The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-07-24 Planning Commission PacketAgenda Planning Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota City Hall, Council Chambers Wednesday, July 24, 2019 7:00 PM I. Call To Order II. Roll Call III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A. Minutes, July 10, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes V. Public Hearings A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment (PUD-14), 3650 Hazelton Road VI. Community Comment During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VII. Reports/Recommendations A. 2020 Planning Commission Work Plan VIII. Correspondence And Petitions IX. Chair And Member Comments X. Staff Comments XI. Adjournment The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. • Date: CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www edinamn.gov July 24, 2019 To: Planning Commission From: Jackie Hoogenakker, Planning Division Subject: Minutes, July 10, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Agenda Item #: IV.A. Item Type: Minutes Item Activity: Action ACTION REQUESTED: Please approve the attached July 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. INTRODUCTION: See attached. ATTACHMENTS: July 10 Minutes • • • • Draft Minutes❑X Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date: , 2019 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers July 10, 2019 I. Call To Order Acting Chair Nemerov called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. Roll Call Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Miranda, Thorsen, Strauss, Lee, Berube, and Acting Chair Nemerov. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director; Kaylin Eidsness, Senior Communications Coordinator and Administrative Assistant Jackie Hoogenakker. Absent from the roll call: Commissioners Douglas, Bennett, and Chair Olsen. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Acting Chair Nemerov noted Item VI. Community Comment should be moved to Item V ahead of Public Hearings. Public Hearings would become Item VI. Commissioner Thorsen moved to approve the July 10, 2019, agenda with the suggested amendment. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A. Minutes: Planning Commission, June 26, 2019 Acting Chair Nemerov indicated Commissioner Berube sent a revised version of the minutes and asked if those amendments were acceptable to the other Commissioners. Commissioner Berube asked staff if there was a new version of the minutes that were sent out after her revisions. Administrative Assistant Hoogenakker indicated the revised minutes were sent out. She read the requested changes. She indicated on the beginning of page three comments were revised. In the staff report for the Variance on Garrison Lane, minutes incorrectly stated that staff supported the variance and she did not, Planner Aaker recommended denial. Commissioner Thorsen moved to approve the June 26, 2019, meeting minutes with said corrections. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. Motion carried as amended. Page 1 of 6 Draft Minutes® Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date: , 2019 V. Community Comment Ms. Nora Davis, 6921 Southdale Road, Edina MN (Lake Cornelia neighborhood) stated she was at the Planning Commission meeting a few weeks ago expressing her concerns about the cooking odors from various area restaurants that were permeating the neighborhood, adding those odors could include garlic, onions and greasy food. Davis stated this is not a pleasant experience as residents try to enjoy the outdoors. Davis reported that she has studied this issue and has found that there are simple remedies to the situation, filtering systems that are known as scrubbers. She asked the Commission to consider the residents that will live in the mixed -use development areas when they contemplate new proposals and find a way to eliminate/reduce the odors created by eating establishments. Davis concluded in her opinion this was definitely a quality of life issue to further "look into" and/or pass along. Commissioner Berube moved to close Community Comment. Commissioner Thorsen seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Public Hearings A. Site Plan Review & Setback Variance — 6950 France Avenue Director Teague presented the request of the applicant for a Site Plan Review and Setback Variance at 6950 France Avenue. The applicant, Luigi Bernardi, is proposing to tear down the existing 28,000 square foot office building at 6950 France Avenue, and build a new 10,000 square -foot retail building with surface parking in the rear. The request requires a Site Plan Review with a side street setback Variance from 35 feet to 16 feet from an unimproved right-of-way. Director Teague concluded Staff recommends approval of the site plan with variance as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Discussion/Comments/Questions • A Commissioner asked if it was ever envisioned that 69 '/2 street would continue westerly. Director Teague responded the Southdale Plan and design guidelines tall< about an east/west vehicular and pedestrian movement through the site. • A Commissioner asked if the zoning designation PCD-3 will remain. Teague indicated it would remain. • A Commissioner asked why staff suggests that the building remain as is on the plan rather than shifting it to the south as suggested by Mr. Mick Johnson (Greater Southdale Area Plan consultant). Teague stated by shifting the building south another variance would be required to the south lot line. The applicant also preferred that the building be left in the location indicated on the plans. • A Commissioner asked why Johnson thought moving the building south would be a good idea. Teague thought Johnson's thinking was to try to get that east/west connection more in the middle of the block. Page 2 of 6 • • Draft Minutes Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date: , 2019 Appearing for the Applicant Mr. Ed Farr, Edward Farr Architects, 7710 Golden Triangle Drive, Eden Prairie, made a short presentation to the Planning Commission. He noted the reason the building should remain where proposed is because West 69 '/ Street right of way is the public right of way and the targeted point before for the east/west connection. Future endeavors to provide the east/west connection could be obtained within that right of way at the City's discretion in the future as opposed to solely on their property. The second reason is the building is being spaced more evenly on the block. With graphics Farr explained the proposal. Discussion/Comments/Questions • It was noted that the Ameritrade and Vitamin Shoppe were not asked by the City to be closer to the street. The applicants wanted/needed to be closer to the street because of the unusual shape of the Tots. • A Commissioner asked Mr. Farr if he was comfortable with parking below standard and how he became comfortable with that. Mr. Farr stated this has to do with the mix of tenant, adding retail is such a broad category. Parking convenience satisfaction goes down with high parking turnover parking lots in general. Fast food, transactional businesses where cars come and go frequently as opposed to a longer transactional type of retail business and also the type of product sold. The two tenants his client is talking to now are fine with this parking density because of the use and what is being sold and the number of cars that come to see the businesses are substantially lower than a high turnover type of a retail space. • A Commissioner asked if parking underneath the building was part of the bigger plan for this. Farr indicated that was not a part of the bigger plan. He agreed that those are noble dreams but structurally speaking not feasible. • A Commissioner asked if the applicant was open to massaging this plan a bit. Farr stated on the France side specifically one of Johnson's comments was to replace the visible rain gardens and plaza areas with a double row of trees. He stated for them that is a non -starter. This one-story building setback from France Avenue depends on the visibility from the cars to the signage on the wall. The value of land along France Avenue commands this. • A Commissioner asked if there was any way to change the landscaping, so it is not so rectangular. Farr stated in May there were three different front yard concepts and one was a little more curve linear then the rest and was pulled out. He indicated at this point in time he would rather change the corners to make the bike path curvier, so the bike wheels do not go into the sod. He thought the applicant wanted to stay with the landscaping plan as is. Public Hearing Ms. Nora Davis, 6921 Southdale Road, stated it was mentioned that Mr. Mick Johnson wanted to remove the greenery next to France Avenue. Director Teague indicated it was not the greenery it was to remove the sidewalk that was there. Ms. Davis asked if the new sidewalk would be next to the curb. Teague indicated the new sidewalk will be further in and closer to the building. Page 3 of 6 Draft Minutes LX Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date: , 2019 Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Discussion/Comments/Questions • A Commissioner thought instead of all of the right angles to the sidewalk a meandering route would be preferred. • Some Commissioners expressed preference for the sidewalk to not be next to the street even if there is an interior route. Mr. Max Moreland, Spate Consulting reviewed the traffic study with the Commission. • A Commissioner discussed concerns with the traffic study. • A Commissioner thought this was a test case to find out what is possible with the Southdale plan. It was interesting to learn that a smaller building can be economically viable. There should not always be assumptions that the building has to have height or has to have housing in order for developers to make money. The current zoning still seems to work and, in some ways, compliments the low height galleria across the way. If it is sensitively clad and designed, it could be a little gem that compliments that, and this area could start setting itself up nicely to have that retail feel about it. • A Commissioner thought if the goal is to really enforce or hope to encourage that Southdale vision this is really starting to say the City needs to think hard about how to get that vision into the City Code. It was suggested that the City should start to look at form -based code for some areas and translate it into language that developers can easily understand. Commissioner thought it may be beneficial to include graphics that "show" what the City is after. • A Commissioner acknowledged this is not a very large site and with the area available felt this was an improvement from what was previously presented. It made a lot of sense having the separation on the south side. The issue on the north should not be a hindrance. The longer face on France Avenue is nice and gives and provides a better face on France. • A commissioner indicated they would rather approve one variance than two. • It was expressed and pointed out by some Commissioners that sidewalks, bike paths, roads, etc. should be straight because their purpose is to safely navigate people from point A to point B. It was noted that Johnson suggested removing one of the sidewalks; however, there should be two separate sidewalks because cyclists could use the other sidewalk along with pedestrians (not going to this building) because they may not want to walk or meander through site. There should be some sort of multi -use path. • A Commissioner thought the project, the way it is, in terms of the layout is fine. The rectilinear part should not be changed. • A Commissioner thought there should be some sort of minimum height in the Southdale area, adding that may be something to further study. • Page 4 of 6 • Draft Minutes❑X Approved Minutes El Approved Date: , 2019 • Commissioners appreciated the changes made to the proposal, adding much of the Commission feedback and guidance was taken, and significant changes were made to the project to bring it closer to how the City envisions the Southdale area to look. • Commissioners suggested making the sidewalks a little wider. Motion Commissioner Lee moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the site plan review and with a side street setback Variance from 35 feet to 16 feet from an unimproved right-of-way according to the staff report and staff findings with the exception of not requiring the removal of the existing sidewalk on France Avenue. Commissioner Thorsen asked for clarification if that included removing the sidewalk along France Avenue or not. Commissioner Lee indicated it did not. Commissioner Thorsen seconded the motion. Teague noted if the Commission wanted that sidewalk to remain another condition should be added because in Engineer Millner's memo, he is recommending it be removed as one of the conditions listed. Commissioner Lee indicated she would like to leave it as recommended because it was recommended by staff and needs further vetting. She asked if this was a requirement. Director Teague indicated staff is recommending the sidewalk be removed. Commissioner Lee stated she would like that condition removed from the motion, pending further study or proposal by the applicant to show what he intends. Commissioner Lee noted the amendment to the motion. Commissioner Thorsen was agreeable with the amendment. Motion carried 5 ayes, 1 nay (Berube). VII. Reports/Recommendations None. VIII. Correspondence and Petitions None. IX. Chair and Member Comments Commissioner Lee asked if the Commission wanted to look into what resident Davis talked about earlier in Community Comment and put on the agenda at a future meeting to see if the City Codes address her concerns. Director Teague stated staff was thinking about working on the 2020 work plan and bringing a draft to the next Planning Commission meeting so might be a topic for the Planning Commission to consider. Page 5 of 6 Draft Minutes ❑X Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date: , 2019 Commissioner Berube thought when this was brought up before it was some other department that was going to do research and bring it to the Planning Commission. Director Teague stated it is enforced through the Health Department and staff did some research prior to the City Council meeting and provided them with limited information. He stated it is a worthy topic for discussion for consideration of a Code change. Commissioner Strauss thought it was a reasonable way to get the process started. X. Staff Comments Planner Teague reported he is considering a work session in the near future to tall< about ongoing education. Xl. Adjournment Commissioner Thorsen moved to adjourn the July 10, 2019, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 8:13 PM. