). The Site and tributary basin are composed of systems of landscape areas (swales and buffers) that disconnect sewer and paved conveyance areas. There are approximately 3,150 L.F.of landscape swales within the tributary basin of the pond. Approximately 1,144 L.F. of these swales flow directly into The Pond. This allows a single tennis court to be the only impervious area flowing into the pond. Based on the total swale area for the size of the site, an MDCIA Level 2 reduction in the percent impervious values has been applied in the final analyzation of produced flows and required detention volumes. Detailed hydrology calculations are provided in Appendix B.

C. Hydraulic Criteria At the time of this report final Hydraulic Calculations for proposed storm water conveyance systems have not been analyzed. The existing pond and outlet structure have been analyzed with the proposed site improvements accounted for. Detailed Rational Method calculations and Detention Volume calculations are provided in Appendix B.

D. Detention and Water Quality Water Quality for The Site is provided through grassed swales and grass buffer zones. Four Grassed Swales are planned along the south, east and west sides of the proposed Upper School to provide on-site Water Quality Enhancement. The Grassed Swale system to the south of the Upper School will be fitted with an underdrain system that will discharge to the western and

HO Engineering, -621 SouthPark Dr., 5uite 160D, Littleton CO. 80120-720-252-3484 Page 6 of 13 eastern swales. On-Site detention will not be required, as the proposed improvements are in conformance with the allowable storage volume of The Pond. All on-site will be routed to and detained by The Pond.

E. Drainage Basins The Site is a 2.65-acre portion of an 18.56-acre basin detailed in The Master Report. The Master Basin is the tributary area, within The Campus boundary, to The Pond.

F. Sub-Basins

The Site has been kept as one basin (Basin - L.O.D.),as all flows are discharged northwest, to the same system of existing riprap lined Landscape Swales. The proposed improvements have been analyzed as part of the Master Basin (Basin — OVERALL)for allowable storage conformance in The Pond. An upstream basin (Basin — OS-i) has been included, as it’s flows combine with Basin LO.D. at the northwest point of discharge.

Basin L.O.D. Basin 1.0.0. is 2.65 acres, and is composed of the limits of disturbance, including the proposed Upper School building and surrounding paved walkways and landscape areas. Runoff from this basin will flow north and west through the proposed swales, storm sewer, and existing curb and gutter. Flows will then be routed to the existing storm infrastructure, ending in The Pond. The composite percent impervious of this basin is 56.7% and the 5-yr and 100-yr flows are 3.23 & 3.46 CES respectively. With the use of a Level 2 MDCIA reduction, the composite percent impervious of this basin is 45.5% and the 5-yr and 100-yr flows are 2.57 and 2.78 CFS respectively.

Basin OVERALL Basin OVERALLis 18.56 acres, and is composed the previously un-detained tributary area to The Pond including the Basin L.0.D. area, existing school buildings, parking, drive lanes and landscape areas. Runoff from this basin will flow west through existing storm infrastructure to The Pond. The composite percent impervious of this basin is 45.5% and the 5-yr and 100-yr flows are 14.27 & 15.45 CFS, respectively. With the use of a Level 2 MDCIA reduction, the composite percent impervious of this basin is 32.2% and the 5-yr and 100-yr flows are 9.73 and 10.68 CFSrespectively.

Basin OS-i Basin OS-i is 0.74 acres, and is composed of existing parking lot, landscape and detention pond areas. Runoff from this basin is conveyed west to an existing Porous Landscape Detention Pond. The composite percent impervious of this basin is 54.4% and the 5-yr and 100-yr flows are 1.86 and 4.84 CFSrespectively. The existing pond’s 100-yr discharge flowrate is 0.98 CES.

Refer to Appendix Bfor the included C-values and runoff values.

HCIEngineering, -621 southPark Dr., Suite 1600, Littleton CO, 80120- 720-252-3484 Page 7 of 13 Ill. Stormwater Management Facility Design

A. Stormwater Conveyance Facilities Runoff produced by The Site will shed either west or east from a highpoint located centrally in the southern courtyard, and will eventually combine to discharge in the northwest corner of Basin L.O.D.

Flows shedding to the east will enter one of two landscape swales, combining in an area drain near the southeast corner of the proposed Upper School building. This area drain ties into a proposed storm sewer pipe that wraps around the eastern side of the building and discharges to a riprap rundown to the northeast of the building. Overland flows produced in this area will sheet flow to the north where they will combine with the piped flows. From here, the flows are directed to the existing drop off lane, where they will combine with sheet flows produced on the north face of the building, The drop off lane curb and gutter will convey these flows to the west, where they combine with the western shed flows.

Flows shedding to the west will enter one of two landscape swales, combining in an area drain near the southwest corner of the proposed building. This area drain ties into a separate proposed storm sewer pipe. Overland flows in this area will sheet flows to a proposed landscape swale where they will be conveyed and discharged to the northwest, along with the piped flows.

Total Runoff Volume is anticipated near the northwest corner of The Site at Design Point 1. The runoff volume has been evaluated for both the disturbed area (The Site) and the entire tributary area to the pond. The change in runoff volume in the disturbed area for the minor and major storms are: Os = 1.00 CFS, and Qaoo= 1.04 CFS.The change in runoff volume in the overall tributary area for the minor and major storms are: Q = 1.63 CFS, and Qioc = 1.76 CF.

Also, see Section ll.F, sub-basin descriptions for additional descriptions of stormwater conveyance facilities.

B. Stormwater Storage Facilities Storage will not be required within the proposed disturbed area. Allflows generated from The Site are routed to The Pond at the west side of Basin Overall. The existing pond has a storage volume of 1.549 ac-ft. The amount of increased flow generated as a result of the planned improvements has been calculated using Rational Methodology. The resulting proposed storage volume value is 1.316 ac-ft, a 5.5% increase from the existing condition (1.247 ac-ft). This value is a result of the 2.4% increase in impervious cover due to the proposed site construction. Under the proposed condition there is 0.233 ac-ft of storage available for future development within the tributary basin. This equates to approximately 100,000 S.F. of additional impervious area that can be developed before further detention volume is required.

C. Water Quality Enhancement BMP Water Quality for The Site is provided within the proposed Grassed Swales and Grassed Buffers, approximately 1,448 feet of grassed swale is proposed within Basin L.O.D. to provide

HcI Engineering, 621 southPark Or., suite 1600, l,ittleton CD, 80120- 720-252-3484 Page 8 of 13 conveyance and water quality for 100% of The Site’s area. Water Quality for the Master Basin is provided through the existing swales, buffer areas and The Pond’s water quality plate at the outlet structure. Based on the amount of water quality swales (See section 11.8)within the Master Basin, the Water Quality Capture Volume was included in the 100year storage volume, not treated separately.

D. Erosion Control, Operation & Maintenance

Within the Grassed Swales, Fertilizers should not be used, as it will contribute to nutrient- loading downstream. An Irrigation System is planned for the Grassed Swale. If sod-forming native grasses are used, the irrigation system will help to establish a dense stand of turf grass and maintain it in periods of low precipitation. Erosion control blankets in accordance with the Arapahoe County GESCManual shall be used during grass establishment in buffers and swales if native grasses are used. Shrub and tree plantings are planned, but are located at margin areas, and do not impact design flow characteristics,

The existing inlet at the SW corner of The Site should be regularly inspected for clogging, and cleared of debris after significant rains. A double row of heavy straw wattles is recommended around the grate itself to mitigate sediment transport. Avoid using silt fence or straw bale in the vicinity of the inlet.

An Operations and Maintenance Manual will be prepared for this project with additional information

IV. Conclusions

A. Compliance with Standards

The proposed site has been evaluated using the rational method as set forth by ACSMM and UDSCM. Both the 100-yr and 5-yr storms have been evaluated. The storm conveyance system has been designed to comply with conveyance methods and capacities. Runoff detention and water quality are provided within proposed grassed swales and earthen ditches.

B. Summary of Concept

This Phase Ill Drainage Report is inclusive of the drainage design for Kent Denver Schools. This report and associated calculations is limited to The Site as shown by the drainage map and plan in Appendix C. The total imperviousness is 45.5% (Adjusted 32.2%) based upon the proposed improvements. The proposed drainage improvements include conveyance for the limits of the improvements, 2.65 acres. Based upon the above findings and attached calculations HCI Engineering finds the proposed development in compliance with governing standards. No negative impacts will occur as a result of this development to the overall campus or downstream.

HCIEngineering, -621 SouthPark Dr., Suite 1600, Littleton CD, 80120- 720-252-3484 Page 9 of 13 V. References

1. Drainage Criteria Manual (Volume 1, 2 & 3), by Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, revised 2016.

2. Arapahoe County Storm Water Management Manual, by Arapahoe County, Revised July 5, 2011.

3, FEMAwebsite flood drainage map.

4. USDA,NCRSWeb Soil Survey and soil map data.

HG Engineering, -621 SouthPark Dr., Suite 160D, Littleton CO. 8012D - 72D-252-3484 Page 10 of 13 VI. Appendix — A, Maps & Reference Materials

• Soils Map & Data

• FEMAFirmette — Map 4*08005C0479K

• ACSWMM — Precipitation and IDFValues - Figure 6-1 and Gnomograph

• USDCM— Co-Efficient Runoff Values - Table 6-S

• USDCM— Impervious Values - Table 6-3 • USDCM—VelocityConveyance Values table 6-2 • USDCM Vol. 2 Hydraulic Structures; 3.2.3 Rock Sizing for Riprap Apron and Low Tailwater Basin

HCIEngineering, -621 SouthPark Dr., Suite 1600, Littleton CO. 80120- 720-252-3484 Page 11 of 13 z

N

r—CO MISS tOI o c Co C’1 0) 3-

00 C, 0 0 C) 3 > 3C 0 C) 0a, C C,a .00 C, LtQtJ2 00 bç3 o

rflz 0 4

0 8

0U? x 1. I I

S I S I C,, (30 g [ 0 0 —

M9C.9S UtOt I Soil Map—Arapahoe County. Colorado

MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION

Area of Interest (Aol) Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOl were mapped at Area of interest IAOI) 1:20,000

- Stony Spot - Soils Very Stony Spot Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Soil Map Unit Polygons Spot Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause wet — — Soil Map Unit Linea misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil Other line placement. The maps do not show of Soil Map Unit Points the small areas o contrasting soils that could have been shown more detailed . Special Line Features at a Special Point Features scale.

._ — i - -- Blowout Water Features - Streams and canals Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map Sorrow Pit measurements. Transportation Cay S,>.. * Rails Source 01 Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service .. C csed Oeoreasion Web Soil Survey URL: Interstate Highways Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Gravel Pit .- US Routes Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Gravelly Soot :. Majo Roads projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Landflt ,ocal Roads Aibers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more Lava Flow accurate calculations of distance or area are required A. Background Marsh or swamp Aerial Photography This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Mine or Ouarry Soil Survey Area: Arapahoe County, Colorado o Miscellaneous ter Survey Area Data: Version 13, Oct 10, 2017 0 Perennial Water Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. ,... Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 10, 2014—Aug + 21. 2014 Sandy Spot The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were .. Severely Eroded Soot compiled and digitized probably differs from the baclground imagery displayed these maps. As Sinkhole on a result some minor O shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident, Slide or Sl.p

0 Sodic Sod

USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/1/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Soil Map—Arapahoe County, Colorado

Map Unit Legend

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres In Aol Percent of AOl

PhD Renohill-Buick barns, 3 to9 23.4 100.0% percenl slopes Totals for Area of Interest 23.4 00.0%

usD, Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/1/2017 a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 RUSLE2 Related Attributes---Arapahoe County. Colorado 01 - 16_30 Soils Map & Data

RUSLE2 Related Attributes

This report summarizes those soil attributes used by the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation Version 2 (RUSLE2) for the map units in the selected area. The report includes the map unit symbol, the component name, and the percent of the component in the map unit. Soil property data for each map unit component include the hydrologic soil group, erosion factors Kffor the surface horizon, erosion factor T, and the representative percentage of sand, silt, and clay in the mineral surface horizon. Missing surface data may indicate the presence of an organic surface layer Report—RUSLE2 Related Attributes

Soil properties and interpretations for erosion runoff calculations. The surface mineral horizon properties are displayed. Organic surface horizons are not displayed.

RUSLE2 Related Attributes—Arapahoe County, Colorado

Map symbol and soil name Pct. of Slope Hydrologic group Kf PT factor Representative value map unit length (ft) %Sand %Silt %Clay

RhO—Renohill-Buick barns. 3 to 9 percent slopes

Renohill 65 0 .32 3 395 375 23.0 Buick 25 — c 41Ff423 1601 - - RtE—Renohi?t-Litle-Thedalund complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes

Renohill 40 — 0 .32 3 39.5 37.5 23.0

Lilie 32 — 0 .32 3 16.9 35.0’

Thedalund 20 — C 24 3 332 36.3 30.51

Data Source Information

Soil Survey Area: Arapahoe County, Colorado Survey Area Data: Version 12, Sep 22, 2016

USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/27/2016

Conservation Service National cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 1 Engineering Properties---Arapahoe County. Colorado 01 - 16_3D Soils Map & Data

Engineering Properties

This table gives the engineering classifications and the range of engineering properties for the layers of each soil in the survey area. Hydrologic soil group is a group of soils having similar runoff potential under similar storm and cover conditions. The criteria for determining Hydrologic soil group is found in the National Engineering Handbook, Chapter 7 issued May 2007(http:/Idirectives.sc.egov.usda.govlOpenNonWebContent.aspx? content=17757.wba). Listing HSGs by soil map unit component and not by soil series is a new concept for the engineers. Past engineering references contained lists of HSGs by soil series. Soil series are continually being defined and redefined, and the list of soil series names changes so frequently as to make the task of maintaining a single national list virtually impossible. Therefore, the criteria is now used to calculate the HSG using the component soil properties and no such national series lists will be maintained. All such references are obsolete and their use should be discontinued. Soil properties that influence runoff potential are those that influence the minimum rate of infiltration for a bare soil after prolonged wetting and when not frozen. These properties are depth to a seasonal high water table, saturated hydraulic conductivity after prolonged wetting. and depth to a layer with a very slow water transmission rate. Changes in soil properties caused by land management or climate changes also cause the hydrologic soil group to change. The influence of ground cover is treated independently. There are four hydrologic soil groups, A, B, C, and D, and three dual groups, ND, BID, and C/D. In the dual groups, the first letter is for drained areas and the second letter is for undrained areas.

The four hydrologic soil groups are described in the following paragraphs: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.

Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group 0. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. Depth to the upper and lower boundaries of each layer is indicated.

USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Suey 1212712016 a conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 5 Engineering Properties---Arapahoe County, Colorado 01 - 16_30 Soils Map & Data

Texture is given in the standard terms used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These terms are defined according to percentages of sand, silt, and clay in the fraction of the soil that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter “Loam,” for example, is soil that is 7 to 27 percent clay, 28 to 50 percent silt, and less than 52 percent sand. Ifthe content of particles coarser than sand is 15 percent or more, an appropriate modifier is added, for example, “gravelly.” Classification of the soils is determined according to the Unified soil classification system (ASTM, 2005) and the system adopted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (.AASHTO,2004). The Unified system classifies soils according to properties that affect their use as construction material. Soils are classified according to particle-size distribution of the fraction less than 3 inches in diameter and according to plasticity index, liquid limit, and organic matter content. Sandy and gravelly soils are identified as OW, GR GM. GC. SW, SR SM, and SC; silty and clayey soils as ML, CL. CL, MH, CH, and OH; and highly organic soils as PT. Soils exhibiting engineering properties of two groups can have a dual classification, for example, CL-ML. The AASHTO system classifies soils according to those properties that affect roadway construction and maintenance. In this system, the fraction of a mineral soil that is less than 3 inches in diameter is classified in one of seven groups from A-i through A-7 on the basis of particle-size distribution, liquid limit, and plasticity index. Soils in group A-i are coarse grained and low in content of fines (silt and clay). At the other extreme, soils in group A-7 are fine grained. Highly organic soils are classified in group A-8 on the basis of visual inspection.

If laboratory data are available, the Ai: A-2. and A-7 groups are further classified as A-i-a, A-i-b, A-2-4, A-2-5, A-2-6. A-2-7, A-7-5, orA-7-6 As an additional refinement, the suitability of a soil as subgrade material can be indicated by a group index number Group index numbers range from 0 for the best subgrade material to 20 or higher for the poorest.

Percentage of rock fragments larger than i 0 inches in diameter and 3 to 10 inches in diameter are indicated as a percentage of the total soil on a dry-weight basis. The percentages are estimates determined mainly by converting volume percentage in the field to weight percentage. Three values are provided to identify the expected Low (L). Representative Value (R), and High (H)

Percentage (of soil particles) passing designated sieves is the percentage of the soil fraction less than 3 inches in diameter based on an ovendry weight. The sieves, numbers 4, iO, 40, and 200 (USA Standard Series), have openings of 4.76, 2.00, 0.420, and 0.074 millimeters, respectively. Estimates are based on laboratory tests of soils sampled in the survey area and in nearby areas and on estimates made in the field. Three values are provided to identify the expected Low (L), Representative Value (R), and High (H). Liquid limit and plasticity index (Atterberg limits) indicate the plasticity characteristics of a soil. The estimates are based on test data from the survey area or from nearby areas and on field examination. Three values are provided to identify the expected Low (L), Representative Value (R), and High (H) References: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (MSHTD). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition.

USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1212712016 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 5 Engineering Properties---Arapahoe County, Colorado Dl -1630 Soils Map & Data

Ameilcan Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard 02487-00.

SDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/27/2016 a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 5 Engineering Properties---Arapahoe County, Colorado 01 - 16_30 Soils Map & Data

Report—Engineering Properties

Absence of an entry indicates that the data were not estimated. The asterisk ‘ denotes the representative texture; other possible textures follow the dash. The criteria for determining the hydrologic soil group for individual soil components is found in the National Engineering Handbook, Chapter 7 issued May 2007(http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov) OpenNonWebContent.aspx’?content=17757.wba). Three values are provided to identify the expected Low (L). Representative Value (R). and High (H).

Engineering Properties—Arapahoe County, Colorado

Map unit symbol and Pct. of Hytirolo Depth USDA texture Classification PCI Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid Plasticit soil name map gic limit y index unit group Unified AASHTO >10 3-10 4 10 40 200 inches inches

In L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H RhD—Renohill-Buick barns, 3 to 9 percent slopes

Renohill 65 0 0-4 Loam CL, CL- A-4 0-0-0 0-0-0 100-100 100-100 85-90- 60-68- 25-28 5-8 -10 ML -100 -100 95 75 -30 4-18 Clay loam, clay CH, CL A-6, A-7 0-0-0 0-0-0 100-100 100-100 90-95-I 70-83- 35-48 15-25-3 -100 -100 00 95 -GD 5 18-30 Loam, clay loam CL, CL- A-4. A-6 ‘0-0-0 0-0-0 100-100 100-100 85-90- 60-70- 25-30 5-10-15 ML -100 -100 95 80 -35 30-34 Unweathered bedrock Bui& 25C 0-4 Loam CLCL- A-4 0-0-0 0-0-0 100-100 100-100 85-90- l60- 25-28 5-8-10 ML -100 -100 -30

4-20 CLay loam CL’;. ‘A-6 •000 0-0-0 ioo-i 00 ;66iioo 90-95-1 io- 30-33 10-13-1 -100 -100 00 -35 I 20-60 Sandy clay loam, CL CL- A-4,A-6 0-0-0 0-0-0 100- 100 100-100 25-30 5-10-15 clay loam ML,SC, -100 -100 00 80 -35 I el

usD4 Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/27/20 16 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 5 Engineering Properties---Arapahoe County! Colorado 01 - 16_30 Soils Map & Data

Engineering Propecties—Arapahoe County, Colorado

Map unit symbol and Pd. of Hydrolo Depth USDA texture Classification Pct Fragments Percentage passing sieve number— Liquid Plasticit soil name map gic limit y index unit group Unified AASHTO >10 3-10 4 10 48 20D inches inches

/n L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-H L-R-I-1 L-R-H RtE—Renohill-Litle Thedalund cornplex 9 to 30 percent siopes

Renohill 40 D 0-3 Loam CL. CL- A-4 0- 0-0 0-0-0 100-100 100-100 85-90- 60-68- 25-2 8 5-8 -10 ML -100 -100 95 75 -30 3-15 Clay loam, clay CH, CL A-6. A-7 0-0-0 0-0-0 100-100 100-100 90-95-1 70-83- 35-48 15-25-3 -100 -100 00 95 -60 5 15-24 Loam, clay loam CL, CL A-4. A-6 0-0-0 0-0-0 100-100 100-100 85-90- 60-70- 25-30 5-10-15 -100 -100 95 80 -35 24-28 Unweatherec bedrock Utle 32 0 0-3 Silty day loam ML A-4.A-6, 0-0-0 0-0-0 100-100 100-100 95-98-1 85-90- 30-40 5-13-20 $7 -100 -100 00 95 3-30 Silty day, day CH.CL A-7 0-0-0 0-0-0 100-100 100-100 90-95-1 75-85- 40-50 15-25-3 -100 -100 00 95 -60 5 30-34 Weathered bedrock

Thedalund 20 C 0-5 Clay loam CL A-6 :0-0-0 0-0-0 100- 100 100-100 90-95-1 70-75- 30-33 10-13-1 -100 -100 00 80 -35 S 5-23 Loam, clay loam CL, CL- A-4 0-0-0 0-0-0 100-100 100-100 85-93-1 60-70- 25-28 5-8 -10 ML -100 -100 00 80 -30 23-27 Weathered bedrock

Data Source Information

Soil Survey Area: Arapahoe County, Colorado Survey Area Data: Version 12, Sep 22, 2016

LJSD,k Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/27/2016 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 5 of 5 Physical Soil Properties---Arapahoe County, Colorado 01 - 130 Soils Map & Dala

Physical Soil Properties

This table shows estimates of some physical characteristics and features that affect soil behavior These estimates are given for the layers of each soil in the survey area. The estimates are based on field observations and on test data for these and similar soils. Depth to the upper and lower boundaries of each layer is indicated. Particle size is the effective diameter of a soil particle as measured by sedimentation, sieving, or micrometric methods. Particle sizes are expressed as classes with specific effective diameter class limits. The broad classes are sand, silt, and clay, ranging from the larger to the smaller Sand as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are 0.05 millimeter to 2 millimeters in diameter In this table, the estimated sand content of each sod layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. Silt as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are 0.002 to 0.05 millimeter in diameter In this table, the estimated silt content of each soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter Clay as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are less than 0.002 millimeter in diameter In this table, the estimated clay content of each soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter The content of sand, silt, and clay affects the physical behavior of a soil. Particle size is important for engineering and agronomic interpretations, for determination of soil hydrologic qualities, and for soil classification, The amount and kind of clay affect the fertility and physical condition of the soil and the ability of the soil to adsorb cations and to retain moisture. They influence shrink-swell potential, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), plasticity, the ease of soil dispersion, and other soil properties. The amount and kind of clay in a soil also affect tillage and earthmoving operations.

Moist bulk density is the weight of soil (ovendry) per unit volume. Volume is measured when the soil is at field moisture capacity, that is, the moisture content at 1/3- or 1/10-bar (33kPa or lOkPa) moisture tension. Weight is determined after the soil is dried at 105 degrees C. In the table, the estimated moist bulk density of each soil horizon is expressed in grams per cubic centimeter of soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter Bulk density data are used to compute linear extensibility, shrink-swell potential, available water capacity, total pore space, and other soil properties. The moist bulk density of a soil indicates the pore space available for water and roots. Depending on soil texture, a bulk density of more than 1.4 can restrict water storage and root penetration. Moist bulk density is influenced by texture, kind of clay, content of organic matter, and soil structure.

USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/27/2016 conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 5 Physical Soil Properties---Arapahoe County, Colorado Cl - 16_30 Soils Map & Data

Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) refers to the ease with which pores in a saturated soil transmit water The estimates in the table are expressed in terms of micrometers per second. They are based on soil characteristics observed in the field, particularly structure, porosity, and texture. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) is considered in the design of soil drainage systems and septic tank absorption fields. Available water capacity refers to the quantity of water that the soil is capable of storing for use by plants. The capacity for water storage is given in inches of water per inch of soil for each soil layer The capacity varies, depending on soil properties that affect retention of water The most important properties are the content of organic matter] soil texture, bulk density, and soil structure. Available water capacity is an important factor in the choice of plants or crops to be grown and in the design and management of irrigation systems. Available water capacity is not an estimate of the quantity of water actually available to plants at any given time.

Linear extensibility refers to the change in length of an unconfined clod as moisture content is decreased from a moist to a dry state. It is an expression of the volume change between the water content of the clod at 1/3- or 1/10-bar tension (33kPa or lOkPa tension) and oven dryness. The volume change is reported in the table as percent change for the whole soil. The amount and type of clay minerals in the soil influence volume change. Linear extensibility is used to determine the shrink-swell potential of soils. The shrink-swell potential is low if the soil has a linear extensibility of less than 3 percent; moderate if 3 to 6 percent; high if 6 to 9 percent; and very high if more than 9 percent. If the linear extensibility is more than 3, shrinking and swelling can cause damage to buildings, roads, and other structures and to plant roots. Special design commonly is needed.

Organic matter is the plant and animal residue in the soil at various stages of decomposition. In this table, the estimated content of organic matter is expressed as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter The content of organic matter in a soil can be maintained by returning crop residue to the soil. Organic matter has a positive effect on available water capacity. water infiltration, soil organism activity] and tilth. It is a source of nitrogen and other nutrients for crops and soil organisms.

Erosion factors are shown in the table as the K factor (Kw and Kf) and the T factor Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and nIl erosion by water Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to predict the average annual rate of soil loss by sheet and nIl erosion in tons per acre per year The estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and on soil structure and Ksat. Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and nIl erosion by water Erosion factor Kw indicates the erodibility of the whole soil. The estimates are modified by the presence of rock fragments. Erosion factor Kf indicates the erodibility of the fine-earth fraction, or the material less than 2 millimeters in size.

USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/27/2016 a conservation Service National cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 5 Physical Soil Properties---Arapahoe County, Colorado 01 - 16,30 Soils Map & Data

Erosion factor T is an estimate of the maximum average annual rate of soil erosion by wind and)or water that can occur without affecting crop productivity over a sustained period. The rate is in tons per acre per year Wind erodibility groups are made up of soils that have similar properties affecting their susceptibility to wind erosion in cultivated areas. The soils assigned to group 1 are the most susceptible to wind erosion, and those assigned to group 8 are the least susceptible. The groups are described in the ‘National Soil Survey Handbook.” Wind erodibility index is a numerical value indicating the susceptibility of soil to wind erosion, or the tons per acre per year that can be expected to be lost to wind erosion. There is a close correlation between wind erosion and the texture of the surface layer, the size and durability of surface clods, rock fragments. organic matter, and a calcareous reaction. Soil moisture and frozen soil layers also influence wind erosion. Reference: United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. (http://soils.usda.gov)

USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/27/2016 Conservation Service National cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 5 —1.40 ______

Physical Soil Properties---Arapahoe County, Colorado 01 - 16,30 Soils Map & Data

Report—Physical Soil Properties

Three values are provided to identify the expected Low (L), Representative Value (R), and High (H).

Physical Soil Properties—Arapahoc County, Colorado

Map symbol Depth Sand Sift Clay Moist Saturated Available Linear Organic Erosion Wind Wind and soil name bulk hydraulic water extensibility matter factors erodibility erodibility density conductivity capacity group index Kw Kf T In Pct Pct Pct g/cc micro rn/sec In/In Pct Pot RhD—Renohill Buick cams, 3 to 9 percent slopes Renohill 0-4 -40- -38- 20-23-26 1.25-1.33 4.23-9.00-14.11 0,14-0.16-0. 0,0-1.5-2.9 1,0- 1,5- ,32 .32 3 6 48 -1,40 17 2.0 4-18 -26- -29- 35-45-55 1.15-1.28 0.42-1.00-1.41 0.14-0.17-0. 6.0-7.5-8.9 0.5-0.8- .24 .24 -1.40 20 1.0 18-30 -37- -36- 20-27-34 1.25-1.33 1.41-8.00-14.11 0.16-0.18-0. 0.0-1.5-2.9 0.0-0.5- .37 .37 -1.40 19 1.0

30-34 — — — 0.42-1.00-1.41 — Buick ‘0-4 -42 -42 121620 125133 4002300-420,0140160 00 1529 0508- 49 49 5 5 56 I 140 , 0 17 10

420 26- -43 273134 ‘125133 l4l3OO-423 0170190 00 15-29 0508- 43 43 I 140 20 10

2060 53 20 202734 125133 1418001411 0140170 1001529 0003 •i;• :•.• 0.5

USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/27/2016 a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 5 ______

Physical Soil Properties---Arapahoe County. Colorado 01 - 16_3D Soils Map & Data

Physical Soil Properties—Arapahoe County, Colorado

Map symbol Depth Sand Sift Clay Moist Saturated Available Linear Organic Erosion Wind Wind and soil name bulk hydraulic water extensibility matter factors erodibility erodibility density conductivity capacity I group index j KwKf]TI In Pct Pct Pot p/cc micro rn/sec In/In Pct Pot RE— R en oh ill Litle Thedalund complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes

Renohill 0-3 -40- -38- 20-23- 26 1,25-133 423-9.00-14.11 0.14-0.16-0. 0.0- 1.5- 2.9 1.0- 1.5- .32 .32 3 6 48 -1,40 17 2.0 3-15 -26- -29- 35-45-55 1.15-1.28 0.42-1.00-1.41 0.14-0.17-0, 6,0-7.5-8.9 0.5-0.8- .24 .24 -1.40 20 1,0 15-24 -37- -36- 20-27-34 1.25-1.33 1.41-800-14,11 0.16-0.18-0. 0.0-1.5-2.9 0.0-0.5- .37 .37 -1.40 19 1.0

24-28 — — — 0.42-100-1.41 —

- LiVe — [03 — 17 ‘-49 3035 40 115123 141 200-423 0170190 30 45-59 05 08 32 32 3 6 146 -1.30 .20 1.0

3-30 -5- -45- - 40-50-60 1.15-1.23 0.42-1.00-1.41 0.14-0.16-0. 6.0- 7.5— 8.9 0.0- 0.3- 28 .28

—1 . 0.5 - -:‘- 113d

30-34 0.42-1.00-1.41 — Thedalund 0-5 -33- -36- 27-31-34 1.25-1.33 1.41-3.00-4.23 0.17-0.19-0. ‘0.0-1 5-2.9 0.5-0.8- .24 .24 3 6 48 -1.40 20 1.0 5-23 -38- -36- 18-26-34 1.25-1.33 1.41-8.00-14.11 0.14-0.18-0. 0.0-1 5-2.9 0.0-0.3- .32 .32 -1.40 21 0.5

23-27 — — — 0.42-7.00-14.11

Data Source Information

Soil Survey Area: Arapahoe County, Colorado Survey Area Data: Version 12, Sep 22, 2016

USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/27/2016 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 5 of 5 Soil Features---Arapahoe County, Colorado 01 - 16_30 Soils Map & Data

Soil Features

This table gives estimates of various soil features. The estimates are used in land use planning that involves engineering considerations. A restrictive layer is a nearly continuous layer that has one or more physical, chemical, or thermal properties that significantly impede the movement of water and air through the soil or that restrict roots or otherwise provide an unfavorable root environment. Examples are bedrock, cemented layers, dense layers, and frozen layers. The table indicates the hardness and thickness of the restrictive layer, both of which significantly affect the ease of excavation. Depth to top is the vertical distance from the soil surface to the upper boundary Df the restrictive layer. Subsidence is the settlement of organic soils or of saturated mineral soils of very low density. Subsidence generally results from either desiccation and shrinkage, or oxidation of organic material! or both, following drainage. Subsidence takes place gradually, usually over a period of several years. The table shows the expected initial subsidence, which usually is a result of drainage, and total subsidence, which results from a combination of factors. Potential for frost action is the likelihood of upward or lateral expansion of the soil caused by the formation of segregated ice lenses (frost heave) and the subsequent collapse of the soil and loss of strength on thawing. Frost action occurs when moisture moves into the freezing zone of the soil. Temperature, texture, density, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), content of organic matter, and depth to the water table are the most important factors considered in evaluating the potential for frost action. It is assumed that the soil is not insulated by vegetation or snow and is not artificially drained. Silty and highly structured. clayey soils that have a high water table in winter are the most susceptible to frost action. Well drained, very gravelly, or very sandy soils are the least susceptible. Frost heave and low soH strength during thawing cause damage to pavements and other rigid structures. Risk of corrosion pertains to potential soil-induced electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes or weakens uncoated steel or concrete. The rate of corrosion of uncoated steel is related to such factors as soil moisture, particle- size distribution, acidity, and electrical conductivity of the soil. The rate of corrosion of concrete is based mainly on the sulfate and sodium content, texture, moisture content, and acidity of the soil. Special site examination and design may be needed if the combination of factors results in a severe hazard of corrosion. The steel or concrete in installations that intersect soil boundaries or soil layers is more susceptible to corrosion than the steel or concrete in installations that are entirely within one kind of soil or within one soil layer For uncoated steel, the risk of corrosion, expressed as low, moderate, or high, is based on soil drainage class, total acidity, electrical resistivity near field capacity, and electrical conductivity of the saturation extract.

For concrete, the risk of corrosion also is expressed as low, moderate, or high. It is based on soil texture, acidity, and amount of sulfates in the saturation extract.

USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/27/2016 a conservation Service National Cnoperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 ____

Soil Features---Arapahoe County, Colorado 01 -1630 Soils Map & Data

Report—Soil Features

Soil Features—Arapahoe County. Colorado

Map symbol and Restrictive Layer Subsidence Potential for frost Risk of corrosion soil name action Kind Depth to Thickness Hardness Initial Total Uncoated steel I Concrete top

Low-RV- Range Low- Low- High High High In In In In RhD—Renohill Buick barns, 3 to 9 percent slopes

Renohill Paralithic bedrock 20- weakly cemented 0 Low High Low 30-40 I

Buick — — 0 Low Moderate Low RtE—Renohill-Litle Thedabund complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes

Renohill Paralithic bedrock 20- Weakly cemented 0 Low High Low 24-40

Lute Paralithic bedrock 20- Weakly ceme4lteci 0 Low High Moderate I 30401 I Thedalund Paralithic bedrock 20- Weakly cemented Low Moderate Low 23-40

Data Source Information

Soil Survey Area: Arapahoe County, Colorado Survey Area Data: Version 12, Sep 22, 2016

USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/27/2016 Conservation service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2 Hydrologic Soil Group and Surface Runoff---Arapahoe County, Colorado 01 - 16_30 Soils Map & Dala

Hydrologic Soil Group and Surface Runoff

This table gives estimates of various soil water features The estimates are used in land use planning that involves engineering considerations. Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The four hydrologic soil groups are:

Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep. well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (AID, BID, or CID), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Surface runoff refers to the loss of water from an area by flow over the land surface. Surface runoff classes are based on slope, climate, and vegetative cover The concept indicates relative runoff for very specific conditions. It is assumed that the surface of the soil is bare and that the retention of surface water resulting from irregularities in the ground surface is minimal. The classes are negligible, very low, low, medium, high, and very high. Report—Hydrologic Soil Group and Surface Runoff

Absence of an entry indicates that the data were not estimated. The dash indicates no documented presence.

Hydrologic soil Group and Surface Runoff—Arapahoe County, Colorado

Map symbol and soil name Pct. of map unit Surface Runoff Hydrologic Soil Group j

RhD—Renohill-Buick barns. 3 to 9 percent slopes

Renohill 65 Medium D

Buick 25 Medium C

USD.A Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1212712015 Conservation sorvice National Cooperative Soil Survey Page I of 2 Hydrologic Soil Group and Surface Runoff---Arapahoe County, Colorado 01 - 1630 Soils Map & Data

Hydrologic Soil Group and Surface Runoff—Arapahoe County, Colorado

Map symbol and soil name Pet, of map unit Surface Runoff Hydrologic Soil Group

RtE—Renohill-Lille-Thedalund complex, 9 lo 30 percenl slopes

Renohill 40 High D Litle 32 Medium 0

Thedalund 20 High ‘C

Data Source Information

Soil Survey Area: Arapahoe County, Colorado Survey Area Data: Version 12! Sep 22, 2016

USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/27/2016 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2 Water Features---Arapahoe Counly. Colorado 01 - 1630 Soils Map & Data

Water Features

This table gives estimates of various soil water features. The estimates are used in land use planning that involves engineering Considerations. Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The four hydrologic soil groups are: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, rrioderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.

Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (AID, BID, or CID), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Suiface runoff refers to the loss of water from an area by flow over the land surface. Surface runoff classes are based on slope, climate, and vegetative cover. The concept indicates relative runoff for very specific conditions. It is assumed that the surface of the soil is bare and that the retention of surface water resulting from irregularities in the ground surface is minimal. The classes are negligible, very low, low, medium, high, and very high.

The rnonlhs in the table indicate the portion of the year in which a water table, ponding, and/or flooding is most likely to be a concern.

Water fab/e refers to a saturated zone in the soil. The water features table indicates, by month! depth to the top (upper/irnit) and base (lowerlimit) of the saturated zone in most years. Estimates of the upper and lower limits are based mainly on observations of the water table at selected sites and on evidence of a saturated zone, namely grayish colors or monies (redoximorphic features) in the soil. A saturated zone that lasts for less than a month is not considered a water table.

LtSDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 1212712016

Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of a Water Features---Arapahoe County, Colorado 01 - 16_3D Soils Map & Data

Pond/ny is standing water in a closed depression. Unless a drainage system is installed! the water is removed only by percolation, transpiration, or evaporation. The table indicates surface water depth and the duration and frequency of ponding. Duration is expressed as very brief if less than 2 days, brief if 2 to 7 days, long if7 to 30 days, and very long if more than 30 days. Frequency is expressed as none, rare, occasional, and frequent. None means that ponding is not probable; rare that it is unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions (the chance of ponding is nearly 0 percent to 5 percent in any year); occasional that it occurs, on the average, once or less in 2 years (the chance of ponding is 5 to 50 percent in any year); and frequent that it occurs, on the average, more than once in 2 years (the chance of ponding is more than 50 percent in any year). Flooding is the temporary inundation of an area caused by overflowing streams, by runoff from adjacent slopes, or by tides. Water standing for short periods after rainfall or snowmelt is not considered flooding, and water standing in swamps and marshes is considered ponding rather than flooding.

Duration and frequency are estimated. Duration is expressed as extremely brief if 0.1 hour to 4 hours, very brief if4 hours to 2 days, brief if 2 to 7 days, long if 7 to 30 days, and very long if more than 30 days. Frequency is expressed as none, very rare, rare, occasional, frequent, and very frequent. None means that flooding is not probable; very rare that it is very unlikely but possible under

extremely unusual weather conditions (the chance of flooding is less than 1 percent in any year); rare that it is unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions (the chance of flooding is ito 5 percent in any year); occasional that it occurs infrequently under normal weather conditions (the chance of flooding is 5 to 50 percent in any year); frequent that it is likely to occur often under normal weather conditions (the chance of flooding is more than 50 percent in any year but is less than 50 percent in all months in any year); and very frequent that it is likely to occur very often under normal weather conditions (the chance of flooding is more than 50 percent in all months of any year).

The information is based on evidence in the soil profile, namely thin strata of gravel, sand, silt, or clay deposited by floodwater; irregular decrease in organic matter content with increasing depth; and little or no horizon development. Also considered are local information about the extent and levels of flooding and the relation of each soil on the landscape to historic floods. Information on the extent of flooding based on soil data is less specific than that provided by detailed engineering surveys that delineate flood-prone areas at specific flood frequency levels.

USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/2712016 conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 8 Water Features---Arapahoe County. Colorado 01 - 16_30 Soils Map & Data

Report—Water Features

Absence of an entry indicates that the data were not estimated. The dash indicates no documented presence.