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Jackie Hoogenakker/TimeSaver • Page 6 of 6 • • • Date: CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov July 24, 2019 Agenda Item #: V.A. To: Planning Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment (PUD-14), 3650 Hazelton Road Item Activity: Action ACTION REQUESTED: Recommend the City Council approve the request subject to the findings and conditions outlined in the staff report. INTRODUCTION: The applicant, 3650 Hazelton, LLC is requesting a revision to their approved PUD redeveloping the 1.25 acre parcel at 3650 Hazelton Road. The project was approved to build a 19 story 167 unit apartment. The project was approved at Preliminary Rezoning at 186 units, however, revised the unit count at Final approval to 186. The revised proposal is to reduce the height of the building from 19 stories to 18 stories, and increase the units from 167 units to 185. The project architecture and site plan remain the same. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Applicant Narrative Proposed Plans (Building) Landscape Plan Civil Plans Ordinance An;ndnoent Engineering Memo Traffic Study Updated Parking Study STAFF REPORT Date: July 24, 2019 To: From: Planning Commission Cary Teague, Community Development Director Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment (PUD-14), 3650 Hazelton Road. Information / Background: The applicant, 3650 Hazelton, LLC is requesting a revision to their approved PUD redeveloping the 1.25 acre parcel at 3650 Hazelton Road. The project was approved to build a 19 story 167 unit apartment. The project was approved at Preliminary Rezoning at 186 units; however, the unit count at final approval was reduced to 167 units. The current proposal is to reduce the height of the building from 19 stories to 18 stories, and increase the units from 167 units to 185. The project architecture and site plan remain the same. Features of the development still include: A Podium structure provided at ground level, with the units opening outward to access directly toward the Promenade. Enclosed and underground parking that is not visible from the Promenade or Hazelton Road. Public plaza and pedestrian connections to the Promenade and Hazelton Road. The applicant is proposing to meet the City's Affordable Housing Policy by providing a dedication of $1.9 million to provide affordable housing within the City. Sustainability. LEED or Green Globe designation would be pursued. Amenity terrace including a pool. To accommodate the request the following is required: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Revised PUD, Planned Unit Development — 14 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 • • • STAFF REPORT SUPPORTING INFORMATION Page 2 Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Brandon Square retail shops; zoned PCD-3, Planned Commercial District and guided MXC, Mixed Use Center. Easterly: Super Target; zoned PCD-3, Planned Commercial District and guided MXC, Mixed Use Center. Southerly: Think Bank; zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development District and guided MXC, Mixed Use Center. Westerly: Retail Shops; zoned PCD-3, Planned Commercial District and guided MXC, Mixed Use Center. Existing Site Features The subject property is 1.25 acres in size, is relatively flat with a retail use and surface parking Planning Guide Plan designation: MXC, Mixed Use Center. Zoning: PCD-3, Planned Commercial District Parking Based on the City Code requirement, Section 36-131 1, 1.25 fully enclosed spaces and .75 surface spaces are required per dwelling unit. (2 spaces per unit.) Therefore, the 185 unit apartment would require 370 parking spaces. The applicant is proposing 277 stalls, down from the 298 enclosed parking spaces originally proposed. Spack Consulting updated their analysis determined that 1.5 spaces per unit would be adequate. (See memo.) Site Circulation/Access/Traffic Access to the proposed development would be off Hazelton Road, into the enclosed and underground parking. No changes are proposed from the original plan. The existing roadways and parking would support the project. Spack Consulting conducted a traffic impact study that was based on a 186 unit project, and concluded that the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads. Spack updated the parking study and concluded the parking would be adequate. (See attached.) Landscaping Based on the perimeter of the site, 22 overstory trees would be required. The proposed plans show that 32 trees would be planted. A full complement of understory shrubs and bushes are also proposed. A portion of the landscaping proposed is located on the Promenade. No changes are proposed from the original plan. STAFF REPORT Grading/Drainage/Utilities Page 3 No changes are proposed. The city engineer's original review will remain a condition of any approval. Any approvals of this project would be subject to review and approval of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, as they are the City's review authority over the grading of the site. Building/Building Material The building materials would be a combination of brick, stone, and glass, with metal panel accents. Again, no changes are proposed to the materials. Mechanical Equipment Any rooftop and/or ground level equipment would have to be screened if visible from adjacent property lines. Loading Dock/Trash Enclosures Loading area would be on the west side of the building west of the entrance. Trucks would pull in forward and would enter the building through the parking garage. Trucks could back out within the project before entering Hazelton Road. No changes. Living Streets/Multi-Modal Consideration Sec. 36-1274. - Sidewalks, trails and bicycle facilities. (a) In order to promote and provide safe and effective sidewalks and trails in the City and encourage the use of bicycles for recreation and transportation, the following improvements are required, as a condition of approval, on developments requiring the approval of a final development plan or the issuance of a conditional use permit pursuant to article V of this chapter: (I) It is the policy of the City to require the construction of sidewalks and trails wherever feasible so as to encourage pedestrian and bicycle connectivity throughout the City. Therefore, developments shall provide sidewalks and trails which adjoin the applicant's property: a. In locations shown on the City's sidewalk and trail plan; and b. In other locations where the council finds that the provision of such sidewalks and trails enhance public access to mass transit facilities or connections to other existing or planned sidewalks, trails or public facilities. (2) Developments shall provide sidewalks between building entrances and sidewalks or trails which exist or which will be constructed pursuant to this section. (3) Developments shall provide direct sidewalk and trail connections with adjoining properties where appropriate. (4) Developments must provide direct sidewalk and trail connections to transit stations or transit stops adjoining the property. (5) Design standards for sidewalks and trails shall be prescribed by the engineer. • • • • STAFF REPORT Page 4 (6) Nonresidential developments having an off-street automobile parking requirement of 20 or more spaces must provide off-street bicycle parking spaces where bicycles may be parked and secured from theft by their owners. The minimum number of bicycle parking spaces required shall be five percent of the automobile parking space requirement. The design and placement of bicycle parking spaces and bicycle racks used to secure bicycles shall be subject to the approval of the city engineer. Whenever possible, bicycle parking spaces shall be located within 50 feet of a public entrance to a principal building. (b) The expense of the improvements set forth in subsection (a) of this section shall be borne by the applicant. The proposal to add 185 units of housing on the Promenade would increase and enhance pedestrian movement in the area. Direct connections to the Promenade would be made from individual units and from the apartment. There would be dedicated bike storage and a bike maintenance area. COMPLIANCE TABLE While the applicant is proposing to rezone the site to PUD, the following table demonstrates compliance with the underlying zoning: City Standard (PCD-3) Proposed Building Setbacks 210 feet (based on height) 2 I 0 feet (based on height) 210 feet (based on height) 210 feet (based on height) Podium Tower 45 feet 70 feet 10 feet 30 feet 15 feet 70 feet 10 feet 10 feet Front — Hazelton Road Side - East Side — West Rear — North Building Height Eight stories and 96 feet Nineteen stories and 220 feet* Eighteen stories and 210 feet** Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.00% 7.O%* 4.6** Parking Stalls 340 enclosed (residential) 298 enclosed* 277 enclosed** Parking Stall Size 8.5' x 18' 8.5 x 18' Drive Aisle Width 24 feet 24 feet * Allowed per PUD 11 — Stricken Language **Revised Language STAFF REPORT Page 5 PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Are the proposed Plan amendments reasonable to justify the revised PUD, Planned Unit Development? Yes. Staff believes the proposed amendment is reasonable for the following reasons: I. The proposal would be one-story and ten feet shorter than the previously approved plan. 2. The proposal would be one unit less than the plans that were approved at Preliminary Rezoning. 3. There are no changes proposed to the building material or general look of the building. 4. There are no changes proposed to the site or landscape plan. 5. Spack Consulting has concluded that the proposed parking is adequate to serve the project. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the request for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to PUD- I4 and the revised Site Plan subject to the following findings: I. The proposed land use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed buildings would be a high quality brick, stone and glass. They are designed to mix and blend with the existing buildings in the area. 3. The PUD would ensure that the building proposed would be the only building built on the site, unless an amendment to the PUD is approved by City Council. 4. The proposed site plan and building materials are the same as previously approved in PUD-I4. 5. The proposal would be one-story and ten feet shorter than the previously approved plan. 6. The proposal would be one unit less than the plans that were approved at Preliminary Rezoning. 7. There are no changes proposed to the site or landscape plan. 8. The existing roadways and parking would support the project. Spack Consulting conducted a traffic impact study that was based on a 186 unit project, and concluded that • • • • STAFF REPORT Page 6 the proposed development could be supported by the existing roads. Spack updated the parking study and concluded the parking would be adequate. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: I. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Chapter 36 of the Zoning Ordinance. A performance bond, letter -of -credit, or cash deposit must be submitted for one and one-half times the cost amount for completing the required landscaping, screening, or erosion control measures at the time of any building permit. 2. Provision of code compliant bike racks for each use near the building entrances. 3. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum requirements per Section 36-1260 of the City Code. 4. Roof -top mechanical equipment shall be screened per Section 36-1459 of the City Code. 5. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district's requirements. 6. A cash -in -lieu of affordable housing in the amount of $1.9 million dollars shall be contributed to the City for affordable housing. Payment shall be received prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated March 21, 2018. 8. Compliance with the Spack Consulting Traffic & Parking Study recommendations. 