USDA Natura’ Resources Web Soil Survey 12/2712016 a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of S ci ci U a ci CD CD 0 ‘S U o o 0 C Co a I— 0 0, a. a)

I I I I I I I I I I

‘S U aC a. ci a, a, a, a, a, a, ai a, a, a, a C C C C C C C C C C C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2222222 Z 222 a, C C 0 tC 0 0

I I I I. I I I I I I

C U- 0 U >5 C, ut a, 0 0 I I I I I I I I I I I C) CO >5 C 9 CO

0 a CO U a 0 n C 0’ C a ..__. -Qa,0 0 0. C) C, !- 0C a; 0. ci 0. 2

———.————.I I I I I I I I I

0) 1;C 0 5 t >5 .-o’a9 >

a .tCLaO 2 V 0b- 0)

U g’a a, C, owC, 0 b-co ci C 0 L0 .9 0 C0 0’ C) 0 2 0l ci cia, C t .20 D C 0) 0 La 0a aD C.) 0 zC) 0a, no ci a U, ci C0 C a, a = I C 0, 2 th 0. 19 0) C, Cc., ii) D 5 ci 0) U I Co aCo Cd 0. Co CO CO

CM U C 0 0 C C- 0CO C C’, 0 t 0) 0) 0) 0 0.0) 0) 0) 0) 0 0) 0) N Co C, C C C C C C C C C C C C C C ‘—0- CD C II z0 z0 z0 z0 z0 z0 z0 z0 z0 z0 z0 z0 z0 t0 0 0 C U- 0 Ct 0

U C C

C 0) 0 0 0 0) 0) 0 0 0 0) 0 0) 0 0C 0C 0C 0C C 0C 0C C C C C C C U z.2 z z z•z0 z z0 z0 zz0 0 20 20

C, C C 0 C0 z Q. 0 IIIII.LLLl I I J-.- 0 U C, 0 0 I I I I I Il I I I I C-,

C 0 C-, 2 0) 1( 0 Wa E 0 C, ._.!...I..LL.L. 0 0. S.- I Co !_ 0C 0. Co °a z I I I I I LI LI I I I I I

‘C C - ? 0 . 2 E’Coc Ew E

00C .tC E ‘0 0

C.)

Ci U

•0 21:0 o U 0 >‘ 0) ‘0 D C CO COO a 0 zC-) 0) .0 00 Co a L0 Co 4- C I

0, 0. 0) CO D 2 Co 0) L) a, 0a,

a,a CD Cr, (3 o o 0 C L0 a I— 0 eq1 0• a, a, a, a, a, a, C3 a, a, a a, c’J a, a, 0 C C C C C C C C C C C ‘-0- CD C U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V 22222222222 0 0 0 U- C

0

I I I I I I I I I I I

0C 0• a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, C C C C C C C C C C C o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Z Z 2222222 Z 2

0) C C 0 C a, 0 0- 0

I I I I I I I I I I I

eLC 0 V U >‘ 2 a, 0 (V 0 D C-) U, >, C 2 0 I C-) 0 .23 0 0 .0 0 a, $I- .0a,0 0. w_ 2 a, 0C a 2a,

———————————.

C I 0 a, C -c C > >, 0 a ..

a •tC“0 ‘2 -C (0 I0) U a 03 .2.00 I-, 00, 00 a, 0 0 0 C-) 0 0 V 0 ft C D C x 0 I, WV, a,0 0 ow a, a a, zC-) a, .0 -JEEa 0 o V, -c C, - 0 aa, 0 C DCa, a, C2çi — C I a a,a o a, a,

a, a, Li Water Features---Arapahoe County, Colorado Cl - l6_30 Soils Map & Data

Water Features—Arapahoe County, Colorado

Map unit symbol and soil Hydrologic Surface Month Water table Pending Flooding name group runoff . Upper limit Lower limit Surface Duration Frequency Duration Frequency depth

Ft Ft Ft

December — N one None

LiVe D Medium 1January — None None

— February — None None ‘Mardi — — None None

-Th. t-- :- April — None None

?-;‘•- - — ‘May -- — — None None --:-. ----: .U?

June — None None

— None None

— - August — -‘ I. None None

September — H— None None

— October — None None

.-e- --__ November None December None

Thedalund C High January — — None None

February — — None None

March — i — None None

— April — None None

— May — None None

June — — None None

— July — None None

August — — None None

September — — None None

October — — None None

— November — None None

USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 12/27120 16 a Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 7 of B C,

CO U 0. C, CD to C 0 0 C C N 0(0 en’ 0• 0

C C 0 C C II z0

0 C C 0 •0 C 0 0. 0

0 U >‘ 2 Ct a) 0 0 D C) 0) a) 0 E C-n C 0.) 0 t 0) C) C, .0.23 0 0 U) a) _J 00. 0 0. C, — 0 C, I :_ 0C L0 a zCO C, D C U 0 £ -o 0 S 00 a) S C.) °0 C 0 8t U) 10 Oe’i tc E Co_z I.. 0 .c 0 ‘4— Cl) 2 — COO C, —.‘a U I22 C) 00 1 I- -CoU’, C, 0 0 .2 0 0 (3 6 Cl) m H C 0 D), D C ( (1)0 0 C, 4 “0 C-) It zC) a, w 0 E2“C, 0 0)0) C, WC 0. CO 2 ¶ az Ci, a, C, z S C, a) L, _

National [lood insurance turo9ram at 1- bUt)- b3b- bbZU. H > 0 e Quincy Gulch MAP SCALE 1” = 500’ n 250 0 500 S BELLAIRE CIRCLE

VENUE __} II __ -

mto

5416 5419 PANEL 0164K S.

a FIRM HH FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ‘0’ ARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADO j%:I:Ex AND INCORPORAlED AREAS 5414

PANEL 164 OF 725 C (SEE MAP INDEX FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT) 0 CONTAINS: 0 COMMUNITY NUMBER PMJEL SUFFIX W4AFAHOE COUNTY 050011 0154 K 7n ChERRY RitLS VILLAGE, : CITY OF 050010 0154 K B!uckrncr Gulch NNULEWCX)LJ Oily OF 0840/4 0184 K ... cc... n. N-. ZONEAE 0 HO- . Lx C 4Qv 5441 2O ZONEX NY ate Uoe Tht Map Namt.ritta.,e 84lwseheYId 84 ‘ PROFILE - - osoK ales YIa(rc .c a’a.Y, SW CE.I,My N.,rbe ,Loati BASE INE .: 5. .10 isun, ,pokaons Is. 1, t 8 •..-- Yb-fl-V I - .-lt€ :&.-.- 4 .. NUMBER :‘ .: .:: .: .:: MAP © ‘0 w DECEMBER 17 2010 — GLENMOOR DRIVE Federal Kmer2encv 1anagecacnt Agency 8/ackmer LakeD) 1

This is an officIal copy of a portion of the aboVe refe,enceo flood map It Was etliacted using F-MIT On-Line. Ibis map does not ‘erect changes or amendments which may base be en made subsequent to the date on the ZONE X title block For the latest proouct inFormation about NatIonal Flood I t Program flood maps chocK the FEMA Flood Map Store at www msC fomagot Chapter 6. Hydrology

one hour design point rainfall values, indicated in Table 6-1, applies to the County.

TABLE 6-1 1-HOUR POINT RAINFALL VALUES FOR ARAPAHOE COUNTY (INCHES) 2- YR 5-YR 10-YR 50-YR 100-YR 0.97 1.38 1,65 2.32 2.67

The one-hour rainfall depths are the basis of the County’s intensity-duration rainfall curves and are used to formulate design storm distributions.

6.1.2 Intensity-Duration Curves. Rainfall intensity-duration curves based on storm duration for a variety of storm return periods can be found on Figure 6-1 at the end of this chapter. These curves were developed using distribution factors provided in the NOAAAtlas and also provided in Table “Factors for Preparation of Intensity-Duration Curves” of the UDFCD Manual (V.1)

6.1.3 Six-hour Rainfall. In order to use the Colorado Urban Hydrograph Procedure (CUHP), 2-, 3- or 6-hour rainfall distributions are required, depending on watershed area. Table “Storm Duration and Area Adjustment for CUHP Modeling” in the UDFCD Manual (V.1) summarizes storm durations, area adjustments, and incremental rainfall depths to be used in CUHP based on watershed area. The UD-Raincurve Spreadsheet included in the UDFCD Manual shall be used to generate the rainfall distribution curves necessary for a CUHP model. In order to generate these distribution curves, the 1-hour and 6- hour rainfall depths for the design return periods are necessary. Since not all of Arapahoe County is located within UDFCD boundaries, the rainfall depth duration-frequency curves provided in the UDFCD Manual do not provide rainfall values for the entire County. Therefore these values are provided in these Criteria. The 1-hour point values can be found in Table 6-1 of this chapter. The 6-hour point values are as follows:

TABLE 6-2 6-HOUR POINT RAINFALLVALUES FOR ARAPAHOE COUNTY (INCHES) 2-YR 5-YR 10-YR 50-YR 100-YR 1.4 1.9 2.2 3.0 3.4

The UD-Raincurve spreadsheet shall be used for all portions of the County, including non-urban areas and areas outside of the UDFCD District boundaries. Once the rainfall distribution curves are generated using the District’s UD Raincurve Spreadsheet, the CUHP model is to be set up following the procedures provided in the “Runoff”chapter of the UDFCD Manual.

Arapahoe County Stormwater Management Manual Page 6-2 Revised July 5,2011 Chapter 6. Hydrology

FIGURE 6-1 RAINFALL INTENSITY-DURATIONCURVE ARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADO 10

9 1c\

8

7 0r w 0 6 Co Iw C)z :!r, 5 Co L::iEC z ‘4%,% Lii zI— -J 4 -J •\\ zU

3

YEAR 2 . c;- t__ 10-YEAR 5 YEAR .— ------_ ------—----—-—--

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 TIME OF CONCENTRATION (MINUTES)

Arapahoe County Stormwater Management Manual Page 6-11 Revised July 5, 2011 Runoff Chapter 6

Table 6-5. Runoff coefficients, e

Total or Effective % Imperviousness NRCS Hydrolopic Soil Group A 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 2% 0.02 0.02 002 002 0.02 0.17 5% 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 005 0.19 10% 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.1 023 15% 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 028 20% 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.32 25% 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.36 30% 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.4 35% 0.31 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.44 40% 0.36 0,37 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.48 45% 0.4 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.52 50% 0.45 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.48 0.56 55% 0.49 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.6 60% 0.53 0.56 0.56 0.57 0.57 0.64 65% 0.58 0.6 0.61 0.61 0.62 0.68 70% 0.62 0.65 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.72 75% 0.67 0.7 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.76 80% 0.71 0.74 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.8 85% 0.76 0.79 0.8 0.8 0.81 0.84 90% 0.8 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.88 95% 0.85 0.88 0.89 0.9 0.9 0.92 100% 0.89 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.96 Total or Effective % Imperviousness NRCS Hydro1o ic Soil Group B 2% 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.24 0.38 0.46 5% 0.04 0.05 0.17 0.27 0.39 0.48 10% 0.09 0.09 0.21 0.3 0.42 0.5 15% 0.13 0.14 0.25 0.34 0.45 0.53 20% 0.18 0.19 0.29 0.37 0.48 0,55 25% 0.22 0.23 0.33 0.41 0.51 0.58 30% 0.27 0.28 0.37 0.44 0.54 0.6 35% 0.31 0.33 0.41 0.48 0.57 0.63 40% 0.36 0.37 0.45 0.51 0.6 0.65 45% 0.4 0.42 0.49 0.55 0.63 0.67 50% 0.45 0.47 0.53 0.58 066 0.7 55% 0.49 0.51 0.57 0.62 0.69 0.72 60% 0.53 0.56 0.61 0.65 0.72 0.75 65% 0.58 0.6 0.65 0.69 0.75 0.77 70% 0.62 0.65 0.69 0.72 0.78 0.8 75% 0.67 0.7 0.73 0.76 0.81 0.82 80% 0.71 0.74 0.77 0.79 0.84 0.85 85% 0.76 0.79 0.81 0.83 0.87 0.87 90% 0.8 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.89 0.9 95% 0.85 0.88 0.89 0.9 0.92 0.92 100% 0.89 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.94

6-10 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District January 2016

Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 1 Chapter 6 Runoff

Table 6-5. Runoff coefficients, c (continued) Total or Effective % Imperviousness NRCS Hydrologic Soil Groups C and D 2-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 2% 0.02 0.07 0.22 0.32 0.43 052 5% 0.04 0.1 0.24 0.34 0.45 0.53 10% 0.09 0.14 0.27 0.37 0.47 0.55 15% 0.13 0.18 0.31 0.41 0.5 0.58 20% 0.18 0.23 0.35 0.44 0.53 0.6 25% 0.22 0.27 0.39 0.47 0.55 0.62 30% 0.27 0.31 0.42 0.5 0.58 0.64 35% 0.31 0.36 0.46 0.53 0.61 0.67 40% 0.36 0.4 0.5 0.57 0.63 0.69 45% 0,4 0,44 0.53 0.6 0.66 0.71 50% 0.45 0.49 0,57 0.63 0,69 0.73 55% 0.49 0.53 0.61 0.66 0.72 0.76 60% 0.53 0.57 0.64 0.69 0.74 0.78 65% 0.58 0.62 0.68 0.73 0.77 0.8 70% 0.62 0.66 0.72 0.76 0.8 0.82 75% 0.67 0.7 0,76 0.79 0.82 0.85 80% 0.71 0.75 0.79 0.82 0.85 0.87 85% 0.76 0.79 0.83 0.85 0.88 0.89 90% 0.8 0.83 0.87 0.89 0.9 0.91 95% 0.85 0.88 0.9 0.92 0.93 0.94 100% 0.89 0.92 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.96

1.00

0.80

C-) 060 —0—2-yr -X- 5-yr 0‘Ii C) —Cl—10-yr 0.40 —*-—25-yr C E3 —0—50-yr —a--100-yr 0.20

0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Watershed Percentage Imperviousness, We

Figure 6-1. Runoff coefficient vs. watershed imperviousness NRCS HSG A

January 2016 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 6-11 Urban Stoim Drainage Criteria Manual Volume I Runoff Chapter 6

Table 6-3. Recommended percentage imperviousness values

Land Use or Percentage Imperviousness Surface Characteristics (°‘/°) Business:

Downtown Areas 95

SuburbanAreas 75 Residential: Single-family

2.5 acres or larger 12 0.75—2,5 acres 20 0.25—0.75 acres 30

0.25 acres or less 45

Apartments 75 Industrial: Light areas 80 Heavy areas 90

Parks, cemeteries 10 Playgrounds 25 Schools 55 Railroad yard areas 50 Undeveloped Areas:

Historic flow analysis 2

Greenbelts, agricultural 2 Off-site flow analysis (when land use not 45 defined) Streets: Paved 100 Gravel (packed) 40

Drive and walks 90 Roofs 90

Lawns, sandy soil 2

Lawns, clayey soil 2

6-8 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District January 2016

Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 1 ______

Chapter 6 Runoff’

2.4.1 Initial or Overland Flow Time

The initial or overland flow time, t1,maybe calculated using Equation 6-3:

= 0.395(1.1—C5 Equation 6-3

‘Where:

= overland (initial) flow time (minutes) C, = runoff coefficient for 5-year frequency (from Table 6-4) L = length of overland flow (ft) S0= average slope along the overland flow path (ft/ft). Equation 6-3 is adequate for distances up to 300 feet in urban areas and 500 feet in rural areas. Note that in a highly urbanized catchment, the overland flow length is typically shorter than 300 feet due to effective man-made drainage systemsthat collect and convey runoff.

2.4.2 Channelized Flow Time

The channelized flow time (travel time) is calculated using the hydraulic properties of the conveyance element. The channelized flow time, t,, is estimated by dividing the length of conveyance by the velocity. The following equation, Equation 6-4 (Guo 2013), can be used to determinethe flow velocity in conjunction with Table 6-2 for the conveyance factor.

— L L t F uation6 4 6OK.,fJ 6OV

\Vhere:

= channelized flow time (travel time, mm) = waterway length (ft) S0 waterway slope (ft/fl) V = travel time velocity (ft’sec) K’S0 K= NRCS conveyance factor (see Table 6-2).

Table 6-2. NRCS Conveyance factors, K Type of Land Surface ConveyanceFactor, K Heavy meadow 2.5 Tillage/field 5

Short pasture and lawns 7 Nearly bare ground 10 Grassed waterway 15 Paved areas and shallow paved swales 20

January 2016 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 6-5 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume I Hydraulic Structures Chapter 9

H a Equation 9-19 2

Where the maximum value of Ha shall not exceed H, and:

Da = parameter to use in place of D in Figure 9-38 when flow is supercritieal(fi) 13, = diameter of circular culvert (ft) Ha = parameter to use in place of H in Figure 9-39 when flow is supercritical(ft) H= height of rectangular culvert (ft) Y,= normal depth of supercriticalflow in the culvert (ft)

C C 0

Yt/D

Use D0 instead of D whenever flow is supercritical in the barrel. ** Use Type L for a distance of 3D downstream.

Figure 9-38. Riprap erosion protection at circular conduit outlet (valid for QID25 6.0)

9-76 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District January 2016 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 2 Chapter 9 Hydraulic Structures

0r

C

I.e Y1/H

Use H0 instead of H whenever culvert has supercritical flow in the barrel. *#Use Type L for a distance of 3H downstream

Figure 9-39. Riprap erosion protection at rectangular conduit outlet (valid for Q/WH1.5 8.0)

3.2.4 Outfalls and Rundowns

A routed boulder outfall or “rundown” can be used as a means to dissipate energy and provide erosion control protection. Groutedboulder outfalls are most commonlyused in large rivers like the South Platte. Figure 9-40 provides a plan view and cross section for a standardrouted boulder rundown. See the routed boulder drop profiles (Al, A2, and A3) in Figure 9-12 for site specific profile options, (i.e., depressed or free-drainingbasin for use with a stable downstreamchannel or with no basin for use in channels subject to degradation). Figure 9-41 provides a plan view of the same structure for use when the structure is in-line with the channel. Evaluate the following when designing a grouted boulder outfall or rundown:

• Minimize disturbance to channel bank

• Detennine water surface elevation in receiving channel for base flow and design storm(s)

• Determine flow rate, velocity, depth, etc. of flow exiting the outfall pipe for the design storm(s)

• Evaluate permitting procedures and requirements for constructionadjacent to large river system.

January 2016 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 9-77 Urban Storm Drainage Criteria ManualVolume 2 VII. Appendix — B, Hydrology Calculations

• Proposed Impervious Cover Values • Proposed Site Time of Concentration • Developed Site Runoff, Rational Method

• LJSDCM— Proposed Detention Volume

• USDCM— Existing Outlet Structure Analyzation

HCIEngineering, -621 SouthPark Dr., Suite 1600, Littleton CO, 80120- 720-252-3484 Page 11 of 12 HCI ENGINEERING

HAeLeLeRPENT3Y3 51 Praiect’ KDSUpper School

Proj ed Netother: 17_IS Date 12/1/2017

Sorl Type. C & 0 NRCSHydrojogjc Sojj Type (Per NRCSWeb Soil Surveyl

Basin: Existing Overall Land Use or Su,face Cha,actecistics Area (SrI 96 Imp. C8Value C5Value C14Value CImVi] Paved 295523 100% 0.97 0 82 0 90 090 Roofs 42458 90% 0.30 085 090 090 Lawns, clayey sosl 464476 2% 0 13 0-14 015 0 I] Total! COmpuite 808457 43.1% 0.44 0.45 0.47 0.49 18.560 ad. Basin: Proposed Overall

Land Use or Surface Cbarace er’stics Area1511 %Imp. C Value C3Value C1 Value CswValue Paved 189786 100% 08) 018 090 099 Roofs 76553 90% 0.80 025 090 090 lasses, claey sal 441112 2% Oil 0 58 0.IS 0 17 Total! CompUte t4S7 45.5% 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.51 :8 550 Basin: Existine- LOD Se or Surface Osa,acoeeistics flea (Sa’( % Imp- L0 Value t. Value Valde IL’eo yah Paved 43-all :00% D87 088 090 0.90

Roo’s 0 90% 080 015 I 091 093 awrs,clayeysna 64698 2% DII 03 015 DI) Total!Compute 115611 40.8% 0.42 0.49 0.45 0-57 2 954 &: Basin: Proposed - LOD trot Surface Cna,acoenstcs flea (581 % Imp. s Value Value s Value stmVf Paved 39271 300% 0 8] 0 85 0.90 0 93 toc’s 28095 90% 0 83 0.85 1.90 090 .awr.s. claveysci 48245 2% 013 0.14 0 15 0.1] Total! CompUte 115611 56.7% 0.54 0.56 0.59 0.61 2 994 ac Basin: Ex Overall - Adj Lana Use or Surface Characteristics Area 159 % Imp. C2Value C5Value Cit Value C1ttValue Paved 189999 100% 0 87 0.88 0.90 0.93 Roofs 48458 90% 080 0,85 0.90 0.90 awr.s, clayey sot 573w 2% 0.13 0.14 0.15 0-17 Total! Compuite 808457 29.9% 0.34 0.35 0.37 0.39 IS 580 ac Basin: Pro Overall - Adj sand Use or Sarface Cha-ac:e-isli:s Area ISvf % np IC;Value C5Value C5, Value CimValue Paved 180503 10395 0.87 0-88 0 90 0 93 Rods 76553 90% 0.80 085 090 090 Lawns, clayey soil 551404 1% 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.17 Total! Campsite 808457 32.2% 0.36 0.37 0.39 0.41 8560 a: Basin: Eat100- Adj Land Use or Surface Cloaracteriatics Area ii % Imp. C8Value C Value C50Value CtmVi) Paced 25i13 10-3% 027 Ott 090 093 tools 0 90% 080 085 390 090 Lasvnt,clayeysoil 89211 5% 013 0 4 25 017 Total! Compuite 115611 26.7% 0.30 0,31 0-32 0-14 7 154 a: Basin: Pro LOD - Adj

Use or Surface Characteristics Area 1511 %Imp. C Value C, Value C, Value C,mvalue Land Paved 24100 100% 087 088 090 091 toots 28095 90% 0 80 0.85 0.90 0.90 Lawns, clayey soij 63416 5% 013 0 14 0 15 0 17 Total! CompUte 115611 45.5% 0.45 0.47 0.49 0.11 2 654 ad. OVERALLSITECOMPOSITE IMPERVIOUS AND RUNOFF COEFFICIENTCALCULATION ru,sola ljtrealj dvulvuju jA,euljdvvjae)+(ArrajjcValaeII’

, Total Area Total Area Composite Composite tunol Coelficienl. C Basin 10, ISP) (Acres) % Impervious C2 Cs C,o Cix Enisling Oerrall 808457 laSs 43.1% 044 0-45 047 049 Proposed Overall 808457 18.58 45.1% 0.48 0.47 049 0_SI Allowable Overall 80845] 18.96 54.1% 0.47 0.48 050 0S2 Enisting’ 100 115611 2.65 40.9% 0.42 0-43 045 047 Proposed - LCD 115611 2.55 56.7% 0.94 0.56 059 061 Allowable -100 119611 2.65 84.9% 0.75 0.77 0.80 082

Eu Overall - Adi 803457 18.96 29.9% 0.34 0-IS 0 37 036 Pro Oveeall - Adj 808457 18-55 12.2% 0.36 0.17 0.19 0.41 Ex 100 - Adi 115511 2-65 26.7% 0.10 0.31 0.32 014 Peo 100, Adj 115611 2.65 45.5% 0.45 0.47 0.49 051 HCI ENGINEERING A division of HABERER CARPENTRY INC.

Project: KDS Upper School Project Number: 1719 Date: 12/1/2017 TIME OF CONCENTRATION

Basin Data Initial / Overland Time (ti) Travel Time (t) t Check (Urbanized Basins) Final t,

. AREA Length SLOPE Length SLOPE Vel. Total tc = (L/180)+10 Basin ID. Cs tj C V t COMP t Mm (Ac) (ft) (%) (ft) (%) (FPS) Length Ft Mm Existing Overall 18.56 0.45 439 3 17.23 1755 1 20 2.0 14.63 31.86 2194 12.44 31.86 Proposed Overall 18.56 0.47 84 2 8.37 2203 1 20 2.0 18.36 26.73 2287 10.47 26.73

Existing - LOD 2.65 0.43 230 2 14.70 309 2 20 2.8 1.82 16.52 539 11.28 16.52

Proposed - LOD 2.65 0.56 84 2 7.15 768 1 15 1.5 8.53 15.68 852 10.47 15.68

Ex Overall - Adj 18.56 0.35 439 2 22.75 1755 1 15 1.5 19.S0 42.25 2194 12.44 42.25

Pro Overall - Adj 18.56 0.37 84 2 9.70 2203 1 15 1.5 24.48 34.18 2287 10.47 34.18

Ex LOD - Adj 2.6S 0.31 230 2 17.46 309 2 15 2.1 2.43 19.88 539 11.28 19.88

Pro LOD - Adj 2.6S 0.47 84 2 8.45 768 1 15 1.5 8.53 16.98 852 10.47 16.98

Table RO-2—Conveyance Coefficient, Cv Type of Land Surface Conveyance Coefficient, Cv Heavy meadow 2.5 Tillage/field S Short pasture and lawns 7 Nearly bare ground 10 Grassed waterway 15 Paved areas and shallow paved swales 20 _____

HCI ENGINEERING

A division of HABERERCARPENTRYINC.

Project: KDSUpper School Project Number: 17_19 Date: 12/1/2017

DIRECTRUNOFF 2-YR STORM Area Area Runoff tc Cx A Intensity (I) U Design (ac) Coeff (mm) (AC) in/hr (cfs) Existing Overall 18.56 0.44 31.86 8.18 1.47 12.01 Proposed Overall 18.56 0.46 26.73 8.51 1.63 13.86 Delta 02 = 1.84 Existing - LCD 2.65 0.42 16.52 1.13 2.10 2.36 Proposed - LCD 2.65 0.54 15.68 1.44 2.16 3.11 Delta 02 = 0.75 ExOverall - Adj 18.56 0.34 42.25 6.33 1.23 7.81 Pro Overall - Adj 18.56 0.36 34.18 6.66 1.41 9.37 Delta 02 = 1.55 Ex LCD - Adj 2.65 0.30 19.88 0.79 1.91 1.52

Pro LCD - Adj 2.65 0,45 16.98 1.19 2.07 2.46 Delta 02 = 0.94

1-Hour Rainfall Depths for Design Storms 28.5 Ji) Design Storm 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 100-Year 1= )0S0 Depth (in) 0.97 1.38 1.65 2.67 (10 * ;r Per NOAA Rainfall Data HCI ENGINEERING

Adivision of HABERERCARPENTRYINC.

Project: KDSUpper School Project Number: 17_19 Date: 12/1/2017

DIRECTRUNOFF 5-YR STORM Area Area Runoff tc Cx A Intensity (I) ci Design (ac) Coeff (mm) (AC) in/hr (cfs) Existing Overall 18.56 0.45 31.86 8.41 1.47 12.35 Proposed Overall 18.56 0.47 26.73 8.77 1.63 14.27 Delta US = 192 Existing - LOD 265 0.43 16.52 1.15 2.10 2.42

Proposed - LOD 2.65 0.56 15.68 1.50 2.16 3.23 Delta US = 0.81

Ex Overall - Adj 18.56 0.35 42.25 6.56 123 8.10 Pro Overall - Adj 18.56 0.37 34.18 6.91 1.41 9.73 Delta 05 = 1.63 Ex LOD - Adj 2.65 0.31 19.88 0.82 1.91 1.57 Pro LOD - Adj 2,65 0.47 16.98 1.24 2.07 2.57 Delta US = 1.00

1-Hour Rainfall Depths for Design Storms 28.5 1 Design Storm 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 100-Year 1= Depth (in) 0.97 1.38 1.65 2.67 (io± r)°’86 I Per NOAA Rainfall Data _____

HCIENGINEERING A diiision of HABERERCARPENTRYINC.

Project: KDSUpper School Project Number: 17_i 9 Date: 12/ 1/20 17

DIRECTRUNOFF 10-YR STORM Area Area Runoff tc Cx A Intensity (I) 0 Design (ac) Coeff (mm) (AC) in/hr (cfs) Existing Overall 18.56 0.47 31.86 8.71 1.47 12.79 Proposed Overall 18.56 0.49 26.73 9.09 1.63 14.80 Delta 010 = 2.01 Existing - LOD 2.65 0.45 16.52 1.19 2.10 2.50 Proposed - LOD 2.65 0.59 15.68 1.56 2.16 3.36 Delta 010 = 0.86 Ex Overall - Adj 18.56 0.37 42.25 6.84 1.23 8.44 Pro Overall -Adj 18.56 0.39 34.18 7.21 1.41 10.15 Delta 010 1,71 Ex LOD - Adj 2.65 0.32 19.88 0.85 1.91 1.63 Pro LOD - Adj 2.65 0.49 16.98 1.30 2.07 2.69 Delta 010 = 1.06

1-Hour Rainfall Depths for Design Storms 28.5 ; Design Storm 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 100-Year 1= \O 786 Depth (in) 0.97 1.38 1.65 2,67 (10± Per NOAA Rainfall Data _____

HCIENGINEERING A divisionof HABERERCARPENTRYINC.

Project: KDSUpper School Project Number: 17_19 Date: 12/1/20 17

DIRECTRUNOFF 100-YR STORM Area Area Runoff tc Cx A Intensity (I) U Design (ac) Coeff (mm) (AC) in/hr (cfs) Existing Overall 18.56 0.49 31.86 9.12 1.47 13.40 Proposed Overall 18.56 0.51 26.73 9.49 1.63 15.45 Delta 0100 = 2.05 Existing - LCD 2.65 0.47 16.52 125 2.10 2.63 Proposed - LCD 2.65 0.61 15.68 161 2.16 3.46 Delta 0100 = 0.83 Ex Overall - Adj 18.56 0.39 4225 7.23 1.23 8.92 Pro Overall - Adj 18.56 0.41 34.18 7.59 1.41 10.68 Delta 0100 = 1,76

Ex LCD - Adj 2.65 0.34 19.88 0.91 1.91 1.75 Pro LCD - Adj 2.65 0.51 16.98 1.34 2.07 2.78 Delta 0100 = 1.04

1-Hour Rainfall Depths for Design Storms 28.5 Design Storm 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 100-Year 1= )ftS6 (10 + Depth (in) 0.97 1.38 1.65 2.67 i; Per NOAA Rainfall Data ______

DETENTIONBASINSTAGE-STORAGETABLEBUILDER I 00-002201320, P09160 J716.l0090,30660090

5096.00291 50291 003. 43oo6e 2206 Co.oflos,oloo IR0390060 601001 D&6( wøPk_’ R.aod VtI.,o C.kojaoo T0p062676c00 - - 00, - - - - a a a

- 270 - - - 6024 010o043 Lo305l — I® — — — 1262 2291714 0020 -40—- — 01 — — — sal 2199 0011 2079 P...0. 6440o0o 2— at0 - 00% p60261 — 030 — — 2240 93(6 0220 — 0020 — — 635 — — — 6120 2252 2600 0222 *029 - 603 - - — 312.0 224223030 0220

— 13213 0232 ,.6_0_60. 12 — 220 — - 1240 2243 W004229C.6.V(6.02{W0c0. 0244 o,.lod - - 2.0 - - - in 1210 2205 60200t3020662A002o06l0(40 2202 00,3-7.0 - 30,35 - - - - sin 1224 126”

. 305 — — •220 5032 — ““6

— 920 — — — 0*23. 407 31255 0’.0

705 — — — OtO3 405 5240a 0600 - 300 - - - 2105 3-222 6302 5032

0_6290i• 2250 671-2022’ (-60 - - 375 - - - 2203 3-022 S02 0620 - 30 - - - fl20 3-05 52(66 202

- 3(6 — - - 2103 - - - - 21003

— 610 — — — 2*033 03 01220 3529 365 — — — 26 IS 323226032 - 3(6 - - - 2*- 3-6.963 - 025 - - 2*0002 0003 0*425 - 6(6 - - SI— 00329 0*622

560315106293 Clkl,20-l0 - D0D10-0’( - -

6?_69-tC-0606l_0201- 66124.Ot. 6.6. 62 6506? 1125 02 Detention Basin Outlet Structure Design

UD-Di-toeorori Vtro,oo 301 )Febesery 2007)

Peso acl- Il_IS <05 - Upper School Sawn ID: Proposed Oeeea((

Slagr(Fi( Ooo.Vohaen(ae.Oo( ::::: po—et n—nnu toned (109-year) 4 Cl 3 763 SnecAl En Eeo,nle (one Coo!,quration (Retention Pond) I 800 Total

User Input: 0,19cc at Uelderdnin Outlet (typ (ally sea en da e WQCV in a F Iteatiol BMFJ rakcloied Paeanetern for

-Jn&dee Oe Ore sued Je0nr N/A ‘ndotaece Lrlyu tie I llratron ne/la scr’ace( Unded arC Ce tea: N’A Uoderdeain C none Diaw etec N/A ocher Sod ordra,n Crone Cenorc,d N/A beet

OeieKo toner 1.—pat: Ptate with Ott, O near. enihee. on FlLipainsl tjon Weir (cypka Opcoed no deai, WQCV and/or EURV nanodi n entatco IMP: Cakoloned Paramotee, for Plate

neerrcLueeolu’.tie 1 Itirelajon to basin clta,—atltage—0°C WQC°neN-tapeefoo= 6.9305-33 Ii Oethattop (lope ogCe.leePIaee:1 181 Itrrele:rreOnhaoneecttoonalSeage_OeC Fl-ptna—a°-W.±h= 5./A °eet 3ciI,ee0atnOrcfVftsal1oacg9c 9/A rchec topIcal Scttooirr 4— N/A ‘net e oti Or,t,:n PlaIn. Oofice Anna on, tomo 100 oc,ohcs lAuwetee I-I/o n:ho: ilNot’oar A3 Ned N/A

User lnpot Soageand tonal Area or Each 0,1cc Roec )noaonbennd trnnnn bonnet to h.ghe,t(

Row (leqoiled) Row (opil050l) Row I (nptaosol) Row 4 lnptrooal( Row S (oplionni) Row £ (eplen dl) Row? (eponeti) Row I (opttooal(

S late curOrSon Creloid (II 000 080 ‘.99 OriFice Aren(sq learns) tie too no

Row 9 (opt,otial) Row tO (oplionol) Row It (nptoooll Row 2 (opbonnll Row II (optattal) Row 4 )opnrosei) Hoer IS (optional) Row II [opoorai(

Singe cu1OtIce DenIed (Ii) Orifice N nalsq tnchnn)

User Input Vertical Otiticn (recolor en Rectangoan( Caloololed Patameneen for Ventica rOrifice Not Selected Not telenned Not Selected Not Selected locert of Ventral Dice— L N/A N/A 00(relalice 00 bar’s bottom at Stage =0 Ill Veetscoi Ccilice Aerao i/A N/A 1/ Depth at top oil one soing Veetcal Dettcoe— N/A N/A 00(relalice basis bottom al Stane =0 II) Vertical Orifice Coerced 0 4/A N/A leer Vedical Oeihce Diametet N/A N/A inches

Inner Inpo I: Doenflom Weir (Oropboo) and Orate (Flat Ge Sfopod( ralrolate d Param ntern too Ooerftow Woir ZooelWelr looe3Wnir letelWeie Zooe3We)e Osreefiooo Wei r Peon Edge Height. HA 3.01 0)0 ft lrelar,oe to basin beotoer anlraoo 0 trl Heighool Grate Upper Edge. H:= 0.01 not fret Ouerelow Weir Proso Edgn Ieeotlrn 4-00 4.00 feel Over Flow Weir Slope Letgllo 0 3.00 3 0) font Ooeotow Weie otlope = 100 0.50 SN (enter zero for Oat grace) Grate Open Area / 100-ye Orifice Area= 10.70 3.4) should he 4 Honrn.LeegtlralWeies,des= 300 3.00 feel Goerflowoeaieopeooreaus/o Oebris= 6.00 40) p1 DoenilowGrateOpesueea%: 53% 30% %goaleopeoaeea/Ootalarea Oseefomoeaee OpercA000w/Debriso 3.05 30) pt Debris Clot etng%° 0390 90% N

0: ina/ Fl (ott Cieoclae User Ispo Outlet Pipe ow Reoteic Plato 0 Otitlon, eesoe,o cc Plate, no eeotaegolae Orificg( Ca loolated parameters foe Outlet Pipe 00/Il ow Pesteiction PlaOe Lend eeotr,ntae lend leon/One Zoteleeeterotne ZonedRetteicter Dep(lrtolooerto000atletpoie 006 017 Ooldr.onroruieierrei:e Ootto.eatlta€e :0111 Ostieooe,0,oe Ace.— 015 070 It’ Dctlete,pesiaweter° 1100 0600 inches Ourletflnitioe Cettraid- 03? 075 rent fwietm °blehe.ghlAtooee rencel° 010 f3 —rh=n lee ceoteal 450cc’ feele.otoPbtea.°oe— 91 000 eaa,eet

Uneeleput.Eme-gcecySpd’eao (Relnungolot or Teapetodsll cacslated Panametens folpleuop Sp.loadeuetlltege: SAT :eelaee.chosnWtt,eaoAtagec3lli Scltuoaobeo grill-Ce—_l1= 0.03 Peel Su(uaeCler.eren SD— ‘net Stagetrr,00cueelearcn 7.1) (fret na!oaee.45aes: CA our.rAleaarrcnocueehe0000j 3.72 3cm

Feeeboaeoat2oe Von Acre. Sceace . 310 eec

Resoled Hydrograph Renulls Desgn010tmpetueeretiodc WGCn EuSV hear Sveae t Ocean lSVear SOOeae l000eae S00Yeae Ore-Hoc RooM Dee Cn 05) 107 196 039 160 1.96 2.27 7.63 9-00

Cco1otedR.e-ott Vea-e owelOc 0246 OW 1439 3364 0066 DTh1 1135 1012 - OPT)ONAU Oneree RjroiO Vo .ree (acee -tip blow bØnAw010, Vt ape (acer tip 0 146 3 ASA 3 2)0 0.164 I 006 1.751 2-ISA 1891 aN/A Fnedeneelcp-eoeob Cod Peas F q Ic OX lIed 331 003 009 349 Ic, 090 100 Pre4eve 3peol 31:150° 0 C ID 01 1.2 IS 92 114 16.8 0.0 PoahirlcIt;° 2? 6fl 45 t 3 10.6 19.0 243 313 .9/A

FeagO..lr.ossu lottie 0 E 0.1 02 0.1 56 3.1 3.1 79 .9/A Rao Poao OIFom Is Peedecio cyer.eo: 0 4/A N/A N/A 03 a.t an 9-4 0.3 .9/A Sgactoee Credit erg F Nate Rote Rate Pteoe Owefloyu Gear, 1 Oactel RaOe 0 O.t Race t OqetlIno, Orote I 09/A 3aeV.ocytcrcagirotolel (Optic Pa/A Pa/S N/A N/A 0.4 08 09 9.0 010/A cIte Velortly OiceocagbGtele 0 (In) N/A 4/A N/A Pt/A N/A N/A N/A 03 AN/A Time to air, 97% oP iotoco Voluroe (boats) It 77 65 1-3- - 94 09 tI 84 AN/A Grain ii,toso o,e(heatl)e Time to nec, ot Vole SI 0? 69 100 102 99 - 98 91 AN/A Meeioctaor Pnod,ogDeplh(R)° 175 2.50 2.17 2-96 5Th 3-88 4.51 320 AN/A kneel Mao,mom PondionOepib (ac.ns)° 0 85 0.43 0-40 0-47 650 03) 0-60 068 AN/A inn,,’ Volume Stored (attn 5) 0 224 0516 0.379 0-724 0 965 1-198 1.555 I.99h AN/A uo

Detention Basin Outlet Structure Design I I

UD . Detention, Version 3.07 IFeb morn 70171

30

10

I,

0l ID lIVE lie:

03

C

IC lou 03A111T1V ((to’

l1o — - lu_Do ‘21- — l.teanx303o,lhIll 14 60 — - -. -. l-li Aeia(e11 Vurume In’ ni .Su merleEVIlullem lIn’3l 3700

—- outtluu uti .esumeremoorluunithl tow

60.000 025 0 0 100 U 4E,

4 05 2C. 700

3.00 l-60 2.00 460 n010rns OCPTHml

S-A.V.D Churn Axis Onerride X.anis Loll Y-62i5 Right Y-Anis mini mum bound malimum bnund Detention Basin Outlet Structure Design

OotfrowHy/rograph Workbook FTooamn.