9. Subject to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment amending the PUD-I4, Planned Unit Development for this site. Deadline for a city decision: September 4, 2019 3650 Hazelton Redevelopment Narrative Update June 24, 2019 Overview: The proposed Edina Promenade Residences at 3650 Hazelton Road will remove the existing Guitar Center building and replace it with a high-rise luxury apartment building. The development team has secured equity financing and would like to move forward with the following modifications, with construction commencing very early 2020. City Approvals: 1) April 17, 2018: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan Approval a 19-story, 186-unit luxury apartment building. 2) October 16, 2018: Final rezoning from PCD-3, Planned Commercial District to PUD-I4, Planned Unit Development and final Development Plan. Following the April 17, 2018 approval of the project, the development team made modifications to reduce the unit count within the approved project to accommodate some larger dwelling units. This did not reduce the overall square footage or height of the building. The larger units did however reduce the unit count from 186 to 167 which was included in the October 16, 2018 Final Rezoning and Development Plan. Zoning Amendment Request: The purpose of this Zoning Ordinance Amendment application is to request the following modifications to the original approved project: 1) Reduced Height: Modify the approved design from 19 stories / 218 feet to 18 stories / 207 feet. 2) Unit Count Adjustments: a. 186 units originally approved April 17, 2018 by City Council. b. Adjusted to 167 units in October 2018 to reflect larger units. c. 185 units proposed as final unit count. 3) Gross Square Footage: Reduction from 382,766 SF to 362,000 SF 4) FAR Reduction: 4.8 to 4.6 5) Parking: Provide 277 parking spaces vs. of 298 spaces (based on further water table engineer analysis and structural design refinements). 6) Note: Site Plan, Exterior Materials and Landscape Plans remain consistent with the previously approved Preliminary Development Plan Submittal. • • • • • • Explanation for the requested modifications as follows: 1. After the initial city approval of the project in April 2018 (186 units and 19 stories), the development and design teams moved immediately into design development, financing and further market evaluation. The development team concluded a gap and need in the marketplace for larger units similar to The Lakes Residences on Lake Calhoun. The resulting larger unit design reduced the unit count from 186 to 167. However, the US and International capital markets did not accept the larger unit sizes which affected the cost per unit (too high for Minneapolis — St Paul). CBRE managed the equity sourcing and contacted over 80 equity investors. 2. To solve the financing issue, the development team eliminated one building level (now 18 stories) and returned close to the original April 2018 city approved unit density by adding back 18 units resulting in 185 units. By making the changes noted, construction cost per unit improved and the project immediately attracted necessary committed equity to move forward. 3. When carefully examining the water table in the geotechnical report, it was concluded that a small portion of the below grade area needed to be eliminated to safely stay above the water table and avoid any pumping of water. This results in the elimination of 21 parking stalls while still maintaining a parking ratio of 1.5, appropriate to the marketplace. Edina, MN 55435 1 U CU • w cc Promenade co DRAWING INDEX ZI YYYY wa $a a a 2 F a B ' A m n .. 9 9 x^ 9 9 .^. .`. ' A $ X 8 F ' n R S '' a G -; � R a x x a a a& a 4 a 7 a rrr yi F s tKaRa r E s; e a a^ Y x as 8 a s i 3 a n x 8 a 1 F 3000-0 a..„„ .............. ...„^ o...00..000..o PROJECT TEAM 8 8 RFD irFi . PROJECT LOCATION 0 0 0 41 UI v)rg, 4)1 VIEW FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 •,' 3650 Hazelton Rd. - Edina SITE IMAGES AO.1 g o ,, VIEW FROM THE ROAD AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE 1.11.0 WE stO,AZ/9 1.0ij t .\\\ ..\.\\A • to REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 . _ a '11 3650 HazeIton Rd. - Edina P2 AND P1 PARKING PLAN A0.2 _, gc•i :-: Rik 1/4 ROA/ SOWN a S =a It El _I- 1. 1-- 1 I I • . • • • . L . ., I I • • • • I I • 1 • • I I • 1 i • • • • • r • k ! ) 1 • 1 I 1 , i ! / P 1 : 1 • • • • I• . . • • • • ! ' I • • • • _ , / 1 L'D 41) .1 SO II ISOM" 4 4 8 9 9 4 j MI GM MMUS REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 : 3650 HazeIton 3d. - Edina LEVEL 3 AND LEVEL 4 PLAN A0.4 _ _ ttatnetcacantt 3650 Hazelton Rd. REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 o _ 3650 Hazelton Rd. - Edina LEVEL 5 AND LEVEL 6-14 PLAN A0.5 4D 4® REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 il 3650 Ha/01ton Rd. - Edina LEVEL 15-16 AND LEVEL 17 PLAN A0.6 ,a 1111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII' Iwsssissu`fuslsun ii IIIM O 1111111illlillll11 i ::::: PHIIHii ii ii#{{iIIIPsii! REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 o � 3650 Hazelton Rd. - Edina LEVEL 18 / ROOF A0.7 / I V411Z It Matt, H REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 In 3650 Hazeiton Rd. - Edina EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A0.8 11. Mil NW 1111 11111111 MI NV MI MIN mu EN mu IN INIII. �1'1I 1111 1111.=1: NI W I =1=I — gu it -aMINIM 1 s a :� l- :i :ice :- :a WO MOW Pig jai :,� age [ mil EEO ® n tf ■ _IEW mg_ _ YIDS' Yi1 WWII Y�1 Y�1 mumu `I mau . 1— 1 _I am �I 1111 NI NI NI MI n!1 FIN Wi iil�n�n-ntINs�n�n•1ma ®�-:. .iY�i iai:i R�RRi:R mfi rsc Mt a rim ien • El .n wn •1 IOU .ifii i:i i:ii�'.i�1 JtHlIIItII I I I I I I I I s II II METAL PANEL COLOR p3 I I II I 1 1 1 I I II I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I I III 5 U Z Q ro_, z'''o a 0 Z 2 N w . is 3650 HazeIton Rd. - Edina EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A0.9 Q 41 0 0 o IN b. UUUiE111111�1 =I: 1..1 salmlism T �'°°- Lin ' iALA gilliso MIN IN III ri:X..-LaCi MI . s5 a..i .rI.011i.e.Ie. I.1.I.I! •1 Ell = = Flue M -� = IA . MI Mt .d. ��II.I-NII1NIN i NM:::: II N i: NO t I I 'IIIIII �`NE 1111 Ill NM IIII III 111 III Ill 11111 x"z � III I I th II 3 I I I 31 MI NISI NM rill Et LS!! --11101111119111911111 � — _ 1 OM 1`.I 1'.I oims assonspasamansumus int �1 r.. I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I11 I! 1 1 1 1 1 1 el Id 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 ICI IF 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 'I I 1 I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CB 4' ' 0+ JJ DARK ANODIZED MULLIONS BRICK AT TOWER O ti REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 tg 3650 Haxelton Rd. - Edina EXTERIOR MATERIALS A0.10 METAL 2 - PREFINISHED METAL PANEL - WOOD LOOK (3 COLOR BLEND) BRICK AT TOWN HOME AND GARAGE (BLEND OF THE TWO IMAGES ABOVE) METAL 3-METAL PANEL- DARKCHARC METAL 1- COMPOSITE METAL PANEL - CORTEN • 3650 Hazelton Rd. m w AERIAL CONTEXT LOOKING NORTHWEST REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 o =off 3650 Hazelton Rd. - Edina PERSPECTIVE VIEWS A0.11 AERIAL CONTEXT LOOKING NORTH rat" [MALI +0 Jo 0 AERIAL DETAIL AT PROM REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 o a= , g 3650 Hazeltan Rd. - Edina PERSPECTIVE VIEWS A0.12 z. 0 0 0 0 3 STREET LEVEL VIEW FROM NEIGHBORING PARKING LOT (LOOKING EAST) STREET VIEW ALONG PROMENADE (LOOKING WEST) L.7 cl” c:Lij REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 6' 2 - ! ,A E 3650 HazeIton Rd. - Edina PERSPECTIVE VIEWS A0.13 — ..•.,. 511 81 `g ; Wall t MMUS REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 d' 3650 HazeIton Rd. - Edina PERSPECTIVE VIEWS AO.14 ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING STRATEGY (LOOKING NW) ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING STRATEGY (LOOKING NE) !to I I 1 1 I I 1 111 1 1 REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 1 ,,1 3650 Haxelton Rd. - Edina SECTIONS A0.15 g 0 ° 'LI' •, 2 = I I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 11 I I I 1 1 1 Q, 9,Z 00Z 0 2 2 4D 4D WarEii160.1. 6 SEM SEE; 1 5 I 15 I 55 ; 12 3.1,1 goee 11 [I] lir g 0000000 5 5 E 56 5 gE gg 55 0000000 REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 , E "ED2 Hazelton Rd Apts, Edina LANDSCAPE PLAN L1.0 1 g 'A g 2 J j, 111 wes,NninoWna PLANTING NOTES REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 o t r 4) fi llII HazeIton Rd Apts, Edina LANDSCAPE DETAILS L2.0 2 a f 2 a o8 w 9 z z z a 2 Z w W a U a 3; gg==gggg siio= )11 1,10.1.13ZVH 059£ .0A 61/K/90 .POP NO VNICI3 S33N3GIS3113.3%/N3H1021d VNIG3 ••••••••••• poom4seM 53,00153110,011110,1.101 0 NVld S1VAOINRI 0 41' ?4? SNO1110 NOD DNIISIX3 F 5; REMOVAL LEGEND EXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND g ; Lg. ; 2 - gliP iM; 11111111111111 ;UTT 11 0 00 0 4 .0 oe 11 9 11 11 010.4 • I, 4.0mo*, a 4o0o000.,0 REMOVAL KEYNOTES 0 EGAL DESCRIPTION 0. LOT 4. BILOCK I. LLLOPKTOWH. ILIMILILPI,WILILY. ac,gogrokgeaboocriook 810Z/MET • • • ZOM"N"'IA 311 'N0113Z1/H 0S9E I NIN VNI03 ..•,....,........ 'Itr S33N30IS311 KIVN3V11011d \MICH ....'... 7aSSEgagikd poompem NVld 31IS SINI)01. 30,00WOtld V14103 1! o o d 9mo nodszonqao.ruz.e.cono, tto. syn=Na DTI NO.1.13ZVH 059£ 031,1d. VNI03 S3DN3015311301/NMOIld %MICR poom;sem NVld 1C1NOD NO1502J3 74? ONICIVED Deno 14.59Z0.10.11,1.5.002011.100,1,1 • • • SJDHICISN 30,01,10.3 INKI) NW WO 5331,1101011 3CIVN3W021d VNICI3 5,,ISI^,tl STOZ/f Z/Z0 :fds= Dll 1.101.13ZVH 059E 'WA 031:1,131:1d NVld DNICV219 03021V1N3 - --•-•,•.' ,—„,..—e-----/ 7--"• Igr i..,. \:',IL - -;„,- .---,_ - ..1----1---- 0 ......„,,, ,_‘ -T-1 \ rn U 8 0 9mazomeotrz COLAZ/Z0 sia= Dll 'N0113ZVH 059E ORIV031Id V1,1103 S3DN3a1SPI3OVN3W021d VNICI3 NVld NIVINi131VM CINV aVIINVS oma IIVILO(*101.1,5.00,0,,100,1 • • • ..m ftwithig0 si== 311 'N0113ZVH 0S9E NOJ 0321.3.1 6000, 6I/17= NIN VNICI3 S3391301S321 3CIIIN1INO9d vrea3 PoomiseM NVld 213M3S 1N/JOIS TT"13=1101:1= si u• I ofu HI! 1111 I ; 11 11S117SIlllIN1nn 1113 MIESEEERSIIMEES9IP EA; uo!ly..11p3ads °Dv ! Ell 6, STORM SEWER LEGEND f g 1 I 4 1 t 1 ninaliinnilaraV,221,4 1 kalliSCIMEEElliri 11 MiiiIii”"°;:ili MglliIlthMi11Si1I!1l 1MIIItIl1i1M,l1i1iMt1IrIII MOiI i i1111il11l 2 -22 — 2, •1,."- . 11.',1!• • ' i i1iiI 1 ; 1 ii Il t a ii t I 111 til II ;1' i 11 ili1; ii 1.1, iI!lPWii ,p0lip.l1. Hil1slil lhiwg INFO 1.atO MO 0.E pi 1iI1l1i ..2 i § 4;iE; 111IRIE1as1a1sa MU Min 111;1;141E141111311; iNin{; 11111111111111111111111111111111 MIMI I • ESSE 7En13a1s;i;2;s !Et !En.•9°E.SSIESEE iiiiiiiiiiiiiMilil 11119:1;;;111:11; 1-!•!1•Ish! Isni sz•zs•s=s• 1••••• 111I11I lipil NO lit- 1,,11 filii 1111/1 •I ' 1411 lliollihpi Phi MEI; I ! al II 11 Pi; P hs,i. I HI It fit 0 It 0411111 b 1. lkilft1.1 dif i 61, ili 111401 i'l I t III ilettpit. Ihilaji •1::•;•'' uosivess.solui stcslits.)1,03adS O)V STOW DEVJED CASING SCHEDULE 0 STORM KEYNOTES AT= 311 'NO.L132VH 059E . S33N3a1S3V poompam SlIV13C1 AlID 11 515 5 0 1 JI 5.31010t001.11/0.41.2001. Dll'N0113ZVH 059E NW VNM1 53JN3OI531130VN3WONd VNIO3 SlIV13O 3=3 ig , a g 3EI; �� Ill 110 @ I NIL- ,.k- :,t. �31 16, Saxdg ? `�`, 4 . - _ ; T MBE' IICI I . 1 3.. 1 `r am � • fig 9. �b1;dtlt.¢ 38 Y E 9 I L e,gee tyv� T -J 1 0€�9 p °g 0. ' rad 1 a ~'dig \\\' .: 1 I .1 eY t.Q i1§ 3ppgg iyis;1 II a -;%g pp y yy e2 4:1� ii aa. jd e pF @p i ie'u \ g x E ga i 3 a' sCF \j _ 3 Y 8a 9� is }/ 1 t i lsy ' d tl i A1$ 6ti g itl iqI.l is 1.. a z. a ' ..0 e i i pi ill p•p�p 1ie aia 1 3 10.. POI ,'a e jk 0:.g1:110 i ;sey yiiv1 1 1 I •il t1.i i l y ,.I 1 I� C"s 9 33 ��e3-'Fv3i3 }5 E, ESajB e- s ® 9 \� 9\i o ' Se dd g� r�e.nr 3t� _.. e gg ... to aat�: T DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION AUGUST 7, 2019 ORDINANCE NO. 2019- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE PUD-I4, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-I4 ZONING DISTRICT The City Of Edina Ordains: Section I. Chapter 36, Article VIII, Division 4 is hereby revised as follows: Sec. 36-507 Planned Unit Development District-I4 (PUD-I4) (a) Legal description: Lot 4, Block I, Yorktown, Hennepin County, MN (b) Approved Plans. Incorporated herein by reference are the re -development plans, including the master development plan for the site received by the City on October I, 20-I-8 June 24, 2019 except as amended by City Council Resolution No. 20118-11004 2019- on file in the Office of the Planning Department. (c) Principal Uses: All uses allowed in the PCD-3 Zoning District Multi -family Apartments/Condos. (d) Accessory Uses: All accessory uses allowed in the PCD-3 Zoning District. (e) Conditional Uses: All conditional uses allowed in the PCD-3 Zoning District. Development Standards. In addition to the development standards per the PCD-3 Zoning District, the following shall apply: (f) Required Building Setbacks Podium Tower Front — Hazelton Road Side - East Side — West Rear — North 45 feet 70 feet 10 feet 30 feet 15 feet 70 feet 10 feet 10 feet Building Height 19 220 feet stories and 18 stories and 210 feet Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 7 % 4.6% Parking Stalls 298 stalls enclosed 277 stalls enclosed Parking Stall Size 8.5 x 18' • • • Drive Aisle Width 24 feet Xxx — language stricken Xxx — language added (g) Signs shall be regulated per the PRD Zoning District. (h) All new development must conform to the city's affordable housing policy as determined by the City Council. Section 2. This ordinance is effective upon passage by the City Council. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: Attest: August 7, 20I 9 Sharon Allison, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk 2 DATE: TO: CC: FROM: Chad Millner PE — Director of Engineering Charlie Gerk PE — Graduate Engineer March 21, 2018 3650 Hazelton Road, Owner and Development Team Cary Teague — Community Development Director RE: 3650 Hazelton Road — Development Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for pedestrian facilities, utility connections, grading, and storm water. Plans reviewed were; Civil, Landscape, and Survey drawings dated 02/23/2018. Review Comment Required For • General I. Executed site improvement agreement that outlines public vs private responsibilities and ownership for private improvements on public property. Grading/Building Permit 1.1 Fulfill any requirements for rights to proceed with work. Grading/Building Permit 1.2 Fulfill all outstanding requirements. Certificate of Occupancy 2. Due to use of City property for storm water management, "Promenade Conceptual Design" landscaping design shown on sheet LI.0 shall be constructed, at developer's expense, at the time of construction. Design to be coordinated with Parks Department. Developer, at their cost, will at the request of the City work with a landscape architect of the City's choice. Grading/Building Permit 3. Proposed designs for private improvements on public property are considered conceptual only at this time. Design to be coordinated with Parks Department. Developer, at their cost, will at the request of the City work with a landscape architect of the City's choice. Grading/Building Permit 4. Survey Deliver as -build records of public and private utility infrastructure post construction. Certificate of Occupancy 5. An existing and proposed site condition survey is required. Grading/Building Permit 5.1 Show all existing and proposed public and private easements. Grading/Building Permit 6. Clearly denote private sidewalk. Maintenance for non-public sidewalks to be responsibility of property owner. Grading/Building Permit ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov . 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 • 7. Clearly indicate private vs public utilities. Grading/Building Permit Living Streets 8. Design sidewalks to meet ADA requirements. Grading/Building Permit 9. Saw cut concrete sidewalk joints on public sidewalks. Grading/Building Permit 10. Public sidewalk to be minimum 5' in width with 5' planted boulevard. Grading/Building Permit Traffic and Street I I. Review fire access requirements with fire department. Fire truck turning template attached. Grading/Building Permit 12. Provide traffic study and implement city approved recommendations. Grading/Building Permit 13. Curb cut permit required for entrance movement / reconstruction. Prior to Reconstructing Entrance 14. Road patching shall conform to Edina Standard Plates 540-545. Certificate of Occupancy Sanitary and Water Utilities 15. Verify fire demand and hydrant locations. Grading/Building Permit 16. Domestic water shall be sized by the developer's engineer. Grading/Building Permit 17. Domestic sanitary shall be sized by the developer's engineer. Grading/Building Permit 18. Apply for a sewer and water connection permit with public works. Prior to Starting Utility Work 18.1 Meter required for building service line and combined lines. No meter required for fire only service line. Grading/Building Permit I8.2 Public works to determine acceptable installation methods. Grading/Building Permit 19. Disconnected sanitary and water services to be capped at main. 20. A SAC determination will be required by the Metropolitan Council. The SAC determination will be used by the city to calculate sewer and water connection charges Grading/Building Permit 21. Fire service should have a PIV or equivalent and the domestic line should have its own gate valve. Grading/Building Permit Storm Water Utility 22. Provide geotechnical report with soil borings. Grading/Building Permit 23. Provide hydraulic and hydrologic report meeting watershed and state construction site permit requirements. Grading/Building Permit ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 24. Provide more detailed information for retention system. 24.1 Ensure influence zone of infiltration chamber does not impact underground parking. Grading/Building Permit Grading/Building Permit 24.2 Retention system engineer required to verify construction of the underground retention systems done per plan. Certificate of Occupancy 24.3 Confirm retention system is structural designed for Edina's 80,000Ib fire truck load and outriggers in parking lot areas. Grading/Building Permit 25. Submit watershed district permit and copies of private maintenance agreement in favor of watershed. Grading/Building Permit Grading Erosion and Sediment Control 26. A SWPPP consistent with the state general construction site stormwater permit is required. Grading/Building Permit Constructability and Safety 27. Construction staging, traffic control, and pedestrian access plans will be required. Other Agency Coordination Grading/Building Permit 28. Hennepin County, MDH, MPCA and MCES permits required as needed. Grading/Building Permit 29. Nine Mile Creek and / or Minnehaha Creek Watershed Districts permit(s) are required. Grading/Building Permit ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov . 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 CONSULTING ENGINEERING TRAFFIC FORWARD Traffic Impact Study 3650 Hazelton Apartments Redevelopment Edina, Minnesota I hereby certify this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. By: Date: Bryant J. Ficek, P.E., P.T.O.E. License No. 42802 Executive Summary Background: A residential redevelopment is proposed on the current site of the Guitar Center store, located in the northeast quadrant of the Hazelton Road roundabout intersection, between the France Avenue and York Avenue intersections in Edina, Minnesota. The purpose of this study is to determine the traffic impacts associated with the build out of the proposed redevelopment on the study roads and intersections where significant impact is anticipated. Results: The principal findings of this traffic study are: • The proposed apartment development is expected to generate up to approximately 1,000 new trips during an average weekday, 69 new trips during the weekday a.m. peak hour and 89 new trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour. This traffic is more than the current site generates and will increase traffic in the area. • The proposed redevelopment is expected to generate significantly Tess traffic compared to the maximum intensity use of the site. A 100,000 square -foot medical would be expected to generate approximately 3,480 daily, 278 a.m. peak hour, and 346 p.m. peak hour trips. • All roadways in the study network are forecast to operate within capacity for the number of lanes provided. • All study intersections are forecast to operate acceptably in terms of average delay through the build scenarios. Several individual approaches to the signalized intersections have longer delays or vehicle queues than desired. • The redevelopment does not significantly change the operations in terms of overall intersection delays or individual approach results. • The specific operations of the Auto Arrival Court are unknown. Specific concerns are providing adequate space for drop-offs/pick-ups and visitor parking as well as the service and loading area maneuvers. • The site has multiple bicycle, pedestrian, and transit amenities surrounding it, with limited information shown in the site plan about how to connect the redevelopment to these amenities. • The Edina Promenade crossing of Hazeltine Boulevard is classified as a low -risk crossing, has no crashes in the past five years, and has more -than -acceptable treatments for safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle crossings. Recommendations: The following items are recommended based on the analyses presented and the results of the study as summarized above: • No roadway or traffic control mitigation is necessary to acceptably accommodate traffic expected from the residential redevelopment. However, the Hazelton Road intersections with France Avenue and with York Avenue should continue to be monitored. • The City should continue to work with Hennepin County on proper timing for the France Avenue and York Avenue corridors, balancing the needs of the mainline with adequate access for the side streets. • Operations of the Auto Arrival Court should be further explored with the developer. • Specific pedestrian and bicycle connections to the surrounding amenities should be identified along with plans for bicycle parking or other facilities. • Consider striping and ADA treatments for the site access leg of the roundabout. • Provide tenants with information regarding transit options as part of a move -in packet and explore the feasibility of a real-time transit screen. Traffic Impact Study 3650 Hazelton Apartments CONSULTING l • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 2. Existing Conditions 2 3. Forecasted Traffic 4 4. Analyses 6 5. Conclusions and Recommendations 12 6. Appendix 14 LIST OF TABLES & CHARTS Table 1 — Study Corridor Characteristics 2 Table 2 — New Trip Generation 4 Table 3 — Maximum Commercial Trip Generation 5 Chart 1 — Study Corridor Volume to Capacity 6 Chart 2 — AM Peak Hour Delays: Signal Controlled Intersections 7 Chart 3 — PM Peak Hour Delays: Signal Controlled Intersections 8 Chart 4 — AM Peak Hour Delays: Roundabout -Controlled Intersections 8 Chart 5 — PM Peak Hour Delays: Roundabout -Controlled Intersections 9 Traffic Impact Study ii 3650 Hazelton Apartments CONSULTING 1. Introduction a. Proposed Development A new residential redevelopment is proposed on the current site of the Guitar Center store, located in the northeast quadrant of the Hazelton Road roundabout intersection, between the France Avenue and York Avenue intersections in Edina, Minnesota. Although the current site plan presented consists of 186 dwelling units in a 19-story tower, the actual number of units could be between 100 and 200. For the purposes of this study, the worst -case scenario of 200 units is evaluated. b. Purpose of Study The purpose of this study is to determine the traffic impacts associated with the build out of the proposed residential redevelopment. The traffic impacts are studied on the roads and intersections where significant impact is anticipated, and improvements are recommended where mitigation is needed. For those not familiar with the general concepts and terms associated with traffic engineering, The Language of Traffic Engineering guide is included in the Appendix. c. Study Objectives The objectives of this study are: i. Document how the study intersections and roadways currently operate. ii. Forecast the amount of traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development. iii. Determine how the study intersections and roadways will operate in the future with and without the proposed development. iv. Review the site circulation and multi -modal aspects. v. Recommend appropriate mitigation measures if poor operations or areas of concern are identified. The roadway corridors studied in this document include those surrounding the proposed site, which are: i. Hazelton Road ii. France Avenue iii. York Avenue The study intersections closest to the proposed development and where the greatest impact is expected were chosen for review and include: i. Hazelton Road and France Avenue ii. Hazelton Road and Site Driveway Roundabout iii. Hazelton Road and York Avenue For the purposes of this traffic study, the analysis year is 2020, representing the year after full build -out and occupancy expected in 2019. Traffic Impact Study 1 3650 Hazelton Apartments CONSULTING 2. Existing Conditions a. Corridor Characteristics As mentioned, the proposed redevelopment site is located on the north side of Hazelton Road. Figure 1 shows the vicinity of the site and the study area. Figure 2 shows the proposed site's Concept Plan. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the key roadway corridors around the proposed site and within the study area. Table 1 — Study Corridor Characteristics Name Speed Designation' Classification2 Limit Lanes Transit3 Peds/ Bicycles Hazelton Road France Avenue MSAS 166 CSAH 17 Collector A -Minor Arterial Reliever 30 mph 40 mph 2 divided (west of site) 4 undivided east of site ( 6 divided 1 Route 20 Min. 2 Routes 30 Min. Sidewalks on both sides Sidewalk on west Trail on east York Avenue CSAH 31 B-Minor Arterial 35 mph 4 divided 4 Routes 15 Min. Sidewalks on both sides 1 MSAS = Municipal State Aid Route, CSAH= County State Aid Highway 2 City of Edina Comprehensive Plan 3 Number of routes around the proposed site followed by the frequency of transit service during the peak periods. b. Traffic Volumes Intersection video was collected at each study intersection under normal weekday conditions in January 2018. Using these videos, 48-hour turning movement counts were obtained at the study intersections. The standard commuter peak hours for this area are 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. The turning movement counts from these two peak hours were used in the intersection analyses. The turning movement count data from the counts are contained in 15-minute intervals in the Appendix. Based on the turning movement volumes and the Minnesota Department of Transportation's (MnDOT's) Traffic Mapping Application, the current daily traffic volumes on each study corridor are: i. 30,000 vehicles per day on France Avenue ii. 19,300 vehicles per day on York Avenue north of Hazelton Road iii. 7,600 vehicles per day on Hazelton Road c. Non -Vehicular Traffic Ample pedestrian and bicycle facilities are present in the study area, with sidewalks/trails on both sides of York Avenue, France Avenue, and Hazelton Road, as well as a promenade crossing to the east of the site access roundabout. The Edina Promenade connects various retail, residential, and recreational amenities in the Southdale area. Traffic Impact Study 2 3650 Hazelton Apartments CONSULTING Pedestrian and bicycle activity was recorded with the vehicles at every intersection with crossing movements counted at each intersection. The heaviest non -motorized volume occurred at the Hazelton Road/York Avenue intersection, likely reflecting movements between the residential and commercial areas. MnDOT's Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool was utilized to assess current pedestrian and bicycle safety on the study roads. From January 2006 to December 2015, three crashes occurred at the Hazelton Road/York Avenue intersection involving pedestrians or bicycles. All crashes were determined to be a result of the driver distraction or failure to yield right -out -way and none resulted in any incapacitating injury. Traffic Impact Study 3 3650 Hazelton Apartments CONSULTING 1 • • 3. Forecasted Traffic a. Site Traffic Forecasting A trip generation analysis was performed for the development site based on the methods published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Trip generation rates are provided in the same ITE manual as well as from local data collected by Spack Consulting. The ITE manual compiles studies from across the country to provide a national average traffic for various land uses. Spack Consulting collects current average traffic volumes for various land uses in the Twin Cities regional area for use in our studies. Local data is considered more relevant than the ITE national data as it is generally newer and accounts for our area's specific characteristics and driving habits. Per the procedure in the Trip Generation Manual, local trip generation data is used when possible and supplemented with national ITE data when local data is not available. For each analysis, the raw trip generation was divided among three types of trips — new, pass -by, and internal. Pass -by trips are those vehicles already on the roads which will stop at the development site in the future. Internal trips are those vehicles within the site visiting two or more stores. New trips represent traffic increasing the overall number of vehicles at the intersections. For this study, with the proposed development being residential, all trips are treated as new. Table 2 shows the new trips generated by the proposed development. Table 2 — New Trip Generation Land Use Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code — In Out In Out In Out Source' Description & Size 222 - ITE Multi -family Housing (high-rise) (200 dwelling units) 500 500 17 52 47 30 Local Apartment Building (200 dwelling units) 481 481 12 50 56 33 Trip Generation to Use 500 500 17 52 56 33 'Local = Trip generation data collected by Spack Consulting in this regional area. As shown in Table 2, the ITE and Spack Consulting expected trip generation for the site is similar. To present a conservatively high analysis, the ITE data was used for the Daily and a.m. peak hour. The Spack Consulting data was used for the p.m. peak hour. The close correlation between the data indicates that the ITE data fits well within the Twin Cities region. For comparison purposes, Table 3 presents the trip generation assuming the maximum intensity of development for the site. In this case, the maximum intensity Traffic Impact Study 4 3650 Hazelton Apartments CONSULTING is a medical office of approximately 100,000 square feet. As shown, the proposed development has a much smaller traffic impact compared to the maximum use. Table 3 — Maximum Commercial Trip Generation Land Use Code — Sourcel Description & Size Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out In Out In Out 222 ITE Multi -family Housing (high-rise) (200 dwelling units) 500 500 17 52 47 30 720 - ITE Medical Office (100,000 sq. ft.) 1,740 1,740 217 61 97 249 Difference 1,240 1,240 200 9 50 219 A trip distribution pattern was developed for the generated traffic of the proposed development. Based on existing counts as well as access to the regional transportation system, the general trip distribution pattern for this study is: i. 31 % of the generated traffic to/from the north on France Avenue. ii. 31 % of the generated traffic to/from the south on France Avenue. iii. 20% of the generated traffic to/from the north on York Avenue. iv. 17% of the generated traffic to/from the south on York Avenue. v. 1 % of the generated traffic to/from the west on Hazelton Road. Traffic generated by the site development was assigned to the area roadways per this distribution pattern. b. Non -site Traffic Forecasting To forecast traffic volumes for the future years 2020 and 2023 beyond the proposed development's traffic, general growth in traffic was added. Using MnDOT traffic data, the historic roadway volumes in the study area were examined. These volumes show relatively stable or decreasing volumes within the study area. In general, Edina could also be considered a relatively developed city expected to experience a lower growth rate. However, the France Avenue corridor is experiencing an increase in redevelopment. The 2016 Southdale Area Transportation Study was also consulted for expected growth in this area. From this information, a 1.0 percent annual growth rate was applied to the existing volumes to generate the forecast 2020 traffic volumes. This growth was applied to all existing movements in the study network to establish the No -Build forecasts. c. Total Traffic Traffic forecasts were developed for the 2020 Build scenario by adding the traffic generated by the proposed development to the No -Build forecast volumes. The forecasted peak hour volumes for each study intersection are shown in the Appendix. Traffic Impact Study 5 3650 Hazelton Apartments CONSULTING 4. Analyses a. Corridor Vehicular Analysis While many factors contribute to a road feeling congested, the two biggest factors are volume, how many vehicles are using the road, and capacity, how many vehicles the road can accommodate per day. Transportation professionals use these pieces of information to create a ratio of volume to capacity. For example, a road with a volume to capacity ratio of 1.0, where the traffic demand is equal to the traffic supply, will feel congested to motorists. Below is a rough guide of the maximum daily traffic volumes different types of roads can accommodate based on the Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition, Exhibit 16- 16. If the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume on a roadway is below the threshold, then it is considered un-congested. If the daily volume is over the threshold, the road is near congestion or is congested. The range in volumes reflect different characteristics such as having exclusive turn lanes, intersection traffic control like signals, and proper access spacing. All study roads would be expected to be at the_ higher end of these volume ranges for their number of lanes. • 2-Lane Roads; volumes between 8,900 to 18,300 vehicles per day. • 4-Lane Roads; volumes between 18,600 and 36,800 vehicles per day. • 6-Lane Roads; volumes between 29,100 and 55,300 vehicles per day. For an initial planning level screening, Chart 1 provides volume to capacity ratios of the study corridors to determine if any of the roadway corridors are candidates for additional through lanes. As shown, the study roads are all below the planning threshold. In addition, the proposed redevelopment does not significantly change the volume -to -capacity ratios. Chart 1 — Study Corridor Volume to Capacity 0 co 1.2 1 > 0.8 •0 Q u 0.6 0 0.4 0 0.2 0 Congested: volume/capacity of 1.0 or greater Hazelton Road 1 France Avenue Existing 12020 No -Build E"3 2020 Future Build Traffic Impact Study 6 3650 Hazelton Apartments York Avenue CONSULTING b. Intersection Vehicular Analysis Individual intersections can perform poorly during peak periods while the overall roadway corridor is operating with an uncongested daily volume to capacity ratio lower than 1.0. Therefore, capacity analyses are performed for the study intersections to determine if they need improvements, such as turn lanes or an upgrade in traffic control. The existing and forecasted turning movement volumes along with the existing intersection configurations and traffic control were used to develop the average delay per intersection in each study scenario. The delay calculations were done in accordance with the Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition using the Vistro software package. The full calculations for each study scenario, including Level of Service (LOS) grades and queue lengths, are included in the Appendix. Also included in the Appendix is a guide explaining the Level of Service grade concept. Chart 2 (a.m. peak hour) and Chart 3 (p.m. peak hour) show the average peak hour delay per traffic signal -controlled intersection for each study scenario. The LOS D/E boundary of 55 seconds of delay per vehicle is considered the threshold between acceptable and unacceptable traffic signal operation in Minnesota. Chart 2 — AM Peak Hour Delays: Signal Controlled Intersections 60 50 0 40 T a 30 au 0 a) ao 20 cu 10 0 Congested at LOS D/E Boundary (55 seconds) France Avenue & Hazelton Road York Avenue & Hazelton Road • Existing • 2020 No Build 2020 Build Traffic Impact Study 7 3650 Hazelton Apartments CONSULTING • • • Chart 3 — PM Peak Hour Delays: Signal Controlled Intersections 60 50 10 0 Congested at LOS D/E Boundary (55 seconds) France Avenue & Hazelton Road York Avenue & Hazelton Road Existing a 2020 No Build M2020 Build Chart 4 (a.m. peak hour) and Chart 5 (p.m. peak hour) show the average peak hour delay per all -way stop intersection for each study scenario. The LOS D/E boundary of 35 seconds of delay per vehicle is considered the threshold between acceptable and unacceptable all -way stop operation in Minnesota. Chart 4 — AM Peak Hour Delays: Roundabout -Controlled Intersections 40 35 -- 30 v 25 co 20 v do 15 co v Q 10 5 0 Traffic Impact Study 3650 Hazelton Apartments Congested at LOS D/E Boundary (35 seconds) Hazelton Road Roundabout ■ Existing ;a7 2020 No Build i°': 2020 Build 8 CONSULTING Chart 5 — PM Peak Hour Delays: Roundabout -Controlled Intersections 40 35 • 30 -0 0 ✓ 25 ca • 20 a) 0 a, tin 15 co a) > < 10 5 0 Congested at LOS D/E Boundary (35 seconds) Hazelton Road Roundabout Existing 2020 No Build M 2020 Build As shown in the charts, the study intersections are forecasted to operate with overall acceptable delay through the Build scenario in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hour scenarios. In addition, the overall delays show little change between the existing and Build scenarios, suggesting the proposed development will not significantly impact operations. At the signalized intersections, some approaches show longer delays and/or vehicle queuing than desired in all scenarios. Specifically, the northbound and southbound left turn movements on both France Avenue and York Avenue as well as the westbound approach on France Avenue and eastbound approach on York Avenue. These areas of potential concern match the results of the Southdale Area Transportation Study. The proposed development does not significantly change results for these approaches, increasing the 95th percentile vehicle queue length by only one vehicle. These approaches should continue to be monitored with other future development in the area. The City should also continue to work with the County on signal timing for the France Avenue and York Avenue corridors. Signal timing should be reviewed every few years or with significant development to ensure the timing reflects the current driving patterns. Traffic Impact Study 9 3650 Hazelton Apartments CONSULTING 1 • c. Site Plan & Multi -Modal Review The concept site plan contained in the Appendix was reviewed for potential improvements to the circulation and connection of the multi -modal system. The following are the key categories reviewed and highlights of that review: i. Vehicle Circulation: The site uses the existing access from the roundabout, with all traffic entering onto the Auto Arrival Court. This approximately 55-foot by 65-foot square provides access to the underground garage as well as a service and loading area. The Auto Arrival Court has a potential concern in regard to drop-offs/pick-ups. The relatively small area could become congested quickly with only a handful of cars. The service and loading area is also relatively small with a one -lane dead end. Cars or trucks would likely need to back out in the Auto Arrival Court, which increases the risk for any pedestrian in this area. Visitor parking is not marked on the site plan and will need to be identified. More information regarding the circulation and operation expected for visitors, drop-offs/pick- ups, and trucks is necessary. ii. Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure: As mentioned, sidewalks, trails, and the Edina Promenade surround this site providing non -motorized alternatives for reaching other destinations. The site plan shows a sidewalk connection from the ground -level townhomes to the promenade. However, no connection is shown to the lobby, either directly or to the sidewalk on Hazelton Road. This connection should be provided to improve access for all residents. Consideration should also be given to striping the crossing of the site access at the roundabout, formalizing the pedestrian crossings. Upgrading the crossing with full ADA treatments may also be needed. Bicycle facilities are likewise missing from the provided site plan. Ideally, outside short-term bicycle parking would be provided near the front door for residents and guests. Indoor long-term bicycle parking could be provided in the parking garage either at individual stalls or in a bicycle parking room. Other amenities, such as a maintenance stand, would increase the likelihood of bicycle trips, reducing vehicle travel on the roads. All bicycle parking and amenities should be convenient to the entrances and in well -lit locations for safety and visibility. iii. Edina Promenade Crossing of Hazeltine Boulevard: The Edina Promenade is an 80-foot wide greenway through the Southdale area, connecting retail, residential, and recreational amenities via pedestrian and bicycle paths. Just east of the proposed site access, the promenade crosses Hazeltine Boulevard. This crossing provides standard crosswalk pavement markings, advanced pedestrian crossing warning signs, overhead pedestrian and bicycle warning signs at the crossing, and a push- button activated overhead flasher to further notify approaching drivers of a pedestrian or bicycle crossing. Traffic Impact Study 10 3650 Hazelton Apartments S• ack CONSULTING Using information from the Minnesota Local Road Research Board (LRRB) and MnDOT standard practices, the key characteristics of a crossing include the number of pedestrian crossings, the number of driving lanes, the average daily vehicle traffic, the speed limit of the road, and the sight distance. For this crossing, these characteristics are: • Pedestrian Volume; not specifically counted, but assumed over 20 crossings in one hour to indicate high use. • Number of Driving Lanes; Hazeltine Boulevard is a two-lane road in the area of this crossing. • Average Daily Traffic; as counted for this study, Hazeltine Boulevard has approximately 7,600 vehicles per day, which is less than the high volume threshold of 9,000 vehicles per day. • Speed Limit; the posted speed limit on Hazeltine Boulevard is 30- mph, which is low speed for the purposes of this analysis. The roundabout just west of the crossing also slows the eastbound traffic approaching the crossing. • Sight Distance; Pedestrian and drivers are able to see each other from the roundabout to the west of the crossing (about 200 feet away, which provides traffic calming to slow vehicle speeds) and over 300 feet to the east of the crossing. Both distance are acceptable in terms of driver stopping sight distance and pedestrian sight distance. In addition to these characteristics, Hazeltine Boulevard has a center median at this crossing. Pedestrians and bicycles are therefore able to cross one direction of traffic at a time, increasing the safety of the crossing and the comfort level for pedestrians and bicyclists. The Edina Promenade crossing of Hazeltine Boulevard is classified as a low risk location based on this information. Furthermore, an analysis of crashes at the crossing location shows that there were no accidents involving pedestrians within the five years, which reaffirms Hazelton's low risk classification. For low risk crossings, standard crosswalk treatment is a marked crosswalk with optional warning signs. As the current crossing provides more than suggested for this type of crossing and the crash history confirms its low -risk status, the crossing is currently safe by today's standards and requires no additional treatments. iv. Adjacent Transit: Bus stops are within walking distance on Hazelton Road, France Avenue, and York Avenue with direct or indirect travel to the Minneapolis and Saint Paul downtowns and other areas. Transit information is recommended to be provided to tenants to inform them of their options, potentially as part of a move -in packet. Real-time transit screens could be explored for the lobby. These screens display the latest, most accurate information, replace printed bulletin board flyers, and are a visible reminder of the transit option. Metro Transit is a willing partner for the developer to further explore this option. Traffic Impact Study 11 3650 Hazelton Apartments CONSULTING 5. Conclusions and Recommendations The traffic impacts of the proposed residential redevelopment were studied, and the principal findings are: • The proposed apartment development is expected to generate up to approximately 1,000 new trips during an average weekday, 69 new trips during the weekday a.m. peak hour and 89 new trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour. This traffic is more than the current site generates and will increase traffic in the area. • The proposed redevelopment is expected to generate significantly less traffic compared to the maximum intensity use of the site. A 100,000 square -foot medical would be expected to generate approximately 3,480 daily trips, 278 a.m. peak hour trips, and 346 p.m. peak hour trips. • All roadways in the study network are forecast to operate within capacity for the number of lanes provided. • All study intersections are forecast to operate acceptably in terms of average delay through the build scenarios. Several individual approaches to the signalized intersections have longer delays or vehicle queues than desired. • The redevelopment does not significantly change the operations in terms of overall intersection delays or individual approach results. • The specific operations of the Auto Arrival Court are unknown. Specific concerns are providing adequate space for drop-offs/pick-ups and visitor parking as well as the service and loading area maneuvers. • The site has multiple bicycle, pedestrian, and transit amenities surrounding it, with limited information shown in the site plan about how to connect the redevelopment to these amenities. • The Edina Promenade crossing of Hazeltine Boulevard is classified as a low -risk crossing, has no crashes in the past five years, and has more -than -acceptable treatments (single lane crossing with center median refuge, marking crosswalk, advanced and overhead warning signs, and push-button activated overhead flashers) for safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle crossings. The following is recommended based on the analyses presented and the results of the study as summarized above: • No roadway or traffic control mitigation is necessary to acceptably accommodate traffic expected from the residential redevelopment. However, the Hazelton Road intersections with France Avenue and with York Avenue should continue to be monitored (specifically the northbound and southbound left turn movements as well as the westbound approach at France Avenue and eastbound approach at York Avenue). Traffic Impact Study 12 3650 Hazelton Apartments CONSULTING • The City should continue to work with Hennepin County on proper timing for the France Avenue and York Avenue corridors, balancing the needs of the mainline with adequate access for the side streets. • Operations of the Auto Arrival Court should be further explored with the developer, identifying the specifics for various types of passenger and truck traffic in addition to avoiding or minimizing conflicts with pedestrians or bicyclists travelling to the front door. • Specific pedestrian and bicycle connections to the surrounding amenities should be identified along with plans for bicycle parking or other facilities. Short-term (outside) and Tong -term (inside) bicycle parking may be needed and should be convenient to entrances and well -lit for visibility and safety. • Consider striping and ADA treatments for the site access leg of the roundabout. • Provide tenants with information regarding transit options as part of a move -in packet and explore the feasibility of a real-time transit screen to increase visibility of the transit option and provide the most up-to-date information. Traffic Impact Study 13 3650 Hazelton Apartments CONSULTING • 6. Appendix A. Site Plan B. The Language of Traffic Engineering C. Traffic Counts D. Level of Service (LOS) E. Capacity Analysis Backup • AM Existing • PM Existing • AM 2020 No Build • PM 2020 No Build • AM 2020 Build • PM 2020 Build Traffic Impact Study 14 3650 Hazelton Apartments CONSULTING Appendix A: Figures CONSULTING F ,46 I 4,40 Figure 1 Location Maps • tbl W 72nd Si S atiV ROUe) Li Guitar Center National Camera Exchange Edina Q Caribou Coffee NuAton Rd Hazellon Rd 4,5 Lunds & Byerlys France Avenue Edina dyer ys 'Avenue Edina. HaZet.1 Rd afoul dEx Office Print ip Center Hazelton Rd Panora Bread 9 JOANN Fabrics and Crafts Vlencly s Proposed Site Proposed Site North No Scale 9, 0 Study Are. Traffic Impact Study 3650 Hazelton Apartments Redevelopment Al Spack Consulting • • el • 1 December 5, 2017 Street Level Plan Spack Consulting 0 0 E 0 d m 0 N 0 E E a .2 fA C U O 6 N E A � N Appendix B: The Language of Traffic Engineering CONSULTING Research Brief — Volume No. 15 The Language of Traffic Engineering Types of Studies Access Management — The practice of government agencies limiting the amount of intersections (both public roadway crossings and private driveways) along a roadway corridor based on the function of the roadway to improve safety and mobility while streamlining access. Corridor Study — A transportation review and analysis of the existing and future traffic operations of a roadway segment. Varies in length from a couple blocks to a few miles and typically covers all modes of travel. Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) Report — A document that examines and determines the most appropriate type of control (stop sign, signal, roundabout, or other) at one or more intersections. Safety Study — An examination of crash records to identify potential trends, issues, and problem intersections/ corridors. Usually includes potential mitigation options expected to decrease crash rates in the future. Speed Study — A review of existing travel speeds and the corridor characteristics to determine if speeding is an issue, the appropriate speed to post as the limit, and/or areas to provide reduced speed warnings. Traffic Impact Study (TIS) — A document that addresses the expected traffic impacts of a development and, if necessary, mitigation options that will reduce or eliminate negative impacts. Also referred to as a Traffic Impact Analysis. Transportation Plan — A document developed by a government agency to take inventory of their transportation network, identify concerns or issues and lay out the path for improvement of the system. Travel Demand Management Plan (TDMP) — A plan that documents the existing infrastructure around a site, including transit and non -motorized vehicle options, and develops measures to be implemented to encourage those alternative modes of travel. Warrant Evaluation — Review of traffic volumes and other characteristics at an intersection against thresholds to determine if a traffic signal or other traffic control option is needed/warranted. Traffic Impact Study 3650 Hazelton Apartments Redevelopment Management Control lntra-modal Interactions Multi -modal Interactions Source: ETH Zurich Traffic Engineering is a branch of civil engineering that focuses on the safe and efficient movement of people and vehicles. It is part science and part art, requiring not only technical skills for analysis but an understanding of motivations in choosing travel routes. Key Organizations AASHTO — American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A nonprofit, nonpartisan association representing transportation departments with a primary goal of fostering the development, operation, and maintenance of an integrated national transportation system. DOT — Department of Transportation. Government organizations within federal and state agencies dedicated to serving the transportation needs of the community and typically responsible for study, design, operation, and maintenance of all facets of transportation. FHWA — Federal Highway Administration. An agency within the US Department of Transportation that supports State and local governments in the design, construction, and maintenance of the highway system. ITE — Institute of Transportation Engineers. An international educational and scientific association of transportation professionals who are responsible for meeting mobility and safety needs. B1 Spack Consulting • • Appendix B: The Language of Traffic Engineering esearch Brief Volume Inc. 1 Results 85th Percentile Speed - Speed at which 85 percent of drivers are traveling at or below. Speed limits are typically set at the 85th percentile speed. 