Stone Bellow Hydrographo UO-Oelention, Version 3.07 IFebruary 2007) Tno user SanTa -ru/a sore eaIsu.r,Ied -rrnlserry/rug:apr:u nrrrrr rhrA TrAbTekusiIhirrnIt,nlsydrrgraprss developed mao-::

SOURCE WORKBOOK WORKBOOK W0000000 WORKBOOK WORKBOOK WOSK0000 W090000K WORKBOOK RN/A lime Menial TIME WOCV cool BURy cBs] 2 Tear {crs] S Tear cBs] 10 Year IcOsI 23 Year [rKsJ 50 Year IrOol 300 Teor(cfs] 500 Tear cl,]

750 node S:00;O0 0.00 0.00 030 0 30 0.00 003 0.00 200 BR/A 0:07:SS 0.30 0.00 000 0.00 00 000 0500 0.00 ON/A Hydrograph 0 15:10 00 000 050 010 300 0.00 0.00 OW RN/A

0 anstaror 0 21:44 0 II 3.27 0.10 0.37 S II 001 2.04 1 32 ON/A 0 603 OTT 19 3.43 0.70 094 3.99 BIB 223 1.65 3.63 RN/A

0.37:54 0.04 3.39 251 9 53 5.73 3.32 9.31 ON/A

0:43:29 2 90 9.10 SRI ‘.01 0 73 IN 79 10.09 23.50 BR/A

0:63.04 172 604 4.49 0.35 II 00 10 96 24 33 31 30 RN/A 1:00:30 1.59 5.76 4.40 7.97 1103 In 14 13 II 19 63 ON/A

1:00.19 2.36 5 24 0.93 7.36 03 00 IA 11 II II 17 II RN/A

1:15:40 1 09 460 3.42 040 4.04 04.01 1936 14.40 RN/A

1:23:23 i 03 409 1 99 5 60 7.09 02.07 06.53 11.10 ON/A 1:30:50 os, 952 260 400 600 13.10 1449 1054 ON/A

1:30:37 i 42 4 19 2.36 4.44 6.10 10.14 1307 16.77 OR/A 1:46:37 1.16 2.62 1.94 9.66 5.02 0.45 1090 34.01 ON/A 1:51:42 094 104 ISO 199 4.23 696 900 lINT ON/A 2.01:17 070 104 III 131 3.26 545 7.07 9.00 ON/A 2:00:52 052 122 004 013 243 4.04 R.40 731 ON/A 2:16:16 030 909 065 025 070 9.34 3.90 510 ON/A 2:14.00 040 069 050 096 037 200 3.01 3.92 ON/A 1 31:36 O.IR 037 041 079 III 000 2.45 3.07 RN/A 2 3R:1l 0.11 0.40 0.31 007 ORS 059 137 267 RN/A 2:46:46 0.00 0.42 031 0.19 363 199 101 233 ON/A

2:54:20 o 07 0.30 0.20 0.39 075 2.25 I 62 2.09 ON/A

3:31:99 o IA 0.35 3.26 0.49 0.69 1.01 I 43 0.91 ON/A

3:30 30 0.11 0.26 0.19 0 36 091 0.34 I IT I 42 ON/A 3.07 05 0.09 0.19 0.34 0 16 037 0.02 303 1.03 RN/A 3:24:40 3.06 9.14 0.10 009 0.27 0.45 3.91 370 OR/A 1:32:14 004 3.13 0.07 0 14 0 20 0 34 S.R4 350 RN/A 3:30:44 307 0.07 005 0 03 0.14 0 24 932 3.41 09/A

3:47 24 0.02 3.05 0.04 0.07 0.00 0 17 323 329 03/3 3:94.19 0.02 0.34 0.03 3.09 0.07 3 13 016 020 03/A 4.9134 000 032 301 309 0.05 003 011 0.03 RN/A 4:1330 300 030 300 302 0.03 005 9.07 0.34 RN/A 4 17.43 000 031 OW 000 0.02 004 0.04 0.99 ON/A 4 21:00 003 OW 0.10 0.09 0.01 9.00 0.02 0.02 OR/A 4 31:13 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.01 ON/A 4.43.20 000 000 00 0.30 310 330 0.00 0.00 ON/A 440:02 030 090 030 0.30 310 003 0.00 0.00 ON/A 4:99:97 030 000 0.00 0.00 3.03 0103 0.90 0.00 ON/A

9:03:12 9003 000 090 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 ON/A 5:10:47 oio 000 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 ON/A 1 10:12 000 000 000 00 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.00 ON/A 121:36 coo 000 000 000 OW 0.00 003 00 69/A 5:33:31 000 000 0.00 0.00 030 0.00 0.90 0.00 RN/A 5:43:06 0003 000 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.39 0.00 ON/A 5:40:41 0003 009 000 000 OW 0.00 0.00 310 ON/A 1.56:16 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 ON/A 6 03:33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OW 0.00 0.00 0.09 ON/A 0:11:23 000 0.00 0.00 000 030 0.00 000 0.09 ON/A 6:19:00 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 ON/A 6:26:30 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 090 0.00 000 0.00 RN/A 6:34-13 000 0-0 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 000 000 ON/A 6.41.44 0.90 0.03 0.0 0.0 900 0.00 9.00 000 ON/A 1.40:19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0303 ON/A 6:1634 0.90 0.0 0.0 0-0 0.00 0.00 0.00 090 ON/A 7:04:29 0.0 0.09 0.0 3300 0.00 0.09 000 0.00 RN/A 7:0294 0.00 0.01 0.0 3.00 0.00 0.03 000 900 RN/A 7:19:30 0.0 0.03 0.0 0300 0.0 0.0 0.09 0.90 RN/A 7:27:13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.0 0.09 000 0.00 RN/A 7:74:40 000 0-09 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.0 000 0.00 ON/A 7:42:23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 RN/A 7:4930 000 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 000 0.00 RN/A 7:67:32 0.0 0.00 0500 009 0.0 3.01 0.00 0.00 RN/A 0:03.97 000 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 340 000 0-90 RN/A 0:12:41 000 0.09 0.09 0.30 3.03 0.00 0-00 0.00 ON/A 0:20:17 0.0 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 000 0.00 RN/A 0:27 32 0.0 000 0330 000 0-0 0.00 0.0 0.0 RN/A 0:33:26 0.00 3.03 3330 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.0 0.0 ON/A 0:43.01 0-0 340 0.09 0.09 0-0 0.00 0.0 0.0 RN/A 0:50.30 3.90 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.03 0-09 0.0 0.0 ON/A 0:58.11 0.0 0.09 0.09 0.30 0.01 000 0.00 0.0 ON/A 9:31 41 3.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0-09 0.00 0.00 0.0 ON/A VIII. Appendix—C, Maps

• Developed Condftions Drainage Plan

HO Engineering, -621 SouthPark Dr., Suite 1600, Littleton CO, 80120- 120-252-3484 Page 12 of 12 HCI S EM P 1 E BROWN

NOT FOR CON STRUC11ON

e - — — — “S ‘St 5- .: • — •tt.. -. /: fl. I__A .fl - r7 — U -. .5-5-—, Z4H •1 ‘

0 s__• — 0

// C, — • -.• • •4%_’__% t..I: (I) 0 a,I .1’.. a — — — ‘S a D / z0) / a) I, a)

SflADINGLEGN 0

C)

SPAIN AG F LEGEND A

x N

• H S St I2tlSD• SCALE lSt

EXHIBIT J

][CONENGNEERING, NC. 7000 S. Yosemite Street, Suite 120, Centennial, CO 80112 303.221.0802 I www.iconeng.com

December 8, 2017

Ms. Rachel Granrath Community Development Director City of Cherry HillsVillage 2450 Quincy Avenue Cherry HillsVillage, CO 80113

RE: Drainage Letter Review —4000 East Quincy Avenue Expanded Use Permit

Ms. Granrath:

ICON Engineering has reviewed the re-submitted Phase Ill Drainage Report for 4000 East Quincy Avenue (a.k.a. Kent Denver Schools) which was prepared by HCI Engineering and dated December 4, 2017. The submittal consisted of: the drainage report and drainage plan with associated computations. The materials were reviewed for general conformance with the Arapahoe County Stormwater Management Manual and the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manuals.

The following additional information is requested before this letter can be recommended for approval: The drainage report updates the drainage plan for the project site and provides computations on stormwater detention volumes. This report provides sufficient details to ensure the existing detention pond has capacity for the recent improvements at the lower school and the proposed upper school improvements. There are outstanding issues relative to the western basins of the Kent Denver property not draining properly at the north boundary and the internal storm sewer system. The western basins issue has been detailed in previous correspondence. The internal storm sewer system is a mailer of the final design and retrofit of the inlets, pipes, and smaller ponds functioning with proper hydraulic grade lines, velocities, and capacities.

The drainage information submitted with this expanded use application is recommended for approval. Sincerely,

Troy W. Carmann, PE ICON Engineering, Inc.

Planning Design Management I I EXHIBIT K

LETTER/EMAILCOMMENTS — REVISED1/30

Dear Ms. Granrath,

I am writing in support of the Kent Denver’s plan to construct a new Upper School classroom building.

We moved to Cherry Hills Village two and a half years ago from New York City specifically to be close to the Kent Denver School. We believe that Kent Denver is a source of distinction for Cherry 1-11115Village, and the schools new proposed Upper School classroom building will help it maintain this distinction by providing students and teachers with world-class learning environments.

In addition to being a source of pride for Cherry Hills Village, Kent Denver is an oasis in the middle of our Village providing public access to its scenic walking, biking and hiking paths for all residents. Walking my dog on the beautiful paths on the Kent Denver campus is my greatest pleasure as a citizen of Cherry Hills Village.

Given the generous public access Kent Denver provides, the school must improve the safety and security of our campus to conform to modern standards. The new building will limit direct access to classrooms and students and provide other safety enhancements that are necessary to protect our children.

I fully support the Kent Denver plan to construct a new Upper School classroom building. Please do not hesitate to reach me at (917-494-6147)! this email, or my home address (4245 South Forest Circle, Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113).

Sincerely, Laura A. Lopez

Rachel; As a Cherry Hills Village home owner since 1997, I wanted to let you know how much we support the addition of the upper school classroom facility at Kent. They are able to add to the quality of the school without adding more students. This shows the true character, quality and integrity of this school. This infrastructure investment will ensure Kent’s position as the premier private school in Colorado. Having this world class campus and institution in the midst of our community adds further prestige and value to the premier neighborhood in Colorado. Thank you for your support of this important projectl

John Robbins

5194 F Oxford Ave CHV,CC. 80113

Rachel Granrath Cherry Hills Village Community Development Director 2450 E. Quincy Avenue Cherry HillsVillage, CO 80113

Dear Ms. Granrath,

I’m writing to support the request by Kent Denver School to construct a new Upper School classroom building on the campus. The current building is outdated and to maintain a competitive edge, the school needs to provide modern facilities with state-of-the-art classrooms and appropriate security options. The campus is wide-open and people enter and exit without any limitations, thus, for the safety of the children at Kent in this day and age, we need upgraded facilities.

1 LETTER/EMAILCOMMENTS — REVISED1/30

As a resident of Cherry Hills Village and living very close to the campus, I fully support this new construction and I appreciate the wonderful, protected open-space that the school provides in return.

I hope that the City Council will vote in favor of the construction and support the children at Kent Denver as well as the overall goals of our City, to maintain a high standard of living for our residents.

Sincerely,

VorpvA. co,ttsnan. frjP MS Grohne Chair in Clinical Cancer Research Associate Director of Clinical Research University of Colorado Cancer Center Professor, Department of Radiation Oncology

I am a former parent (4 children grades 6-12 between 1994-2008), trustee (1999-2009) and President of the Board of Trustees (2006-2009) at Kent Denver School. lam also a Cherry Hills Village resident since

1969. Recently I became aware of concerns on campus surrounding the permits the schoo needs to th:nk update the Upper School. I it’s imperative for the C:y of Cnerry Hills to recognize that KDSis a crown jewel in the center of the vilage. Residents use all 220 acres constant.y as if it is a city park. With security becomng more ana more of a concern for schoos, KDSmust strengthen its access ponts and make certain the individualswho gain access to the school are authorized to do so. Part of this Upper School update willin&ude keycard access for students and teachers, as an example. Without these increased securty measures, the school willhave no choice but to close access to vUage residents and others. The buildingsthat are being upgraded were built in 1965. They have had few improvements over the years and are badly date&

Additionally,it is important to note the school is not growing as a result of the upgrades to the Middle School nor the Upper School. Enrollment willremain the same so traffic willnot change! increase.

Kent Denver has welcomed CHVresidents onto its campus since the school was built on the site in 1965. I personally think some at the city take the acreage for granted as if it is public property but it is not. Please keep in mind the tremendous value the school provides to the city by having 220 acres of undeveloped open space except for the school buildings. It is a treasure we should all be grateful isthere!

Sncerely,

Margaret Batbga:e 6376 ETufts Ave Eng!ewood,CD80111

2 LETrER/EMAIL COMMENTS — REVISED 1/30

November 13, 2017

Rachel Granrath Cherry Hills Village Development Director 2450 East Quincy Avenue Cherry HillsVillage, CC 80113

Dear Ms. Granrath,

I am writing in support of the Expanded Use Permit proposed by Kent Denver School to construct a new Upper School Classroom Building. I am a resident of Cherry Hills Village and am also a parent of a Kent Denver student. Ifeel very passionately that this new building is very important to Kent Denver as an educational institution and as a continued source of distinction to Cherry Hills Village and our community as a whole. I also believe that this new building in no way adversely affects the values or the idyllicrural conditions that we hold so dear.

The safety concerns of schools in today’s potentially violent and volatile environment are first and foremost in my mind every time my children go to school. The current Kent Denver building was built during a time when these concerns were not an issue, so there was little attention paid to the number of access points and overall openness of the physical structures. The new building willgreatly improve the safety and security of the campus while still allowing our residents to use the amazing setting to walk our dogs and to ride our horses.

Kent Denver is also in need of improved educational facilities to continue to provide first-class educational opportunities for its students. While it is necessary to provide collaborative learning environments and a building that supports the best possible opportunities for students, Kent Denver has no plans to increase the number of students admitted to the campus. This is not a proposal to get more tuition and more students. This is a proposal to make this Cherry Hills Village landmark the very best it can be for decades to come.

As with all Kent Denver building projects, the utmost attention is being paid to be environmentally sound and to fit into the peaceful rural surroundings of the campus and the community. Certainly traffic is always a threat to the rural nature of our community, but I believe that there are many contributing factors to this problem including multiple schools starting at the same time, the exponential growth of Denver and the surrounding areas, and the commuters that use our roads to avoid the horrible messes on University Boulevard, Hampden Avenue, and

Colorado Boulevard. I believe there are many options to dealing with the traffic issues, but denying Kent Denver approval to build a safer and greatly improved building is not one that is in the best interest of our community,

I welcome further discussion on this topic and am available if you would like more information about my opinions as a Cherry Hills Resident.

Sincerely,

Wendy Daniel 16 Parkway Drive Cherry Hills Village, CD 80113 303-916-1207

3 LETrER/EMAIL COMMENTS — REVISED1/30

To CherryHillsVillagePlarning/Zonng,

I’mam wrting as a neary 20 year resioent of CherryHillsVillageand a parent of 2 stuierts at KDS.

I truly beHevethe improvements beng made to KDSas we Ias the future p!ansto mprove the school are of the utmost importance to not onlythe KDSstudents and community,but the CherryHillsVillage community at large.The need to update the school in allaspects is clear to those who have had the opportunity to visitother schools inthe greater Denverarea as wellas comparable schools inother states. Thisattraction to the CHVcommunityfor familiesshould not be under estimated nor taken for granted. Anobsolete and inferiorschoolwould not be a welcomed outcome for anyone inthe community,and certainly not justified bythe weak if not incorrect arguments being made to potentially halt the project or add undue cost to the construction.

I hope the clear and present benefits to allof this project leads the committee and others to conclude we must move forward with this well planned and unobtrusive addition to the community.

Sincerely,

Steve and Shannon Avis

November 13, 2017

Katy Brown District 6 Representative, Cherry Hills Village 2450 East Quincy Avenue Cherry Hills Village, CC 80113

Dear Ms. Brown,

I am a resident of Cherry HillsVillage and live at 16 Parkway Drive in District 6. I am so happy to write to you in support of the Expanded Use Permit proposed by Kent Denver School to construct a new Upper School Classroom Building. As I understand it, the proposal is being reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commision in December.

I wanted to reach out to you prior to this Planning and Zoning meeting to inform you of my support for this project. I feel very passionately that this new building is very important to Kent Denver as an educational institution and as a continued source of distinction to Cherry Hills

Village and our community as a whole. I also believe that this new building in no way adversely affects the values or the idyllicrural conditions that we hold so dear.

Not only am I a Cherry HillsVillage resident, I am also a Kent Denver parent. As such, I am very concerned about the safely of our children while continuing to preserve the idyllicrural nature of the campus that we all enjoy. The proposal provides a safer and more secure campus while still

4 LETrER/EMAILCOMMENTS— REVISED1/30

allowing our community to enjoy the amazing grounds. Kent Denver is not interested in expanding its student population, but it is committed to providing students with the best education possible. I wholeheartedly support this initiative and believe you should support it when it comes to the City Council.

I welcome further discussion on this topic and am available if you would like more information about my opinions as a Cherry Hills Resident.

Sincerely,

Wendy Daniel 16 Parkway Drive Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 303-91 6-1207

Dear Ms. Granrath and the CHV City Council,

I am writing as a longtime resident of Cherry Hills Village to support the proposed renovation project at Kent Denver School. We were attracted to Cherry Hills Village largely due to the wonderful opportunity to raise our children attending nearby schools. Our three children attended both CHVE and Kent Denver, and hope that other families will also benefit from educating their children close to their home.

While we were at CHVE we experienced a huge growth in the number of attending students. Our daughter graduated with 88 students while our son, five years later, graduated with nearly 110 children in his class. Our experience at Kent has not been the same. In the eight years we have been at Kent, neither the middle school or the upper school attendance has increased nor is it expected to increase post building. The Kent board of trustees is very clear that they have no intention of ever increasing the size of the student body. Our son’s class of 2020 is nearly identical in size to our daughter’s classes of 2015 and 2017.

Kent Denver has always been a top academic school, but the conditions of the buildings have become old, outdated, and frankly not secure for today’s students. Access doors and rambling hallways are no longer a safe school environment. Although we love the rural look and beautiful outdoor spaces in Cherry Hills; additional security measures are on the mind of every parent given the rash of targeted school shootings. In addition, learning spaces are often cramped and poorly Litwhich is not conducive for studying. The reason Kent is renovating buildings is to increase campus safety and provide larger classrooms for the students.

In my eight years of driving children to/from school, traffic has always been heavy, particularly from 7:45am-8:O5am. We drive east on Quincy crossing University and I have noticed a change this year at the Quincy/University stoplight. Today I was the fifth (and final) car to cross the light at 7:47am. I was stopped by the CHVE policeman (I was car number seven). When we received the signal to move, four cars ahead of me turned left into CHVE with the following cars traveling unencumbered until Vista Road. At that point we were stopped again by the police officer directing traffic into Kent Denver. I observed most of the cars turning right, but the two

S LETFER/EMAILCOMMENTS—REVISED1/30 cars ahead of me traveled straight (they were the same two cars traveling east on Quincy from Franklin St.). This is atypical traffic pattern for those of us traveling eastward on Quincy crossing University. The longest waiting period is crossing University due to the short east/west light compared to the longer north/south light. I am told according to a study done by Cherry Hills 50% of the cars on Quincy are cutting through to avoid traffic on Hampden and Belleview. I often travel east on Belleview at 7:10am (post workout) and the traffic has become considerably worse on Be]Jeview from Sante Fe to University and beyond.

Kent Denver has been in this location since 1962. I believe the school has been an asset to the community and draws many to live in the area to raise their children and attend local schools. As a result, many new houses have been built in the area increasing congestion. The beautiful 200- acre property is the largest open space in Cherry Kills and home to a lake and trails that are enjoyed by all who live nearby as well as those visiting the school.

I urge you to vote in favor of the proposed upper school renovation project as it will in no way negatively impact the city of Cherry Hills Village while continuing to provide an asset for those who live near the school and enjoy its beautiful open space or attend its strong academic and civic minded institution . Please reel free to reach out to me should you have any questions.

My regards,

Beverly Karns - 5000 South Franklin St., Cherry Hills CO 80113

Anonymous Call: (Caller spoke with staff and wanted their name and address remain anonymous). • Kent Denver School sent out a letter to all residents of Cherry Hills Village who have had or have students attending Kent. One of this individual’s concerns stems from a perceived threat that if there isn’t enough support or this project doesn’t get approved Kent may have to think about shutting down the open campus for recreational use and just allow Kent users on the grounds. • This individual also believes that Kent is not really a neighborhood school, and that over 75% of the students attending are not Cherry Hills residents, meaning that the majority of traffic comes from outside the Village. • The caller also explained that the City does have the right to ask for traffic improvements and believes that at the very least a right turn lane into Kent Denver from the eastbound lane on Quincy would help. The individual says Kent should ‘pony up’ on the traffic improvements because it is the right thing to do. • This individual does currently have kids attending the school and is a resident of the Village.

Hello

I am writing as the parent of a Kent Denver student who lives in Cherry HillsVillage in support of their proposed construction project.

We moved to Cherry Hills Village 3 years ago for my husband’s job. We immediately found CHVand thought we’d never seen such a beautiful town. We enrolled our daughter at Kent Denver a year later

6 LETTER/EMAILCOMMENTS— REVISED1/30 and we believe her experience at Kent was reason enough to have made the move. The Kent Denver community inspires, educates and keeps her safe. With the changing world we live in, Ifeel strongly that the students and faculty at Kentwould strongly benefit from the measures they are proposing to alter their campus and entry and thereby keep students and staff safe. Kent Denver is one of many things that makes CHVso very special and its safety is crucial.

In addition, the administrators’ desire to modify classrooms, thereby allowing the school to stay at the forefront of education is crucial. Students from this school have traditionally gone on to do wonderful things both locallyand throughout the country (probably the world).

Iwould love to see their innovative teaching be allowed to continue educating the young people of CHV and Colorado as a whole.

Thank you for you time.

Happy Holidays

Best Jodie Sperling

Hello Council Members:

I write to support the renovation/construction project at Kent Denver. Kent has been a positive community member of Cherry Hills with vast open space, opening its doors to many non-profit events and hosting many summer camps. Allthree of my sons went there and the renovation is needed to provide larger classrooms - very little has been done to improve existing classroom space in a very long time if ever.

According to a study done by Cherry Hills, 50% of the cars on Quincy are cutting through to avoid traffic on Hampden and Beilview and not due to Kent students driving to school.

Please vote in favor of the proposed Upper School renovation, Kent needs it badly!!

Best, Jane Soderberg 3 Sunset Drive Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 303-788-0330

HelloRachel,

I have been a very olessed to be ab;e to callChety Hillsvillage myfamilies home since 1992. continue to be amazed by the effots of the commurity to do all it can to retain the rural feel of the VIlage while continuing to make improvements that enhance the Ives of many of our resderts. We have been very fortunate to have had the opportunity to send ourS of ourS children to Cherry HillsVillageHementary and Ioften drive by the school with pride knowingwhat a great education our children received.

7 LETTER/EMAILCOMMENTS — REVISED1/30

We have been additionafly blessed by the opportunity to have 5 of the 6 children attend Kent Denver and

again describe with pride as Itell others where our children attended middle and high school. Likethe new VillageCenter, police and fire department buildings, it has become apparent that Kent Denver needs to make some significant infrastructure improvements to the upoer scboo, consstent wth the qualty of work they have done with the dining hall and are currerty doing with the middle schooZ

truly I Although no: oojective, believe that we livein the best community in Colorado and Iwould put Cherry HillsVillageagans: some of the best commun’ties in the country. It seems only consistent with the Villageleaderships goals of improvingVikageinfrastructure that Kent maintains pace with the Village in insuring it delivers the best product it can to those fortunate enough to attend while enhancing the overall image of the ViilageForall residents.

One or.Iyneeds to oak at the Kent Denver dining hall as an exampie to the care and commitment to oufldrg design and the environmen: Kent has demo”strated to the communty by being the first LEED Platinum certified dining haLin the country.

Please consider this email as a full endorsement from my entire familyfor the design submission to rebuild the Kent Denver upper schooL.

AMthe best,

Matthew Autterson (303) 877-6220

Dear Ms. Granrath,

As residents of Cherry HillsVillageand Kent Denver parents, we are writing to strongly support the school’s proposed Upper School building plans.

The planned designs with new key access willincrease the safety of our students and staff as well as serve the community by continuing open campus access for all residents in the area to walk and enjoy the beautiful campus. More importantly, the new buildings and classrooms will support better learning environment for the students, creating more collaborative and team working opportunities, and more student-directed learning instead of the traditional lecture styled classrooms. These changes are in keeping with those happening in innovative working places and companies. We are very excited that they willprovide a solid physical foundation to a better learning institution for the next 100 years.

As both parents and residents, we love the fact that Kent’senrollment will not increase. As parents, we want to keep the size the school as it is, providing quality education in a small-class-size setting. As residents who livejust off Quincy, we know from first hand the traffic congestion due to the changing start of the Cherry Creek elementary schools. So the stable enrollment will not bring more people or traffic to the area.

Some have suggested adding a new entryway at Colorado Boulevard. We strongly disagree with that notion. Aside from the prohibitive cost to Kent Denver (over $1 million)and the bad Fengshui and ugliness of having a road that leads straight into the main part of the school, extending Colorado

8 LETTER/EMAIL COMMENTS — REVISED 1/30

Boulevard would only make the transient commuters use Quincy more as a bypass from Hampden, creating more unintended traffic, and disturbing the quiet residential areas along Colorado Blvd between Hampden and Quincy.

The net impact of Kent’s proposed Upper School buildings are extremely positive for the school, for our children and for the village. It will continue Kent’s mission to build a world class educational institute and provide beautiful nature trails for the residents, without any negative impact on the traffic or disturbance of the neighborhood. Therefore, we give our strongest support.

Thank you for your consideration.

Vi& Bryan Ellis 34 Charlou Circle Cherry Hills Village, CO 80111

Dear Ms. Granrath:

I am a resident of Cherry HillsVillageand reside at 1700 E.Tufts Avenue.

I recently became aware of Kent Denver’s plans for the construction of a new classroom building and Iam writing to voice my support for their proposal. I believe that capital investment in the Kent Denver campus is positive for cherry HillsVillageand a benefit to its residents, whether their children attend the school or not.

I understand that some concern has been expressed that this proposed building project will result in an expansion or increase in the student population at Kent and a commensurate increase in traffic along Quincy. I have asked Kent Denver about that possibility and have learned that there are no plans to increase the size of the student body. Asa result, there will be no increase in traffic in areas of the Villageadjacent to the Kent Denver campus.

would be happy to further discuss my support for this project at your convenience. Please do not hesitate to contact me if that discussion would be helpful.

Thank you for your consideration of Kent’sproposal.

Very truly yours,

Ron Cooper

Ms. Granrath and the Planning & Zoning Commission:

We wanted to send a quick note ahead of this evening’s Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as it relates to the Kent Denver Upper School construction proposal. We are residents of Cherry Hills Village, and, in full disclosure, we also have a 7th grader at Kent along with a 4th grader at Cherry Hills Village Elementary.

9 LETTER/EMAILCOMMENTS — REVISED1/30

There is no question that Kent’s facilities need an upgrade to keep up with the requirements of today’s educational system. Frankly, much of the campus infrastructure is outdated. Thankfully, Kent was able to move ahead with the first phase when the middle school project was approved by the Commission. Byall accounts, the middle school construction project that commenced earlier this year is progressing as expected. Iwould expect the same from the upper school remodel as Kent is fortunate to have a top-notch overseer in Jerry Walker.

I’msure that the Board has some concerns about traffic along Quincy. From our perspective, the increase in traffic this school year has nothing to do with Kent. It is a function of increased short-cut commuter traffic and, most importantly, the change in start time at CHVElementary to coincide with Kent (unfortunately the Cherry Creek School District decided that high schoolers needed more sleep to the detriment of the little kiddies across the street from you...). Based on our understanding, Kent has no plans to materially increase enrollment post- construction and thus any discussion about traffic concerns should be irrelevant to the project approval.

Kent Denver is a fantastic partner for the Cherry HillsVillage community. For those of us who have children currently attending or have attended, it is a wonderful learning environment. In addition, we all benefit from the many acres of undeveloped land that allows residents to share its open space. Approving the upper school remodel is an important step in maintaining Kent Denver as a valuable asset for Cherry HillsVillage.

Thank you for your time.

Jared and Heather Hobson 1510 E. Layton Avenue 303-993-5246

Asresidents of CherryHillsViliage,parents and grandparents of KentDenver,and rea: estate professionalsthat listand sell propert;es in CherryHillsVillage,we ted compelled to sham our perspective. KentDenverisa national y anked schoolthat brings prospective students’ familiesto our vIlage. It bringsfar more to our villagethan the school itself. Kent’sopen space, akes, and high line access isan ext-aordnary backdropfor CherryHills’residents, birds and wildlfe to enjoy. In addition, havingan award-winningschool likeKentDenveradds intrinsicvalue to our real estate. The traffic issues that resj from havng an institjtion like Kent Denver wzhin our vil;ageshould be oealt with by our villageand not be the bjrden of a fine Vstitton likeKent. Kent’stuitior dol’arssrould be spent on educatioral related needs.

Sincerely, Narcy and Fred Wolfe Nancy Wolfe Broker Associate Founder LivSotheby’s I International Realty Cell 3D3.324.D825

10 LETTER/EMAILCOMMENTS — REVISED1/30

Dear Mayor Christman,

As a resident of Cherry Hills Village, I am writing in behalf of Kent Denver School’s request for a permit request to build a new structure for the Upper School.

I understand that the City of Cherry Hills Village is requesting that this permit is contingent upon Kent Denver being responsible for facilitating pass-through traffic on Quincy Avenue during weekdays from 7:30 am to 8am.

However, as you know, both CHVs and Kent Denver’s traffic engineers reached the same conclusion - that during this time, 50% of the traffic is due to “cut through’ commuters. Also, these engineers concluded that any roundabout at Kent Denver’s current entrance or a new entrance at Colorado and Quincy would decrease traffic flow by less than 5 minutes, and then only temporarily, because GPS navigation devices would eventually direct more drivers to cut through, thus leading to even more traffic shortly thereafter.

Most importantly, I feel, as well as anyone else who values educating Colorado’s children, that any school, whether private or public, should be using its financial resources for the benefit of educating children. At times this means that Kent Denver needs to have a new building for its students and at other times it means increasing the salary of its teachers to keep up with cost of living expenses. Ifthe city of CHVmandates that Kent Denver pay for a new “roundabout” or “entrance” then obviously the money spent on either of these projects would not be available for the school to educate children. Honestly, if your kids went to Kent Denver, wouldn’t you want the school to use its financial resources to educate your kids?

The best and easiest way to help mitigate any traffic snarl for now and later would be to have a traffic officer at the intersection of Colorado and Quincy, in addition to the one already directing traffic at the entrance to Kent Denver. Currently there is no way for the officer Kent’s entrance to see and know what the traffic flow is like coming south on Colorado Blvd. For the 30 minutes before the beginning of every school weekday, if a second traffic officer is at Colorado and Quincy and (via cell phone) is in constant contact with the one at Kent’s entrance, then he or she can let the one at Kent know about the traffic flow (e.g. if it is light, to go ahead and let the west to east traffic go; if it is heavy, to let the east to west traffic go). I understand that Kent Denver has offered to pay for a second officer to be stationed at Colorado and Quincy. In the interest of fiscal responsibility and in the interest of causing zero

environmental impact from not having construction of a new “roundabout” or “entrance,” I respectfully request that the city of Cherry Hills Village accept Kent Denver School’s offer to pay for the stationing of a second traffic officer at the intersection of Colorado and Quincy.

Let me know any thoughts you have about this issue.

Best,

Robert Gin 4850 South Gaylord Street Cherry Hills Village 303.501.7106

11 LETTER/EMAILCOMMENTS — REVISED1/30

12 EXHIBIT L

Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Cherry Hills Village, Colorado Held on Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 6:30 p.m. at the Village Center

Vice Chair Mike LaMair called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present at the meeting were the following Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Vice Chair Mike LaMair. Commissioner David Wyman, Commissioner Bill Lucas. Commissioner Doris Kaplan, and Commissioner Jennifer Miller.

Chair Peter Savoie and Commissioner Peter Niederman were absent.

Present at the meeting were the following staff members: Rachel Granrath, Community Development Director; Kathie Guckenberger. Deputy City Attorney; and Alex Bergeron. Community Development Clerk.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Commission conducted the Pledge of Allegiance.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION PERIOD

None.

CONSENT AGENDA

Commissioner Lucas moved, seconded by Commissioner Wyman, to approve the following items on the Consent Agenda:

a. Approval of Minutes — November 14, 2017

The motion passed unanimously.

ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA

None Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 12,2017 1 UNFINISHED BUSINESS

None

NEW BUSINESS

a. Request from Kent Denver for an Expanded Use Pennit 014000 E Quinn’ Avenue — Upper School Project (Public Hearing, continued front the November 14, 2017 P/ann in,g and Zoning Commission Meetnig)

Vice Chair Mike LaMair stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission is conducting a public hearing on the application in order to make a recommendation to City Council, and that the Commission is not the ultimate decision maker with respect to the proposed amendment to the Kent Denver School (KDS)’s expanded use permit, adding that the City Council would be holding a separate public hearing on the same matter. He said that in order to enable the Commission to conduct the hearing in an orderly and efficient manner, the Commission will follow the public hearing procedures set forth in the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. He that each individual speaker would be given three minutes to speak and any speaker representing a group or association would have five minutes. He added that repetitious, irrelevant or extraneous testimony is discouraged, citing the value of time.

Vice Chair LaMair invited Deputy City Attorney Kathie Guckenberger to say a few words. Ms. Guckenberger asked the Commissioners to identify any ex-parte communications they may have had on the matter, and if any was had, to state whether or not they are able to deliver a fair and impartial decision on the application. She asked that any email communication on the matter not included in the set of communications already identified he delivered to the Community Development staff to be entered into the record. Ms. Guckenberger reminded the Commission that they may enter into an executive session if they so choose, and that rules regarding ex-parte communications apply during any breaks which may take place.

Community Development Director Rachel Granrath introduced the application. She noted that the staff memorandum on the application distributed to the Commissioners in advance had changed, with changes identified in red. She noted the receipt of three additional public comments received that day.

Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 12, 2017 2 Ms. Granrath explained that KDS seeks to build a new Upper School building of approximately 28,000 square feet; which will include classrooms, administrative spaces. faculty offices, and other space. She said KDS is not pursuing an increase in student enrollment.

Ms. Granrath identified Municipal Code Section 16-20-10(c) as outlining seven review criteria for expanded use applications. She specifically highlighted the fifth criterion, which related to traffic issues. She explained that KDS prepared a traffic analysis for this project. She highlighted for the Commission current data for a few key intersections, including E. Quincy Avenue at Colorado Boulevard (with am. peak traffic experiencing level of service “D” and p.m. level “E”j, E. Quincy Avenue at Campus Road (both am. and p.m. level “F’).

Ms. Granrath explained the six determined alternatives for traffic mitigation. She explained that while there is currently no intention of increasing student enrollment on the part of KDS, if the propery was ever sold, then the building could be used by the new owner at the occupant load permitted by applicable building codes, and that’s why the traffic study was performed and alternatives identified.

Ms. Granrath said that staff recommends the second alternative, which is the installation of a roundabout at the KDS entrance located at E. Quincy Avenue and Campus Road and uniform traffic control at E. Quincy Avenue and S. Colorado Boulevard. She added that the improvements are recommended to be timed appropriately to minimize disruption on E. Quincy Avenue, preferably summer of 2018.

Referring back to the seven expanded use criteria, Ms. Granrath highlighted the sixth — a KDS parking analysis. She said that a parking analysis performed for the previous KDS expanded use permit, for their under-construction Middle School. included parking for the Upper School. She explained that KDS is proposing a 20 percent reduction in parking, which City staff favors because it meets the code.

Ms. Granrath identified Cherry Hills Village City Manager Jim Thorsen as present to answer any questions the Commission may have on the traffic study.

Commissioner Bill Lucas noted that the staff memorandum for the application states that KDS is currently not pursuing an increase in student enrollment. He asked why. then, was a traffic study done and traffic improvements proposed. Ms. Granrath replied that although KDS is the current property owner, if the property were to be sold, then the buyer could utilize the square footage (which she identified at an additional 50,000 square feet between the two projects) to the maximum capacity permitted by applicable codes.

Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 12,2017 3 Vice Chair LaMair asked if the traffic study showed an increase in traffic related to the Upper School application, noting that there might be a slight increase in KDS personnel hut not of the student body. Mr. Thorsen elaborated on Ms. Granrath’s explanation of the potential maximum parking and traffic that the code would allow for, even though that scenario is unlikely for now.

Commissioner Jennifer Miller asked what the student enrollment capacity would be with the increase in square footage Mr. Thorsen said that he would have to defer to KDS for an answer to that question, but he assured Commissioner Miller that KDS would need approval from the City Council for an increase in enrollment from what they have currently per the existing student enrollment cap imposed by existing agreements.

Vice Chair LaMair asked why traffic impacts couldn’t be looked at in the future at the time of a request for permission to increase student enrollment and he mitigated at that time. Mr. Thorsen replied that an expanded use permit application is typically the best opportunity for the City to get the improvements it anticipates are going to happen in the future. Ms. Guckenberger interjected to reiterate that if KDS decides to sell the property without the improvements being implemented first, then the new owner could use the property to its maximum occupancy load without there being improvements in place to handle that increased traffic.

Commissioner David Wyman asked if the occupancy is unique to KDS or if it applies to the property, and Ms. Granrath replied that it’s to the use of the property.

Commissioner Wyman asked if the City would be contemplating a roundabout if KDS was not in pursuit of an expanded use permit. Mr. Thorsen replied that City Council has received numerous complaints about morning traffic in that area because the schools are coinciding their start times and the City was asked to look into the issue. He said that the topic might be on a City Council agenda if KDS had not come in.

Commissioner Lucas asked for clarification on the second paragraph of ihe second page of the staff memorandum regarding draft revisions. Ms. Granrath responded that presence in the staff memorandum serves as a heads up to the Commission that the City Council has been undergoing study sessions in consideration of updating the expanded use process, and that the topic may come before the Commission soon. Mr. Thorsen added that changes to the expanded use process relate to refining the process but not the philosophy behind it.

Commissioner Doris Kaplan asked for more clarification on the relationship between the expanded use process and the present KDS application. Mr. Thorsen said that changes to the process won’t impact this application and that tonight is the appropriate time to make a recommendation to City Council on the KDS application.

Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 12,20]? 4 Commissioner Miller asked why a roundabout is the proposed solution to cure traffic problems. and Commissioner Kaplan added that her experience in Boston disproves that these traffic calming devices work. Mr. Thorsen explained that modern roundabouts differ from those found in older cities, provided information on how they operate, and noted that the proposed roundabout for KDS is just one lane. He added that traffic signals are also a viable option, but because the City maintains no traffic signals at the this time and because the residents and City Council are opposed to installing them, in keeping with the semi-rural character of the community, roundabouts, which can be just as efficient as signals, are preferred.

Commissioner Wyman asked how a roundabout would fit in the proposed location noting that there is not a four-way intersection there. Mr. Thorsen replied that it would be a three-legged roundabout and explained how it would function.

Commissioner Miller expressed her support for the four-way stop alternative citing the fact that outbound KDS traffic currently must wait for E. Quincy Avenue traffic to pass before existing the school grounds. Mr. Thorsen replied that the City believes that alternative does make sense, but the multi-million dollar cost of realigning the KDS entrance road exceeds what the obligation is for the proposed Upper School.

Commissioner Wyman stated with or without a roundabout. then, travel to or from KDS via S. Colorado Boulevard still requires two turns, which is more than a four-way stop would reqLtire. He said that a roundabout would not improve that fact and could actually cause mayhem. Mr. Thorsen responded that he disagrees with the prospect of mayhem, but acknowledged the installation of a roundabout would take some getting used to.

Commissioner Wyman’s expressed his view that roundabouts can be experienced as a game of chicken’ in a time of ever-increasing driver aggression. Vice Chair LaMair added that during the morning peak, there will be half-slept student drivers using that roundabout. Mr. Thorsen validated the concerns and said that there are a number of alternatives presented which the Board may include in their recommendation to City Council.

Commissioner Miller suggested a survey of residents on the topic of traffic improvement in this area. Mr. Thorsen responded that there will be public hearings by the City Council where community members may provide input. Ms. Granrath added that community input has already very much nixed the possibility of the traffic signal solution.

Commissioner Miller inquired about emergency vehicle access issues and response time implications due to a roundabout. Mr. Thorsen replied that roundabouts are designed with emergency vehicles and large trucks in mind.

Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 12, 2017 5 Commissioner Lucas noted the presence of the E. Quincy Avenue bicycle trail. He expressed his support for roundabouts, but said one well-designed roundabout may be better than two roundabouts not far from each other.

Commissioner Wyman noted the use of Cherry Hills Village roads by cut-through traffic because of congestion elsewhere, especially in a time of traffic-related smartphone applications. Mr. Thorsen replied that indeed 40-50Y of traffic going through the subject area is cut-through traffic at peak hours, but that current levels of service are insufficient and the City desires to improve upon those.

Vice Chair LaMair noted the complexity of the traffic issue, stating that there are numerous solutions which not everyone agrees on. He added that it isn’t necessarily appropriate for his Commission to he taking on that issue, and that the focus should be the KDS expanded use permit so long as the increase in square footage associated with that project does not hugely impact traffic volumes.

Responding to the maximum occupancy scenario and the possibility of a future increase in student enrollment, Vice Chair LaMair asked if a covenant or development agreement which runs with the property for handling that issue when it might arise is legally an option. Ms. Guckenberger said she would look into that.

Jerry Walker of KDS addressed the Commission. He began by noting City staff’s support for the expanded use permit, per the applicable Code criteria, with traffic being their only hang up. Mr.

Walker said that of the six alternatives, the fit-st — that they consider adjusting start time with continued uniform traffic control — is their preference. 1-Icadded. anecdotally, that prior to Cherry Hills Village Elementary changing their start time this school year to very closely match theirs, there was about a 20 minute period of traffic congestion on school day mornings, and now it is a 30 minute period of congestion. He said of that traffic congestion, about half is commuter traffic unaffiliated with KDS. He said he disagrees with the assumption that anything they do to improve traffic will do so.

Commissioner Kaplan asked what time the Upper School starts presently. Mr. Walker replied 8:00 a.m.

Commissioner Kaplan asked if there has been substantial discussion on modifying that start time, suggesting potentially 10:00 am. in keeping with the recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Mr. Walker replied that their after school sports programs would be negatively impacted by starting later due to the early onset of darkness in the winter and late fall and the City’s rules on exterior lighting.

Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 12,2017 6 Mr. Walker said that KDS could spend whatever amount to try to fix the traffic issues along S. Colorado Boulevard and E. Quincy Avenue. but within just a few years the problems could return because if traffic is improved then motorists would take advantage smoother traffic flow, adding that traffic engineers cannot model for use of traffic applications on smartphones.

Mr. Walker said that roundabouts could marginally improve traffic, but at a very significant cost. He added that current conditions discourage additional cut-through traffic and keep speeds of young drivers lower.

Mr. Walker said that development agreements should he able to handle possible future issues at the appropriate time, citing their current liniit of increased student enrollment at 15 percent. He added that there could be a condition of sale of the property as well. Ms. Guckenberger interjected to explain that such a condition may not be legally allowed due to a statute prohibiting land use approvals from being subject to discretionary conditions that are not pursuant to duly adopted standards. Mr. Walker responded by saying, then, that the use is still bound by R-l zoning.

Mr. Walker said that the size of their facilities place an inherent limit on student enrollment, notwithstanding an agreement on the student enrollment cap, adding that there are numerous options for addressing increased use of the land without investing in costly traffic

Reiterating the KDS preference for the first alternative for traffic improvement, Mr. Walker said they could consider the second alternative, but noted that KDS would have to give up a significant portion of land to do that.

Mr. Walker said that afternoon cut-through traffic has little to do with KDS. noting that they have dispersed dismissal times. 1-fesaid KDS is a significant part of the problem for a period in the morning, but only on about 170 days of the year. He concluded by saying that KDS is happy to be a part of the traffic solution, but it is not the sole cause of traffic problems. He asked that the Commission recommend their application for approval as it meets all of the expanded use criteria and that they need the expansion to be competitive.

Vice Chair LaMair inquired about adding a traffic control officer at S. Colorado Boulevard. Mr. Walker replied that there have been times when there has been an officer at S. Colorado Boulevard and E. Quincy Avenue, and also at E. Quincy Avenue and the Ki)S entrance, which has been successful in facilitating traffic in the past. He added that the difficulty is that the officers cannot see the extent of traffic backing up along S. Colorado Boulevard and east of the S. Colorado Boulevard and E. Quincy Avenue intersection due to elevation. He also said that staffing of such officers could be a challenge, but it could be figured out and at a much lower cost than the other alternatives.

Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 12, 2017 7 Vice Chair LaMair expressed theoretical support of a traffic control officer because of the enhanced sense of safety that would bring. Mr. Walker concurred. and explained that fire and police presence is welcomed. He went on to say that security for the current facility, as related to an active shooter or like situation, is not the best and the new Upper School would include significant security upgrades.

Commissioner Miller expressed support for the application, but asked if there are any other entrances possible for KDS. Mr. Walker explained the roles that adjacent properties and features play in dictating E. Quincy Avenue as the only possible entrance. Commissioner Miller then explained that the question was intended to stoke discussion on options other than costly traffic modifications, the benefits of which might expire in a short amount of time.

Mr. Walker said that KDS feels that if they adjusted their start time even by 15 minutes there would be a short term positive impact, arguing that the move would allow Cherry Hills Village Elementary traffic to disband considerably ahead of KDS traffic. He acknowledged, however, that this would prolong the period of heavy traffic along E Quincy Avenue, even though it would bring down individual wait times returning them to those experienced prior to Cherry Hills Village Elementary changing their start times.

Commissioner Kaplan asked what KDS has done to encourage carpooling or increasing use of buses. Mr. Walker replied that they recently added a bicycle lane and bicycle parking, that they send families outside of the 80113 ZIP code information on others residing in their same ZIP code to encourage carpooling, that they are developing a program to reward students who carpool, and that they have three bus routes.

Commissioner Wyman said that short of privatizing streets, there isn’t anything that can be done about cut-through traffic, because there are factors which can’t be controlled. He said that he is inclined to agree with Mr. Walker that leaving things the way they are in relation to traffic is advisable because spending a great deal of money to improve the situation could result in the same traffic congestion in several years into the future.

Ms. Guckenberger said that while traffic is not appropriate for this Commission to address, it is a criterion of an expanded use application to be considered.

Mr. Walker said that there could be some traffic increases due to ancillary employees, but the numbers are just one or two people, and custodial shifts generally occur in the evening.

Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Decembcr 12,2017 8 Commissioner Miller asked what the student capacity would be after the project. Mr. Walker responded that they are currently at capacity and will he after the Upper School project because of the capacity of other spaces. specifically the dining hall and theater, which are new facilities.

Commissioner Miller said that drainage is a sensitive subject for adjacent property owners arid requested a summary on it.

Architect Bryan Schmidt, of Semple Brown Design. addressed the Commission. He said that the Phase Ill drainage report which was submitted for the earlier Middle School project included information for the Upper School Project. He said that some numbers changed between then and their final design plans for the Upper School, but those numbers have been reconciled to the satisfaction of the City engineer as related to this project.

Vice Chair LaMair opened the public comment portion of the public hearing at 7:44 p.m.

Debbie Welles, of 4950 Sanford Circle W, addressed the Commission to express her support for the expanded use permit. She said that there is a long legacy of KDS leadership being neighborly and that they are aware of their impact on the larger community, which they strive to be a positive impact. She said that she does not think a roundabout will be successful in mitigating traffic because technology on cellphones will broadcast the improvements and send traffic into Cherry Hills Village.

Howard Schirmer, of4IOO E Quincy Avenue, said that his residence is the closest to the project and thus the most impacted. He said that, however, he is in favor of the project because current 1(05 Facilities are not secure, and citied his professionaL expertise in security. He also questioned the usefulness of a roundabout, and said KDS is doing a very reasonable job in trying to control traffic in the presence of traffic increases throughout the area.

Rand Harrington, of 4000 E Quincy Avenue, is the head of school at KDS and resides on the property. He said that his administration has the same commitment to being good neighbors as previous administrations had, as cited by Ms. Welles. He said that the school is pursuing the project for security improvements and provided a brief overview of what those improvements would be. He also said that KDS is adding square footage to create larger spaces for the students.

Vice Chair LaMair closed the public comment portion of the public hearing at 7:52 p.m.

Commissioner Lucas said that he was not anticipating so much discussion on traffic, and provided an explanation of the regional grid system for roads and how they relate to traffic flow through Cherry Hills Village, specifically identifying F Quincy Avenue as a road which inherently carries cut-through traffic. He said that KDS has always been neighborly and noted

Planningand Zoning Commission Meeting December 12,2017 9 the proximity of the property to important community spaces, and said he would rather see KDS spend money on improving the safety of their students or some other use which benefits Cherry Hills Village, as the proposed traffic improvements are more of a Band-Aid fix in his opinion.

Commissioner Miller asked about key card access to the new facility.

Vice Chair LaMair closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m.

Beginning discussion, Commissioner Wyman asked Ms. Guckenberger if all criteria had to he addressed in a motion, and she replied that unlike with the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, compliance will all criteria is not required, but that all requests must be evaluated based on the expanded use standards. She added that because it is a recommendation to City Council, the Commission could override staffs recommendation on any particular condition.

Commissioner Wyman expressed his opinion that the fifth criterion may not have a bearing on approval of the Upper School. Vice Chair LaMair added that discussion of the fifth criterion is part of a very complicated discussion which needs more input from the public and traffic professionals. He said that the Commission appears in favor of recommending approval of the expanded use permit and passing on the discussion of traffic to the City Council. Commissioner Lucas added his opinion that while traffic is an important issue, he feels that it is separate from the KDS Upper School project.

Commissioner Wyman made a motion, which was seconded by Commissioner Lucas, to recommend approval of the KDS expanded use permit to construct an approximately 28,000 square-foot new Upper School building based on the findings set forth in the December 7,2017 staff report, except criteria number five, which the Commission believes should he addressed by City Council in a larger context.

The motion passed unanimously at 8:04 p.m.

REPORTS

None

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Deccmhcr 12,2017 10 Mike LaMair, Vice Chairman

Alex Bergeron, Community Development Clerk

Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting December 12, 20)7 11 EXHIBIT M

êTheew DorkQCimcshttps://nyti.ms/2pnWkOB

N.Y. I REGION Navigation Apps Are Turning Quiet Neighborhoods Into Traffic Nightmares

By LISA W. FODERARO DEC. 24, 2017

LEONLA, N.J. — It is bumper to bumper as far as the eye can see, the kind of soul- sucking traffic jam that afflicts highways the way bad food afflicts rest stops.

Suddenly, a path to hope presents itself: An alternate route, your smartphone suggests, can save time. Next thing you know, you’re headed down an exit ramp, blithely following directions into the residential streets of some unsuspecting town, along with a slew of other frustrated motorists.

Scenes like this are playing out across the country, not just in traffic-choked regions of the Northeast. But one town has had enough.

With services like Google Maps, Waze and Apple Maps suggesting shortcuts for commuters through the narrow, hilly streets of Leonia, N.J., the borough has decided to fight back against congestion that its leaders say has reached crisis proportions.

In mid-January, the borough’s police force will close 6o streets to all drivers aside from residents and people employed in the borough during the morning and

SEE MYOPTIONS Subscriber login ARTICLESREMAINING “Without question, the game changer has been the navigation apps,” said Tom Rowe, Leonia’s police chief. “In the morning, if I sign onto my Waze account, I find there are 250,000 ‘Wazers’in the area. When the primary roads become congested, it directs vehicles into Leonia and pushes them onto secondary and tertiary roads. We have had days when people can’t get out of their driveways.”

Even before the proliferation of navigation apps, Leonia was no stranger to traffic. Ringed by Interstate 95, and in the shadow of the George Washington Bridge, Leonia sits next to some of the most congested roadways in the country.

But Leonia is not alone. From Medford, Mass. to Fremont, Calif., communities are grappling with the local gridlock caused by well-intentioned traffic apps like Waze, which was purchased by Google in 2013 for $1.15 billion.

Since Waze uses crowd sourcing to update its information, some people — frustrated at the influx of outside traffic — have taken to fabricating reports of traffic accidents in their communities to try to deter the app from sending motorists their way. One suburb of Tel Aviv has even sued Waze, which was developed by an Israeli company.

Waze defends its practice of rerouting motorists from congested highways through residential streets in nearby communities. And the company says it shares free traffic data with municipal planners nationwide who might, for instance, want to monitor the effectiveness of a new time sequence for a traffic signal.

Terry Wei, a spokeswoman for Waze, said the app benefited from a community of local volunteer editors who ensure that the maps stay up-to-date and reflect the local law. “If a road is legally reclassified into a private road,” she said, “our map editors will make that change. It is our goal to work holistically with our community of drivers, map editors and city contacts to improve the driving experience for all.”

While a number of communities have devised strategies like turn restrictions and speed humps that affect all motorists, Leonia’s move maybe the most extreme response. Leonia plans to issue residents yellow tags to hang in their cars, and nonresidents who use the streets in the morning and afternoon will face $200 fines. Its police department has already alerted the major traffic and navigation apps to the impending changes, which will take effect on Jan. 22 from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m., and from 4p.m. to 9 p.m., seven days a week.

Chief Rowe said the borough had tried closing only a handful of streets in the past, posting temporary signs and alerting the navigation apps, but with little success. Traffic either got pushed onto nearby streets or drivers simply disregarded the signs.

“It’s basically all or nothing,” Chief Rowe said. “It’s a very extreme measure for very extreme traffic. Would I prefer not to do this? Of course. But I would rather try something and fail than not try anything.”

Borough officials say their measure is legal, although it may yet get tested in court. Some traffic engineers and elected officials elsewhere say the move may set a precedent that could encourage towns to summarily restrict public access to outsiders.

“It’s a slippery slope,” said Samuel I. Schwartz, the former traffic engineer for New York City known as Gridlock Sam, and the author of the early 1990s book “Shadow Traffic’s New York Shortcuts and Traffic Tips.” “Waze and other services are upsetting the apple cart in a lot of communities. But these are public streets, so where do you draw the line?”

Leonia’s council, which voted unanimously this month in favor of the new ordinance, was careful to keep open three major roadways that are controlled by either the county or state.

Some residents outside Leonia have chafed at the impending street closings, posting variously snarky and incredulous comments on news sites like NJ.com: “Terrible, shortsighted idea. How about the rest of N.J. fines Leonia residents for using all the other roads in the state?” Mr. Schwartz pointed out that the state has ultimate authority over local roads. “I’d rather they put up temporary barriers,” he said. “To give people summonses who might be lost or might be frantic trying to get to an appointment on time — I do worry about this type of strategy. Every town can decide that we don’t want certain people to come through our community.”

There is also concern from neighboring communities like Fort Lee, whose place in traffic lore has been cemented by the so-called Bridgegate scandal, where members of Gov. Chris Christie’s administration deliberately worsened traffic by the George Washington Bridge, famously saying, “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.”

Fort Lee’smayor, Mark Sokolich, warned Leonia that its traffic-fighting strategy better not make things worse in his town. “If their initiative visits gridlock upon Fort Lee and, in particular, creates problems with our emergency service vehicles getting to and from where they need to go, they will hear from us,” he said.

But for residents like Melissa Soesman, a 44-year-old native of Leonia, the change cannot happen soon enough. The slender road she lives on, Irving Street, becomes a parking lot at least two or three times a week during the morning rush. On Tuesday, her son was a half-hour late to his college class because his car, which was parked on the Street, was hemmed in by traffic.

Some mornings, Ms. Soesman has to plead with drivers to make room for her to pull out of her driveway onto Irving Street. “It’s horrific, and it’s all the time,” she said. “They will see that you are trying to get out, but they won’t let you. People are cranky; it’s the morning. Bythe time they are up here, who knows how long they have been sitting in traffic.”

A version of this article appears in print on December 25, 2017, on Page Al of the New York edition with the headline: Choked by App-Driven Traffic, A Community Closes Its Roads.

© 2018 The New York Times Company CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE COLORADO 2430 F. Quincy Avenue Vllage Center Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 Telephone 303-789-2541 www.cherryhillsvillagecom FAX 303-761-9386

Iri-ji: Sb

MEMORANDUM

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR CHRTSTMAN AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL

FROM: RACHEL GRANRATH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR

SUBJECT: AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH FAIRFIELD AND WOODS

DATE: FEBRUARY 6,2018

ISSUE: Should the City Council approve an agreement with Fairfield and Woods for professional services to perform the Code Modernization of Chapters 16, 17, 18, and 19 of the Cherry Hills Village Municipal Code? A copy of the proposed Agreement for Professional Services (the “Agreement”) is attached to this Memorandum as Exhibit A.

DISCUSSION: The City of Cherry Hills Village has allocated 2018 funds for a project in order to restructure and streamline the following Chapters of the Municipal Code:

Chapter 16 — Zoning Chapter 17 — Subdivision Chapter 18—Building Regulations Chapter 19 — Stormwater Quality and Control

The intent of the Code modernization/update is not to rewrite or alter the substantive content of the Code, but rather to simplify and streamline City regulations and processes in accordance with current federal and state law.

In early January 2018, the City published a request for proposals for a Milnicipal Code Modernization. The City received a proposal from Fairfield and Woods. which matches the needs and budget for the Code Modernization project. The proposed project manager, Todd Messenger, brings years of experience in urban planning and law. The firm’s approach is based on identifying and explaining legal boundaries and practical implications of a project, establishing shared vocabulary for dealing with pertinent issues, building consensus around specific proposed changes, and then drafting revisions in plain language. The proposed scope of work is outlined in the Agreement for Professional Services, on page Ii, of Exhibit A. The term of this contract is expected to be completed within one year. but as stated in the terms of the contract the City feels an expiration date of April 8, 2019. gives ample time to complete the Code Modernization.

The services fee will not exceed S70,000. which is within the budgeted amount for the Code Modernization project. However, if the City should require the Consultant at additional public meetings or public hearings, the City will be billed at the hourly rate of $280.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Agreement for Professional Services with Fairfield and Woods as proposed in Exhibit A. Agreement for Professional Services.

RECOMMENDED MOTION: “I move to approve the Agreement for Professional Services with Fairfield and Woods to provide the City with professional services to modernize Chapters 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the Cherry Hills Village Municipal Code as proposed in Exhibit A to the February 6,2018 staff memorandum.”

ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Agreement for Professional Services with Fairfield and Woods EXHIBIT A

AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

THIS AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (“Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between the City of Cherry Hills Village, 2450 E. Quincy Avenue, Cherry Hills Village, Colorado 80113, a Colorado home rule municipality (the “City’), and Fairfield and Woods, P.C.. a Colorado professional corporation with a principal place of business at 1801 California Street, Ste 2600, Denver, Colorado 80202 (“Consultant”) (each individually a “Party” and collectively the “Parties”).

WHEREAS, the City wishes to restructure and streamline Chapter 16, 17, 18. and 19 of the Cherry Hills Village Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, the City issued a request for proposals (“REP”) for such scope of services in accordance with the City’s pLirchasing policy; and

WHEREAS, Consultant submitted a response to the RFP and has the requisite expertise and experience to perform the required code modernization project.

NOW. THEREFORE, for the consideration hereinafter set forth, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

I. SCOPE OF SERVICES

A, Consultant shall furnish all labor and materials required for the complete and prompt execution and performance of all duties, obligations, and responsibilities which are described or reasonably implied from the Scope of Services set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Services” or “Scope of Services”).

B. A change in the Scope of Services shall not be effective unless authorized as a written amendment to this Agreement. If Consultant proceeds without such written authorization, Consultant shall he deemed to have waived any claim for additional compensation, including a claim based on the theory of unjust enrichment, quantum meruit or implied contract. Except as expressly provided herein, no agent, employee, or representative of the City is authorized to modify any term of this Agreement, either directly or implied by a course of action.

C. The Consultant shall perform the Services in accordance with this Agreement and shall promptly inform the City concerning ambiguities and uncertainties related to the Consultant’s performance that are not addressed by the Agreement.

D. The Consultant shall perform all Services in accordance with this Agreement commencing on the Effective Date until such Services are terminated or suspended in accordance with this Agreement. The Consultant shall not temporarily delay, postpone. or suspend the performance of the Services without the written consent of the City Council, City Manager, or a person expressly authorized in writing to direct the Consultant’s services.

1 II. TERM AND TERMINATION

A. This Agreement shall commence on the date of approval by the City Council of the City ((lie “Effective Date”), and shall terminate upon completion of the Services hut no later than April 8, 2019, unless earlier terminated as provided herein or extended as mutually agreed upon by the Parties.

B. The City may terminate this Agreement upon thiry (30) days advance written notice provided, however, if directed by the City, the Consultant shall complete and finalize any porion of the scope of services that was commenced prior to the date of the aforementioned written notice. The City shall pay Consultant for aLlwork previously authorized and completed prior to the termination date, or after the termination date if the City directs Consultant to complete and finalize services after the termination date. If. however. Consultant has substantially or materially breached this Agreement. the City shall have any remedy or right of set-off available at law and equ it)?.

C. Consultant may terminate this Agreement at any time if required under the Colorado Rules of Professional Responsibility for attorneys, or if the City fails to pay the Consultant’s undisputed fees or expenses authorized herein.

III. REPRESENTATIVES AND SUPERVISION

A. City Representative. The City representative responsible for oversight of this Agreement and the Consultant’s performance of Services hereunder shall be the Director of Community Development of the City of Cherry Hills Village (the “Director” or “City Representative”). The Director shall act as the City’s primary point of contact with the Consultant.

B. Consultant Representative. As part of the Services, Consultant shall assign Todd Messenger to act as the City’s primary point of contact for purposes of evaluation, drafting, and adoption of the Code modernization. Todd Messenger will perform the Services anticipated by this Agreement.

IV. COMPENSATION

A. In consideration for the completion of the Scope of Services by Consultant, the City shall pay Consultant a not to exceed amount as shown in Exhibit B. This amount shall include all fees, costs and expenses incun’ed by Consultant, and no additional amounts shall be paid by the City for such fees, costs and expenses except as set forth in Exhibit B. Consultant shall not be paid until the Scope of Services is completed to the satisfaction of the City.

B. Notwithstanding the amount specified in this Section. Consultant shall be paid only for work performed.

V. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

A. Consultant hereby warrants that it is qualified to assume the responsibilities and render the services described herein and has all requisite corporate authority and professional licenses in good standing, required by law.

2 B. The work performed by Consultant shall be in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and the level of competency presently maintained by other practicing professional firms in the same or similar type of work in the applicable community. The work and services to he performed by Consultant hereunder shall be done in compliance with applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations.

C. The City’s review, approval or acceptance of, or payment for any services shall not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of this Agreement.

D. Because the City has hired Consultant for its professional expertise. Consultant agrees not to employ subcontractors to perform any work under the Scope of Services and to obtain the City Representative’s prior written consent to any changes in the designated Consultant Representative or other personnel providing services to the City.

VI. OWNERSHIP

No party shall copyright or prevent the further distribution of the work product that is the result of the Consultant performing the Services.

VII. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

A. Consultant is an independent contractor. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, all personnel assigned by Consultant to perform work under the terms of this Agreement shall he, and remain at all times, employees or agents of Consultant for all purposes. Consultant shall make no representation that it is a City employee for any purposes.

B. The Consultant shall be solely responsible for all compensation, benefits, insurance and employment-related rights of any person providing Services hereunder during the course of or arising or accruing as a result of any employment, whether past or present, with the Consultant, as well as all legal costs including attorney’s fees incurred in the defense of any conflict or legal action resulting from such employment or related to the corporate amenities of such employment. The Constiltant will comply with all laws, regulations, municipal codes. and ordinances and other requirements and standards applicable to the Consultant’s employees, including, without limitation, federal and state law’sgoverning wages and overtime, equal employment, safety and health, employees’ citizenship. withholdings. reports and record keeping . Accordingly, the City shall not be called upon to assume any liability for or direct payment of any salaries, wages, contribution to pension funds, insurance premiums or payments, workers’ compensation benefits or any other amenities of employment to any of the Consultant’s employees or any other liabilities whatsoever, unless otherwise specifically provided herein.

The City will not include the Consultant as an insured under any policy the City has for itself. The City shall not be obligated to secure nor provide any insurance coverage or employment benefits of any kind or type to or for the Consultant or the Consultant’s employees, sub consultants, subcontractors, agents, or representatives, including but not limited to coverage or benefits related to: local, state, or federal income or other tax contributions, FICA. workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation, medical insurance, life insurance, paid vacations, paid holidays, pension or retirement account contributions, profit sharing, professional liability

3 insurance, or errors and omissions insurance. The following disclosure is provided in accordance with Colorado law’:

CONSULTANT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT NEITHER IT NOR ITS AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES ARE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS UNLESS CONSULTANT OR SOME ENTITY OTHER THAN THE CITY PROVIDES SUCH BENEFITS. CONSULTANT FURTHER ACKNO• 1LEDGES THAT NEITHER IT NOR ITS AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES ARE ENTITLED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS. CONSULTANT ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT IS OBLIGATED TO PAY FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAX ON ANY MONEYS EARNED OR PAID PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT.

To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Consultant waives all claims against the City for any Employee Benefits; the Consultant will defend the City from any claim and will indemnify the City against any liability for any Employee Benefits for the Consultant imposed on the City; and the Consultant will reimburse the City for any award, judgment, or fine against the City based on the position the Consultant was ever the City’s employee, and all attorneys’ fees and costs the City reasonably incurs defending itself against any such liability.

VIII. INSURANCE

A. Consultant agrees to procure and maintain, at its own cost, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. At a minimum, Consultant shall procure and maintain the insurance coverages listed below, with forms and insurers acceptable to the City.

1. Worker’s Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable law for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this Agreement, and Employer’s Liability insurance with minimum limits of five hundred

thousand dollars ($500,000) each accident, one million dollars ($1,000,000) disease — policy limit, and one million dollars ($1,000,000) disease — each employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the requirements of this Section.

2. Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000) general aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and operations. and shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage, personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual, products, and completed operations. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision, and shall include the City and the City’s officers, employees, and contractors as additional insureds. No additional insured endorsement shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations.

3. Professional liability insurance with minimum limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000) each claim and two million dollars ($2,000,000) general aggregate.

B. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by law. The coverages afforded under the policies shall not be canceled, terminated or materially

4 changed without at least thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City. In the case of any claims- made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage .Afly insurance carried by the City, its officers, its employees, or its contractors shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Consultant. Consultant shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy.

C. Consultant shall provide to the City a certificate of insurance as evidence that the required policies are in full force and effect. The certificate shall identify this Agreement.

D. The Consultant’s failure to obtain and continuously maintain policies of insurance shall not limit, prevent, preclude, excuse, or modify any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations of the Consultant arising from performance or non-performance of this Agreement. Failure on the par of the Consultant to obtain and to continuously maintain policies providing the required coverage, conditions, restrictions, notices, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement upon which the City may immediately terminate this Agreement, or, at its discretion, the City may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by the City, together with an additional five percent (5%) administrative fee, shall he repaid by the Consultant to the City immediately’ upon demand by the City, or at the City’s sole discretion, the City may offset the cost of the premiums against any monies due to the Consultant from the City pursuant to this Agreement.

IX. ILLEGAL ALIENS

The Consultant shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Agreement. The Consultant shall not contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify that the subcontractor does not knowingly employ or contract with any illegal aliens. By entering into this Agreement, the Consultant certifies as of the date of this Agreement it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien who will perform work under the public contract for services and that the Consultant will participate in the e-verify program or department program in order to confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment to perform work under the public contract for services. The Consultant is prohibited from using either the c-verify program or the department program procedures to undertake pre employment screening of job applicants while this Agreement is being performed. If the Consultant obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under this Agreement knowingly employs or contracts with an illegaLalien, the Consultant shall be required to notify the subcontractor and the City within three (3) days that the Consultant has actual knowledge that a subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien. The Consultant shall terminate the subcontract if the subcontractor does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien within three (3) days of receiving the notice regarding the Consultant’s actual knowledge. The Consultant shall not terminate the subcontract if. during such three days, the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. The Consultant is required to comply with any reasonable request made by the Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation undertaken to determine compliance with this provision and applicable state law. If the Consultant violates this provision, the City may terminate this Agreement, and the Consultant may be liable for actual

5 and/or consequential damages incurred by the City, notwithstanding any limitation on such damages provided by such Agreement.

X. REMEDIES

In addition to any other remedies provided for in this Agreement, and without limiting its remedies available at law, the City may exercise the following remedial actions if the Consultant substantially fails to perform the duties and obligations of this Agreement. Substantial failure to perform the duties and obligations of this Agreement shall mean a significant, insufficient, incorrect, or improper performance, activities or inactions by the Consultant. The remedial actions include:

A. Suspend the Consultant’s performance pending necessary corrective action as specified by the City without the Consultant’s entitlement to an adjustment in any charge, fee, rate, price, cost, or schedule; and/or

B. Withhold payment to the Consultant until the necessary services or corrections in performance are satisfactorily completed; and/or

C. Deny payment for those services which have not been satisfactorily performed, and which, due to circumstances caused by the Consultant, cannot be performed, or if performed would be of no value to the City; and/or

D. Terminate this Agreement in accordance with this Agreement.

The foregoing remedies are cumulative and the City, in its sole discretion, may exercise any or all of the remedies individually or simultaneously.

XI. RECORDS

A. Retention and Open Records Act Compliance. All records of the Consultant related to the provision of Services hereunder, including public records as defined in the Colorado Open Records Act (“CORA”), and records produced or maintained in accordance with this Agreement, are to be retained by the City and stored in accordance with the City’s records retention and disposal policies. Those records which constitute “public records” under CORA are to be at the City offices or accessible and opened for public inspection in accordance with CORA and City policies. Public records requests for such records shall be processed in accordance with City policies. Consultant agrees to allow access by the City and the public to all documents subject to disclosure under applicable law. Consultant’s willful failure or refusal to comply with the provisions of this Section shall result in the immediate termination of this Agreement by the City. For purposes of CORA, the City Clerk is the custodian of all records produced or created as a result of this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall limit the Consultan(s right to defend against disclosure of records alleged to be public.

B. City’s Right of Inspection. The City shall have the right to request that the Consultant provide to the City a list of all records of the Consultant related to the provision of Services hereunder retained by the Consultant in accordance with this subsection and the storage

6 location and method. At the City’s request, Consultant agrees to provide the City an electronic copy of all documents and records produced or maintained in accordance with this Agreement.

XII. MISCELLANEOUS

A. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado, and any legal action concerning the provisions hereof shall he brought in Arapahoe County, Colorado.

B. No Waiver. Delays in enforcement or the waiver of any one or more defaults or breaches of this Agreement by the City shall not constitute a waiver of any of the other terms or obligations of this Agreement.

C. Integration. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties, superseding all prior oral or written communications.

D. Third Parties. There are no intended third-party beneficiaries to this Agreement.

B. Notice. Any notice under this Agreement shall he in writing, and shall be deemed sufficient when directly presented or sent pre-paid, first class United States Mail to the party at the address set forth on the first page of this Agreement.

F. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a cour of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful or unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provisions hereof shall remain in full force and effect.

G. Modification, This Agreement may only be modified upon written agreement of the Parties.

I-I. Assignment. Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights or obligations of the Parties hereto, shall be assigned by either Party without the written consent of the other.

I. Governmental Immunity. The City. its officers, and its emp’oyees, are relying on, and do not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this Agreement,, including Section IX, the monetary limitations (presently three hundred fifty thousand dollars ($350,000) per person and nine hundred ninety thousand dollars ($990,000) per occurrence for an injury to two or more persons in any single occurrence where no one person may recover more than the per person limit described above) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, CR5. § 24-10- LOl, et seq., as amended, or otherwise available to the City and its officers or employees.

J. Rights and Remedies. The rights and remedies of the City under this Agreement are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law. The expiration of this Agreement shall in no way limit the City’s legal or equitable remedies, or the period in which such remedies may be asserted, for work negligently or defectively performed.

K. Subect to Annual Appropriation. Consistent with Article X, § 20 of the Colorado Constitution, any financial obligation of the City not perfomwd during the current fiscal year are

7 subject to annual appropriation, and thus any obligations of the City hereunder shall extend only to monies currently appropriated and shall not constitute a mandatory charge, requirement, debt or liability beyond the current fiscal year.

L. Release of Information. The Consultant shall not, without the prior written approval of the City, release any privileged or confidential information obtained in connection with the services or this Agreement.

8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the date first set fotth above.

CITY OF CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE, COLORADO

Laura Christman, Mayor

Date of execution: .2018 ATTEST:

Laura Smith. City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Linda Michow, City Attorney

9 ______,2018,______,2018

FAIRFEELD AND WOODS, PC

By:

Title:

Date of execution:

STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF

The foregoing instrument was subscribed, sworn to and acknowledged before me this — day of by as of Fairfield and Woods. PC, a Colorado professional corporation.

My commission expires: (SEAL) Notary Public

10 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES

During the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall perform the following services, as directed by the City Representative:

Summary

The project is about code modernization and streamlining, and not about fundamental reform. In this context, most of the project effort will involve the following: • Reorganization into an intuitive order (e.g. putting sections in to logical order, consolidating fee provisions, etc.); • Editing to clarify language, update cross-references, and ensure that the vocabulary of the code is consistent throughout; • Addressing internal inconsistences; • Creating or refining definitions (and deleting unused definitions); • Incorporaling “lessons learned” (such as how to appropriately count/limit the number of accessory and recreational structures allowed on a property); • Providing clarity on certain issues (e.g., when permits expire, what constitutes a “reasonable screen” of a boat or recreational vehicle, when does a remodel permit trigger a requirement for an expanded use permit); and • Updating references to external standards documents (e.g., allow LEED buildings to receive green building rebates, update references to Engineering and Construction Criteria, update references to drainage standards).

This project will commence with a strategicevaluation of the existing codes..The strategic evaluation document will build upon the existing, informal work of City Staff in identifyingproblematic code provisions, and will be shaped by community input and the Consultant’s objective review. Once approved by City Council, the strategic evaluation will guide the process of refining the existing codes by laying out a proposed structure for, and approach to, the code refinement.

The code refinement process will include 14public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council, and members of the City Staff. At these meetings,the Consultant will provide a status update, describe isstiesthat require resolution, lay out the applicable legal framework,and seek input regarding participants’’ preferences for how to resolvethe issues.

Phase 1: Code Evaluation

Description: During phase one, the Consultant will: • Meet with City Staff to “kick-off’ the project, set the schedule, and discuss steering committee composition and other preliminary issues; • Meet with a steering committee, selected by the City, to discuss the project and identify preliminary issues (in addition or alternatively, the Consultant could meet with the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission in a joint workshop session); • Conduct an objective review of Chapter 16 through 19, inclusive, focusing in on organization, consistency, clarity, redundancies, outmoded provisions, internal and external cross-references, and potential legal issues; • Meet with City Staff to discuss the preliminary findings and recommendations; • Drali a strategic written evaluation report for the City Council.

11 Deliverables: • 4 scheduled meetings; and • A strategic evaluation report with recommendations.

Phase 2: Drafting

Description: During phase two, the Consultant will: • Work with City Staff to ensure that the Code is delivered in a format that is useful to the City and compliant with any applicable standards used by the City’s codifying service; • Draft proposed revisions to the codes in four “modules,” that, taken together, comprise all of the codes (two modules for Chapter 16, one module for Chapter 17, and one module that include Chapter 18 and 19): • Meet with the steering committee five times, to discuss the issues and the upcoming module and (after the first meeting) discuss the proposed text from the previous module; • Meet with the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission at three joint study sessions to discuss progress and receive input; and • Deliver public hearing draft versions of Chapter 16, 17. 18. and 19

Deliverables: • 8 scheduled meetings. inclusive of 5 steering committee meetings and 3 joint study sessions with City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission: • 4 code “modules”; and • A consolidated public hearing draft of Chapters 16, 17. 18 and 19.

Phase 3: Adoption

Description: During phase three, the Consultant will: • Draft art adoption ordinance; and • Present the updated codes at a Planning Commission public hearing and a City Council public hearing for adoption.

Deliverables: • 2 scheduled public hearings; • Presentation materials; and • Adoption ordinance.

12 EXHIBIT B

SCOPE OF SERVICES FEES

The Consultant will perform the Scope of Services, for a not-to-exceed amount of $70,000.00. The total project fee includes all elements of the scope of work, as outlined in Exhibit A. If the not to exceed amount of $70,000 is reached, and Consultant is required to attend and participate in excess of fourteen (14) total public meetings or public hearings, Consultant may bill for such additional public meetings or hearings at Consultant’s hourly billing rate of $280.

13 CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE CoLoruno 2450£. Quincy Avenue Village Center Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 Telephone 303-789-2541 www.cherryhillsvillage.com FAX 303-761-9386

]TFM: Sc

MEMORANDUM

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR CHRISTMAN AND MEMBERS OF CITY COLINCIL

FROM: EMILY BLACK. PARKS AND RECREATION COORDINATOR

SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF A MEMORIAL BENCH DONATION AT THREE POND PARK

DATE: FEBRUARY 6,2018

ISSUE; A request to donate a memorial bench to he placed in Three Pond Park.

DISCUSSION The City received a request for a memorial bench donation for Robert F. Robinson by his wife Elizabeth and brother-in-law Fred Fowler. Mr. Robinson was a long-time resident of the Village and was the co-founder of the Center for Applied Research. He frequently used the section of trail through Three Pond Park. The proposed location for the bench is in the southeast corner of the Park near the fence.

The plaque on the bench will read:

In Memoty of Roheti F. ‘Robby” Robinson July 31,1942 - (k/u/icr 16, 2017

STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve the donation of this memorial bench.

RECOMMENDED MOTION “I move to approve the request of the memorial bench donation for Robert F. Robinson to be placed in Three Pond Park.”

EXHIBITS Exhibit A: Proposed Bench Location Map EXHIBIT A

rz. , ‘

-I. - ‘A’’ L

‘4 vi Q L.r:

k’. ..

.4

1% CHERRY HIus VIIIAGE CoLoRADo 2450 8. Quincy Avenue Village Center Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 Telephone 303-789-2541 www.cherryhillsvillage.com FAX 303-761-9386

1mM: 8d

MEMORANDUM

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR CHRISTMAN AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL

FROM: EMILY BLACK, PARKS AND RECREATION COORDINATOR

SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION OF SCULPTURE AT QUINCY FARM

DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2018

ISSUE To accept the donation of a Robert Mangold sculpture located on the south lawn at Quincy Farm.

DISCUSSION The estate of Catherine H- Anderson has donated a sculpture created by Robert Mangold to the City. It is a 10-foot high iron sculpture resembling a horse’s hock (hind leg). The sculpture is already located at Quinc Farm. at the edge of the lawn to the south of the Anderson House. The sculpture is untitled.

The Quincy Farm Committee recommended approval of the donation at their January 16. 2018 regular meeting. and the Art Commission recommended approval at their regular meeting on January 29, 2018. If Council chooses to accept the donation, the City will add the sculpture to its insurance policy, and staff will add information about the sculpture to the City website and Public Art mobile app.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve the donation of this sculpture.

RECOMMENDED MOTION “I move to approve the donation of the Robert Mangold sculpture located on the south lawn at Quincy Farm.”

EXHIBITS ExhibitA: Donation Letterfor Robert MangoldSculpture Exhibit B: Photos of sculpture EXHIBIT A

November 26, 2017

To Whom It May Concern,

The estate of Catherine H. Anderson has donated the sculpture by Robert Mangold located in the back yard at 4400 E. (luincy Avenue, Cherry Hills, Colorado 80113 to the city of Cherry HillsVillage. Sincerely,3.C Benjamin Fitzpatrick Trustee and Personal Representative for Catherine H. Anderson

H MANAUCTTOWEERS CHICAGO OENVER MILWAUKEE I NAPLES PALM BEACH a SCOTSOALE p ST. LOUIS ESTATE OP CATHERINEH. ANDERSON

4400 East Quincy Avenue CherryHills Village Englewood, Colorado 80113

Fair Market ValueAppraisal Prepared for Estate Tax Purposes as of June 2, 2016

Description Fair Market Value Photograph

Exterior

42. Robert Mangold $4,000.00 (American,b. 1930) Untitled S iron signed Mangold(to base) S Sight measurements:Height 10 feet. S a Photos of Mangold Sculpture at Quincy Farm Exhibit B

F,

L -