95th Percentile Queue - The distance, generally measured in feet or number of vehicles, which will be exceeded in a lane, typically at an intersection, only five percent of the time. Usually used to help determine intersection turn lane lengths. Control Delay - The total amount of time a motorist takes to get through a road segment or intersection minus the time it would take without stopping due to traffic controls (like stop signs or traffic signals). Control delay includes decelerating and accelerating back to full driving speed. Functional Classification - the grouping of streets and highways into categories according to their characteristics and emphasis on mobility or access. Generally, categories include arterials (emphasizing mobility and fast travel), local roads (emphasizing access to adjoining properties), and collector roads (emphasizing a balance between the two and usually connecting arterials to local roads). Intersection Delay - The average amount of time, usually expressed in seconds, experienced by any vehicle traveling through an intersection. Level of Service (LOS) - Qualitative measure of traffic operations related to the amount of average delay experienced. Expressed in letter grades with LOS A representing the best operations with little to no delay and LOS F representing the worst operations with excessive delays and congestion. Measures of Effectiveness - Performance measures that define how well traffic is moving along a corridor or thru an intersection. The common MOEs are travel time, corridor speed, delay, and queues. Mitigation - Measures intended to reduce the impact of a development or improve an identified traffic issue by either improving capacity (like adding lanes) or reducing demand (like encouraging carpooling). Queue - Length of line of cars waiting at an intersection or at a bottleneck in a corridor, typically measured for each individual lane of traffic in feet or number of vehicles. Volume to Capacity (v/c) ratio - the number of vehicles through an intersection or roadway segment in a specific amount of time divided by the expected capacity of the road. Less than 1.0 indicates available capacity and above 1.0 indicates more vehicles than can be accommodated. Typically, a v/c ratio above 0.85 suggests operational issues. Trip Generation - The amount of vehicle traffic generated by a land use. One trip is equal to one vehicle traveling from an origin to a destination (traveling to and from work equals two trips). Warrants - Criteria based on volumes and other Measures of Effectiveness for determining when all way stop signs, roundabouts, traffic signals, or other type of control should be installed. Important Manuals/Guides HCM - Highway Capacity Manual (released by the Transportation Research Board, or TRB). The guide for engineers and planners to assess traffic and environmental effects of highway projects. This manual presents the foundation of traffic analysis procedures in the US. MUTCD - Manual of Uniform traffic Control Devices. A document that sets minimum standards and provides guidance to ensure uniformity of traffic control devices (such as messages, location, size, shapes, and colors) across the nation. All roads are subject to its jurisdiction. HSM - Highway Safety Manual (released by AASHTO). A guide that presents a variety of methods for quantitatively estimating crash frequency or severity. Resources Highway Capacity Manual. HCM2010 MUTCD, 2009 Edition, published by FHWA Highway Safety Manual. HSM • About This Brief Spack Consulting prepared this brief as part of our company's vision to significantly improve the practice of traffic engineering and transportation planning. Transportation professionals from around the world have assisted us in developing this document. We are providing this brief under the Creative Commons Attribution License. Feel free to use -modify -share this guide, but please give us some credit in your document. To request our whole series of Design Briefs and to be included on our distribution list for new materials, please email mspack@spackconsulting.com. And please reach out if you have any comments or questions related to this Design Brief. CONSULTING Traffic Impact Study 3650 Hazelton Apartments Redevelopment SPACK Co nN TINGo ACADEMY Miken traffic MN YI TRAFFIC DATA INC. B2 Spack Consulting Appendix C: Traffic Counts J O H T N OClOw'CC) 4' r' t0 a0 M. OVV eh" aD A M O O 0i T V .7,.N1.2 ' CO 03 CI GO M M V Eastbound Hazelton Rd U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 1 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 ..... 0 C C,- .- 000.0 —,-0 0 N 0 0 0,-,- 0 0,-0 A- 0 O,-0,- 00000 00000 00000 .-0,-,- M ,- n-O M C) 0000000 O O O O O O noon. O O O O O 0 0 0.-, .-N - lA N M CI N O N O V N 0 O 0 0- 0- cacao 00000 0 0- O.- 0,-,-ON V- N,- CO .- N O c0 0 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 Northbound France Ave U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles 0 0 16 2 0 0 0 8 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 O 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0.- N- ON 00000 V 00000 0.-O,- N N O O N V O O•- N CO 1- CO V r N ,-N•-N M 0m M C) C) ,- V V C) e- N N C) ,- V 2 N C) W 2 m co N M a,0 N- �- A O 0 N e- O O 0 OONON 00000 0 0,-0,- 00000 ,-0.-.- 0) N,-,-0 V ,- N N •- CO 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 .- 0 0 .- 00 N,- M Westbound Hazelton Rd UTurns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles 0 3 0 4 0 O 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 1 0 0 0 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 0 0 0 1 47 5 47 0 01 00000 1-0 0,- N 0 0 0 N N 0 0,-,- N ,- O M,- C) C) N. C4 r In r cO m O 0 0 0 0 0 00.00 00000 00000 0 0 0 .- ,- 0,-0 .- N ON,- N CO 0 0 0,- x- O A-0 0,- NOOON 0 0 0 N N 0 0 V .- C) C) r. N A) m`-'- O 0- 0 0- 00000 00000 00000 0 0.-0- 00000 no- 0 Southbound France Ave U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles O 0 14 0 0 O 0 9 0 0 O 0 14 0 0 O 0 6 1 0 O 00000 00000 00000 O O '- 0- 00000 0 0 .- 0- 0 0 0 ,-,- 1- 00000 0 0 0,-,- 00000 00000 (De-A-N r M,-0 0 V V,-O N < 0 V c0 .- N .- M C) N.- M V .- M.- V V. lO N - - m tm0 C�'I 2 2O iO N O 21M N yr ) O 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0- N O O- N co N O M CO t0 M M V O. V N Cc' CO N C.N M N N CO N 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 d = 2 2 2 i a a a a o"'.rr!00 Hourly Total 1:00 AM 1:15 AM 1:30 AM 1:45 AM Hourly Total 2:00 AM 2:15 AM 2:30 AM 2:45 AM Hourly Total 3:00 AM 3:15 AM 3:30 AM 3:45 AM Hourly Total 4:00 AM 4:15 AM 4:30 AM 4:45 AM Hourly Total 5:00 AM 5:15 AM 5:30 AM 5:45 AM Hourly Tota I 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM Hourly Total 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM Hourly Total Spack Consulting U • • • 0 r O V V N,_ V N 03 O N H V b b 100 N 1NO A A N N co el n W r M 1CO CO N n N n 1' 10 n N n tw Is A N H Eastbound Hazelton Rd U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles 0 1 3 3 1 O 3 1 0 1 O 0 4 0 0 O 3 1 1 0 N O 0) r- o O N O.- ,- N 0 ,--,-N O N N.- 0 0 0 0 M O O 0 00000 N .- 0 N O) O) ,- co N N c- 00000 O m 7_ 00000 M t0 O O. O N M N O a 0 O 00000 7_ N O O O •- O M M O M M M O O •- N O 00000 ' V O O.-•- N •- M 10 M.— 0 0 M O O N 0 0 0 0 N .- 10 0 N.-O O O N •- .- co co O co r N O— 0 0 0 0 M O r' O O O N N a M° N i0 0 h co 10 N N O 0 O O O O N cn O Northbound France Ave U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles 1 1 158 24 0 2 2 153 22 2 4 1 155 17 0 0 0 182 33 1 co 0 co O r O N O.- co A M V N. 10 0 0) N N c- 10 N N N,- co r O r O O-- N N M 4.7 O O N N M O 0 0 N,- N.- N 2 r CO O N O V 100 O O N 8 N c09 O O O N O O N CO 2 -- 0 O N O,— 1O 1[) N a N N N N- co N 10 O M O 10 O M N V. 0 0.- M M A 0 0 N N N N .- M O O 10 M 10 M O O a O— 0 0 N O 1N+) M,S N N N N N O N N N M M N. ( O( N O 0) M M O 0 N N M N M,- M O ,- O M 9 7 1136 137 3 Westbound Hazelton Rd U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles 0 19 4 10 0 2 18 2 14 0 2 23 1 19 0 1 21 2 18 0 0 O) O) co— 10 000,- 0 0 0 n .- N N M CO N N N .- 0 0 0.- O n O O N.-OOM I- y y N N O O N O O •- N N M M 000 00 0 •— ,-..-OM O O) 10 O M M O M 0 0 0 10 O M V ro" O.- •-•- N " M OONON N N CO CO )0 10 0 0 N 4) O O 10 O 0.- 0 N O N . m M 00,-NM CO CO M m M O O D 10 co 10 O. N O co' V O O N,- n M O.-O.-N N 10 O N O 10 10 10 10 0) .- 10 O M V O .— 0 0.— •-"'O O 10 N 10 M N O O N O ,2 m 0 0 M O N M N N N ,-C') 0 0 4 121 20 160 3 Southbound France Ave U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles 1 23 226 1 1 0 31 213 3 1 0 30 221 2 0 1 45 227 4 0 N 00000 O N M c- M OO,- CD •-N N O a 4 M• N O 1 O.- O) 0. N NOOON co N co N .- c- N N N M O 1v O.- ,- M m N 10 00000 r M M.— c- N NNCD L. co r ,- M N( 't N N 00000 N N)0 O.1 NNN- N r N r- 100 .- e.. 0 0 co N a 0 0 0,-,- 10 N M O M- N N N . a a O M.- Lc N,_ 0 00000' N O O O co O.— N 2 N O NNNNNNNNC . O N,_ N O c-c-O 10 .- co O co co O M N O M �2.. O 10 f ii20 0 fait 0 a O N d 00 00 00 c Hourly Total 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9'45 AM Hourly Total 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10'45 AM Hourly Total 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11'45 AM Hourly Total 12:00 PM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12.45 PM Hourly Total 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM Hourly Total 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2.45 PM Hourly Total 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM Hourly Total Spack Consulting Appendix C: Traffic Counts G) co > Q cc 4) f6 N U'o C O IL. .L C CCI 90 .C_ 7 2 t —) C C O 13 Vj N N 0 CO = 2 1-- J Q I-n O V O an CO N t0 atO A n n n G M N n N V N to CO at r n t0 tO 0 V V G) 0, 40 CO CO N tG to V V h M V 03 N W et at Na V 7 M,_ W 0, to M 0 V ot M M N m ,_ cocO Al CI N N N, N an 0 COO O 0 A- ,, at0 0, M C N n 0 0 0 05. C ID COt0 NI-M M Eastbound Hazelton Rd U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles O 5 4 0 0 O 4 3 1 0 O 7 8 3 1 O 3 7 1 1 N to N Cr' O 00000 , N, N W r V V co co M N 00000 00000 (O , N O •- N to A N N 7- M V M O 00000 V O O O O O ro,, CO No ,- N.- .- �- 00000 O O O O O N O, 0 0, a,.-•- O- CO M O N N 00000 o M h O O O o O O O,, O N No O O N N 00000 o .0..0 O, N .- - O N.- Q V O N A- 00000 0 0 0 0 a 0 0, O, C 00000 h 00000 00000 0 0 N N O e '' a, Ler CO N N V O N N r an 0 CO CO O N O e O o o 0 O Northbound France Ave U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles 2 0 314 40 2 O 2 310 53 2 2 2 328 38 1 O 0 322 51_ 1 co .- N 0 N r O V a o N N 2 ff NMMNN 7 Nat M V d a- N N N. V O 0 •- 0, CA) Act CO At .- tO O tO co Nm o S O NNNN N M a- O ON a- a- Li..., 3 co c0 V 00000 0.4.1.0 CON N T r 3Pi .—.— a-O fM 0 N 7 0 C') t0 V O) 0 O,, a N O , N N A- 'F-O cn r O N O° a - a - a - a- N n n 7 N ? .- A-O N? N N O , , , A-y N N a- 000101 00000 00000 V mV 2 Q VM N N 0 0.- 0.- 00000 0 0 0 0 M N ,-O N 4 0< r. MOr 0000 O o-0 0 1 0 41 7 0 119 134 13612 2164 41 119 130 13441 2082 41 O 4 171 82 0 0.00% 2.99% 1.26% 3.79% 0.00% Westbound Hazelton Rd U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles 0 23 5 41 1 O 33 6 32 0 O 32 5 42 0 O 36 8 44 0 '- C. N g O .-0 0 0- O) CO 0 a MMV(. N N V A C V M 3 O O a-N 0 0 0 e- CO N N NCO M N N N M N C,_ O N M M N M O O O N e- N 00000 NN NN^!T 0 N N N 2 N N' .-O ro o,- N O O O O N O N 0) N N N N 0.1.0, N N O O O O .- O o O CO to A a- 00000 m mVMAtO0QMmONON0m ? N 0 0 N N M 00000 00000 (0 .- 0 C) 0 O) n n. 00000 noon. 0 00000 N O N CO 0 00000 0 N O N° o o Ne N 0 N N O m o3 r 0- M 0 M M O D O 5outhbound France Ave U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles o 44 291 2 0 1 35 237 1 0 1 51 237 3 0 0 37 236 1 0 O r b- O N O.-0 0.- 0 V 0 O,t N N N m V (o+I V M ,-,-0-,- 00000 O N N A- ro N m 0 N °03M V N N V ,-.-M O tO 0. F N 00000 a O N O V O, M A M r N o.- 0 0.- (O 0 CO 00000 O N A-O R N ' M t0 O 0 0 0.- M N a- O _ 0 0,- 0 '- A-O W A- N N M t` N n 0 0 0.- 00000 N N,.-O M a 7 0, rot (.M) t` - O ro 00000 0 0 0 0 V O.-Or- t- ^ N O) tO a N,- O,- 0 0 0 O 0 4 70 2 0 47 2354 12665 160 14 47 2325 12498 158 14 0 29 167 2 0 0.00% 1.23% 1.32% 1.25% 0.00% E H n a a otnotn o .i tv v v v 4 Hourly Total 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM Hourly Total 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM Hourly Total 7:00 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:45 PM Hourly Total 8:00 PM 8:15 PM 8:30 PM 8:45 PM Hourly Total 9:00 PM 9:15 PM 9:30 PM 9:45 PM Hourly Total 10:00 PM 10:15 PM 10:30 PM 10:45 PM Hourly Total 11:00 PM 11:15 PM 11:30 PM 11:45 PM Hourly Total DAILY TOTAL Cars Heavy Vehicles Heavy Vehicle % U VJ c z O m U a' d ak_ V 4- C lV u. L U re x a)/'\ LL Q • Q QI N co Cl a- N O F O 'N bWOM N t0 A C' M �- M O O M 1� M M M ONO NN v- N N � 1� ; O 1� N NC9 V A Eastbound Hazelton Rd U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,- 0 0 0•- 0,- co o 00000 00000 00000 00000 V O- O )0 ,-M N I- N co t-V 0 O 00000 00000 00000 00000 ,- 0 O,- N )O N.— O a0 00000 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 Northbound France Ave U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles 1 0 11 2 0 0 0 9 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 0 00000 00000 00000 o O 1- 0 — 00000 00000 a-0 0 0 l 3 4 473 47 1 0 0,-0 0,- a-O O N M 0 0 1-O r- a-O a-V. O •- N N N V'- y O O [O En " N N N W M R cZ N 4 CON N 0 0 N O N'0)0 ; a-N M t0 V N a0 " OD N Owl 0 00000 0 0— 0— 00000 00000 0 O— N CI N N 0 a- N •-0 0 0) 00000 00000 0 0 0 .- .- 0.-0 0 a- 0 0 0.-.- •-0 0 1- N 0,-ON Westbound Hazelton Rd UTurns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles O 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 O 1 0 0 0 O 2 0 0 0 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 0 0 0 1 1 53 5 43 0 O 0 0 0 a- •- 0,-0 0 a- O a-0 0 a- NCOON a-O •- a- M N N.-N M N O N N O 00000 00000 - 0 0 0- 00000 0 0 0 •- - 0 0 0 N N C) O s-1- 00 0 0 •- 0,- 0 0 •- 0,- 0 0 .- a- )0 0 0.- 0 a 0 0 V N <O C O 0 M O" co O 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 0- 0 Southbound France Ave U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles O 0 11 0 0 O 2 16 0 0 0 1 11 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 O 00000 00000 00000 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 00000 0 0- 0 O 0 0 0,-.- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 O O N 0) )O N N M O N 0) e-a-V 0) O M M M,, M N )O M )0 O) <0 t+I N ^. ° V M N fO m A a M )[1 n m jO N O A 0,00) O N 0 V O O t- 0 t- O O O O O 0 0 0 t- t- N a-0 0 ] a-N 0) N- Cn 0) O M N N m M 2N m 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 .— r' 0.— M 0 0 0 '- 222 2 Hourly Total 1:00 AM 1:15 AM 1:30 AM 1.45 AM Hourly Total 2:00 AM 2:15 AM 2:30 AM 7 45 AM Hourly Total 3:00 AM 3:15 AM 3:30 AM 3'45 AM Hourly Total 4:00 AM 4:15 AM 4:30 AM 4.45 AM Hourly Total 5:00 AM 5:15 AM 5:30 AM 5.45 AM Hourly Total 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 5.45 AM Hourly Total 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7 45 AM W Q Q Q G E a o ` .... o > 0 0 1 Spack Consulting Appendix C: Traffic Counts F COACO a a N 1- NCO m n aa m N NrN H b V NN CD CO 2 O O V N iM�WA O Ps. A r Gy r A Of O o �Orm r9 Ur b oi N MtoNO cOi0 A A q Eastbound Hazelton Rd U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles O 1 4 1 0 O 4 3 0 0 O 2 1 0 0 O 1 3 0 0 0 c- C) O N A-m-M MOON. to a M M. .- M a M 00000 r `- 00000 O CO N.- co .- n N. r N co N 00000 Cl 00000 N CO O (n a N CO CO a co on N 00000 O. 00000 n N N . CO M c0 r a co c0 00000 N m 00000 a CO N c0 N a '- O) a co N a 00000 ,- F2 0 c- •- O ON a M r M CO a a CO co N r to 00000 •Crco N 0 0 c-O 1- ; M O M a Co m to — a a 00000 Northbound France Ave U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles O 1 133 17 0 3 0 157 14 1 0 0 149 16 0 O 3 157 31 2 CO Cl n m CO c0 a M 00000 a N N CO N CO m a co Cl CO r rn •-,- CO N 0 '- M O N c- a r 0 CO 00000 CO (0 M CO M N M (o O O O CO ('(0 N N N O N a N O a O M rn CO Cr 00 to •- N N. N a a r r CO O N N N CO N.- O O N a a N c0 CO Cl N N,_ •- CO N O M ( m O) c0 00000 n co (0 (0 c0 (0 N CO CO O CO CO CO,_ M N N N,_ M N a r. M M c0 M N N (4. 71 00000 O) r o a a a M- O r M r CO CO O CO N N M N M Cl a s a a a M. (0 00 ,— r' 00000 co O C) m a a a M m M M o) a s (0 04 N N N N,_ M to N a't N a 0 0 0 0 (O O O N A- CO N N co Lc, m a M M a '(' O co 0) CO N r r 0,- N N N M N a c0 N c- M M CO O Westbound Hazelton Rd U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles O 19 1 13 0 O 15 3 15 0 O 17 1 18 0 O 20 5 14 0 0 c0 O n 0 00000 N c- N co M N O. N N N N O c-O N O) CO M 00000 co co N CO co a M a co M co a 00000 •" 00000 CO a 7 c0 N M M N co a,_ 00000 •-O O c- a a O N c0 N a a. N 0 0 (`� .- OON N °r FA ,_ 0 0 0 a. a (O n M (O c On co c0 M c- 0 0 M •- N N a c- 0 0 0 a CO ? (`Y '— a a m V M CO CO 00000 c- N •-O.— CO . a s co a co c0 N CO CO V M M O N c- CO Southbound France Ave U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles 0 28 225 0 0 0 42 222 3 0 1 43 219 3 0 2 26 237 5 0 0 O O' O a M M a•" M rr C r0 a cn O a M O 1- c-O •- n n N N O COO. co r a M r0 Cr r .- Nr CT, •-•-c-O N M) M 00000 N CO o aN ON a NNNNNO) 000 .- M •-•- N- CO 00000 CO M co r CC) N M NNNNNO N 00000 °1 M — N 00000 Cl a r 01 M 2 o (0 NNNN •NO� nN N c- N N N to O r 00000 M M M a Ca a fN NNN No) aN (0 '- •- O O '— 0 0 0 co N•- a 0 O M mr (O M om--•-N NNNN mV a (n9 a 2M N M c-M N 0 E a a a a o •oi o in r o m o 0 Oct COco Hourly Total 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM Hourly Total 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM Hourly Total 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM Hourly Total 12:00 PM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:45 PM Hourly Total 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM Hourly Total 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM Hourly Total 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM Hourly Total Spack Consulting • cu cu co c C CO CO G a W N CO 2 • J Q (h O co co f- CO N O 0) O A A A A (y co A co IG a A A(0 A A A CO a N A co Mel CO(O CO CO N a N N (O lM'! CO N A A V a M M,_ Ol N A" as N O (0 M M M N" N b M co co O` M N N " M A 10 T- 0 ONl ,0 h u b (O+l d M e 0 0 60 7 0 0 0 0 1 u �.o 98 144 13602 2097 19 0 223 244 127 22 35961 97 140 13431 2022 17 0 219 243 125 21 35423 1 4 171 75 2 0 4 1 2 1 538 1.02% 2.78% 1.26% 3.58% 10.53% 0.00% 1.79% 0.41% 1.57% 4.55% 1.50% Eastbound Hazelton Rd U Turns Leh Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles O 6 7 0 0 0 3 10 0 0 O 2 7 3 0 O 4 6 1 0 J 3 La o 0,30001 " M a" CO 7 M A co (0 " A 0 0 0 0 N N 0 00000 O A •- O a0 00 MN N M O) N a O O O O N m O a 0" O (O O" N" N a N N M N N M 00000 a 0 0 " 0 0 0" M N 0 0 (0 " N M O NOON 00000 CO V O" 0 0" O O N O O" 0 0" N N a N. 00000 N 00000 N" O" " 0 0 0" M"" O (0 00000 a O O O O C O O" O 0000 0000( 0000 Northbound France Ave U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles 1 3 329 43 1 2 0 348 43 1 1 4 306 39 0 0 2 369 50 0 N O" O" CO IO O A a a a M N O N mm coM yN� co a co M 0 a M" O" N O O co 00000 0 0 10 0 co co co co LA Mr N " a a" ON MO 0 0 (C 00000 m N sr CO N M N NVN """ M NM", - M N co A 00000 N m A CO N M" "O m " O" O N O O ON (0 0 m 4 N 00000 O M A A " O M" N A (0 (0 co O O O O 00000 N M g O 00000 M M O '- ROM N O""" O" 0 0" M " 0 Vr co 0000 N N N" ,-M N"" 0 0 0 0 0000 Westbound Hazelton Rd U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles O 38 5 32 0 2 26 7 53 0 O 39 7 32 0 2 36 4 49 0 0 CO N M a 00000 N M C0 A N M M M O N (0 N M A V co " 0 0 0" O N O" 0 0" O co A IO CO M M a M a N M (O] M M N N O" M N 00000 M O f0 N MN " a M M M O) a0 a'N 0 0 0 0 00000 N O (0 O A 0N N N" M " •- IC) " C) N` m M V. 0 " 0 0 0" co m O 00000 co A O N " M (0 N O N 00000 O a 00000 M N,_ a N O" O ((1 A M M O O O O co M m O 0000 N" O" O" 0 0 t0 a 0000 O 14 1 4 0 40 1829 227 1959 8 40 1757 225 1936 7 O 72 2 23 1 0.00% 3.94% 0.88% 1.17% 12.50% Southbound France Ave Straight Right Peds/ Time U Turns Left Turns Through Turns Bicycles 4:00 PM 2 47 267 2 0 4:15 PM 2 50 243 0 0 4:30 PM 3 49 246 5 0 7 Al 'J'JA 7 0 O I O !1 m ) O t. J CA 00000 N N" 0) O O M M co N A A as aa?l N"" N O m N CO 0 0" O" ONON OSN M (O O N aMaM� O" N O a O O M 0 0 0 0 N""" C N A A on O) O M"NN "" O N 0 40 (M O C) a " 0 0 0" Os- O O" M N N.- A CO,- N " "a " O" a ¢) O N 0 0 0"" ON 0001 O m 2 N A W A 00000 O N M 00000 ..-,-N N W. M a N M (0 " O 00000 (0 m 0000 0000 N m N M N •- C O O O C 0 9 80 0 0 60 2375 12691 185 11 59 2347 12544 182 11 1 28 147 3 0 1.67% 1.18% 1.16% 1.62% 0.00% 4.45 PM Hourly Total 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5.45 PM Hourly Total 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6.45 PM Hourly Total 7:00 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7.45 PM Hourly Total 8:00 PM 8:15 PM 8:30 PM 8.45 PM Hourly Total 9:00 PM 9:15 PM 9:30 PM 9.45 PM Hourly Total 10:00 PM 10:15 PM 10:30 PM ,F adu CLF J W d OLn z f w 0 i 1 Spack Consulting Appendix C: Traffic Counts rE M 21 =e3_ C N E CO 7 CO 3 a 5 c > 3 G a) Y W c 0 0 N = QESo s€2 W3 g000aaaaa00000000a0000000aaa�aa0000aaaaa00000�aaaa00000aaaaaooa.-�000a�a�ooa Eogv o�oaaaaaa0000aaaaa0000aaaaaaa000000aaaaa�oo�o�.-�rvrv�ry rvarvoam�rv��„„„„ 11. 3 a€3o cg g3tToaooaaaaaa00000 S„�.. �z� 0000aaaa000000a `3 �V3v =AA4VF,1 Sg8mRemm,9mRR83CmF,9P8;;2 rv°8PZ3S22W78&A8R;3AnnRFPomoa^--o 0000ac0000000oo-0000000000000000000000000000000000000,a000000000000000.-000000aoo.-000000000000000 000000n000000000aoaaoa0000aoaaoa0000000000a00000000000000000a0000000000a0000000a0000000000aoaoaa �o�o�aoarvao_0000a_,,,,QQ�ammnmR„�„„8F8Rmme8�P'88C�o8688888m8F586�688688A8ss 9'A 8A&Ap8�3r m«�^�'^'°^^ry oa000000000aa000aoa000000000000aoa000000000aooaoaooa0000aa-orv0000a0000a0000aooc0000000000caoa000 0000000 00000a00000aaa0000aa00000 8 8:888�888 8:A 8 '"ems 8 88 8.R:8 8 8 8 8�m:8�R:8 8 388:R:8�R: 83R: 8:o:83888:R:8388 o mo 8888So^o^o^0000eeeoo8888��e8ggB0000S000SS66000a...::..,,.�„rmmmm...:aaN„„ea,e��mmm„ ,, ,, ;,o o., �.. ..�rv„.,m mmm c 0 U 0 0 0) U • Ea eoeeeeeeeeoeeooeeoeeoeeeoeeeeeooeeeeeoeeeeeeeeee000eeooeooeeeeoeeeeeeeeo �ee_eee_�e_en�e�e��aenm��m��m��a��as<esm�m�mmm��eo�`-m88Hr8��m�m8eema.o�m.mm��om^„rm € 8„0000000eo :s=_o 11 e000000000000000000_eo��-o_«.o.�.e...nm�_�me>..^eoo^„m.�.ar.. (I) 0 -1--+ 0 y eeeeoeeeeeoeeoeeoeeo_0000e_�0000e00000000eo_00000000000000000000eoe fV E oe000eooe000000000000000e0000 U T d 3 o000000000000000000000000000eooe000000r Nrmmmn aoNOomnaryeo o.om o 000noo„aeO 0000«000000000000 V - o000000e000e00000eeooe000e000r,__no_mNr,o__nne_o,00,n„,000,e,-o_ _00000eo_o,000000_,0000e0000000 Ta g Mg A888omno.�e�om8�nmmn�oo�.�� e oeeo_e n e_ee.ra.em^�emm.m�g4eW.,a�I2�aSe 22:H .�e �r... d 3 ____n�_r 07.2 1: U• y 0000e000000000eooe000e000000000e000e o_ooeooeoo_000rono eooe oeeo_oo_oom rroeeo eeoeeooe000eooeo X C cc N = oeeeee_ eoee_eoeeeoeeeeoeeoeoeeoeeoeeeeeeoeeeee E eeeeeeeeeoeoeeeoeeeeeoeeeoeeoeeeoeeeeeoeeoeeo_e Q $ a,I. N Q v ooe000eeoeeoee000eoeooeeo_eeeoor,oeeooee_ .w_mm�n.n. nm._nemn.Nm_r4r.mn,...m.e4mm_m_neoomeeoeooe _ .FSo-_________..................e�000ee�oeoeeoeeoeoeooeeoe�oeooeeoeooee0000eeooeooeoee000e r SrW oaoa00000000a000000a000000aoo�00000a�n�-oo..--.-ooa...00noo�o��c�o �o�oa if2 11 M-€_V oeeeeeeeeeeeoeeoeeoeeeoee reeemm.me re eo.ommo.em mrm� e.m mnom ommm mo.n e.mooen neeoeoe • oon0000000000000000000no0000oocoom00000m00000000n0000000n0000000000000000 000000000000000000cloono 8: 8 $:8=8:82m:8�8:8;R,8 '"8: 8..m:8 R HE .8 T8eR:8:m:.!n n ga.m000ag 8„m„„„gm.^ SHHS0000eooeooeoESSBHHaoBgggooeoH3HHH$a.Sao6o.. �. m-�^rr^mm va n n++nee ^ Spack Consulting co 0 Appendix C: Traffic Counts N Eastbound Hazelton Rd TOTAL U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles O 6 0 2 0 29 O 1 0 4 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 8 o 0 0 n n 4, n N CO In M CO N N ''','N'''" N 1... V N N M V M G,I N 443 el CO N N N N 6 45 315 5 1 0 29 5 42 1 I 869 O 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 ,-N O N L0 . 0 O C co 00000 ,- 0001- 000,-v- 0,-0,-ro aa0NN 1.0 m CC. 0 ro ^a 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 0 0 .- ,- 0, C0 , ,- 0 0 0 •- O .- O O— ,-O N N N O— O ,- N 1-,- N 0) !- N 0•-1(1 N O (o (o n 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 0 0 0 Northbound York Ave U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles O 1 9 0 0 O 1 5 0 0 O 0 2 0 0 O 0 7 0 0 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 — N O o 0 .- O O 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 , 0 .- CO C.' o N,- M.. N N 0 N CO — .- 0— el — O V' O Q m o O tp ? N) N 0N V C � h Co W 4 N 1 0 0 0 - O .- 0 0 - 00000 ' 0 0. N 0 0 0 C7 m o1 O a{ (0 N '•-0 O 00000 00000 00000 00000 O O .- O .-- N 1- 0 0 0 .-M .- .- Westbound Hazelton Rd U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 0 0,-.- 0.-0 0 .- 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 .- 0 0 0— 0 0 0 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 0000,0 00000 0 0 0 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 '— 0 0 0 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 Southbound York Ave U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles O 0 10 0 1 O 0 9 3 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 9 1 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 1- 0 0 0 0 0,-0,-N 00000 . 00.-04 001M' 0.—NV1.- NtoN N a00 � o � N 00000 CON .- 00000 .- I[coO 00000 N N 00000 N N "„,0, 0000 0 NN M N 1- 0 0 .- M N R cn NNj O ,-Q V 440.M M 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 e- .-1-N N d as a at nouny iotai 1:00 AM 1:15 AM 1:30 AM 1:45 AM Hourly Total 2:00 AM 2:15 AM 2:30 AM 2:45 AM Hourly Total 3:00 AM 3:15 AM 3:30 AM 3:45 AM Hourly Total 4:00 AM 4:15 AM 4:30 AM 4:45 AM Hourly Total 5:00 AM 5:15 AM 5:30 AM 5:45 AM Hourly Total 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM Hourly Total 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 471 "o H N 0 C 0) U VJ c U U • U X 6 • Q N M N N I- N co to M M N es M M CM9 M A. Q Q N e °D co N co uM) N a a a a,_ N co a} a Q v a^ y a Q `Q Q 0 11 6 15 12 I 9 111 540 7 10 I 0 167 4 106 6 I 1814 Eastbound Hazelton Rd U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles O 14 2 12 0 O 17 2 9 1 O 18 2 10 0 0 12 1 17 0 AO - A 0 0 0 0 •- ,- O Q Q �'- M. O N CD N N N 00000 O CO 0,-0,- O� O� O•- Q O 0,- 0,- CO CO 01 01 M- 0 0 00 N 0 ,-'' N M M O M O,- N '- CO') M CM5 CO 0000 Y) ^ Q 0 0 0 0,-,- M N O O 0,- N.- N Q COQN 0 00 00 Q N 0 0 N,- O N N) O .-.- '- CO N M Q01 0 0 000 0) M Q 0/ ,_ ,-u) 0 0 O O r M! •- .... ,- 0 O. a O N,_ 00000 (O M til 0 M.- N `c. O MO Q 0) ,- 0 0 a M 0 00 00 Westbound Northbound Hazelton Rd York Ave U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles Through Turns Bicycles 0 0 0 1 1 1 10 82 4 0 O 0 0 1 0 3 20 98 6 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 12 90 4 0 O 3 0 1 0 0 16 78 7 1 e- N a r 0 0,-.- Q N CO O. Q0QO N a, a, N s-.-,- N N M O. N r I- M M Q O. O. 0 M s- N N co CO9 M N N N `- CO Q N CO N M CO V. ,st O(ON - O V? CO M O) !O M co Q N co N M N N r Q Q CO N,-,- N ? (OO M In - O Q N CO N co m N V. 0 00 CO N Q om. .- NN co O M N co Q O O O) sr a N Q M N,- r CO M CO N N Q N co M,_ Q O. O.- . co M M •- m r' N.- co In M N (O M N N co -ctQ N N N M Q 0 O N 0 N N CO M QCs' 0 0 0 N '- 0 0 N 00 000 Q N M Q M 0) U) N co Q CO 0,-0 0,- 0 0 0 N 00000 .4 Csi N co O.- ,- N M ID Q N •- ,-M ' N M Q 00000 O st n C N N in ' M Q co 0 M )l) A- N M ,- M 00000 C' N O O) CO N Q N Q O co Q •-•-0) 0 M N" N 00000 2 O O ° M N M r n co 0 0 1- O N.- 0 00000 m N v.-V. O CO M 0) M Q co N co N- Q O,- ID Q 00000 Southbound York Ave Straight Right Peds/ Time U Turns Left Turns Through Turns Bicycles 8:00 AM 0 3 104 22 3 8:15 AM 1 6 112 24 0 8:30 AM 1 3 110 13 1 845 AM 1 8 123 19 0 Q m M 0 0 0 N N N CQ'I O M Q aO O N O - 0- co in Q N M N M° N m Q NQ 0 N M, N N M O Q M O O- M,- co N M M O) N O O N .- Q Q •- Q C O N 0,- CQ') M O N- 0 0 ` N P. r O I,- O In N M Q 0 r M N N N N.Cs- ,-O N,- Q Q Q O O O L.0) O Q O Q M N '- 0 0 N r. Q m O CO O� N N,-0 M CO co m M O O O n 0 O i() O Ni. O M. Q MO r !O ,` M cp N O co co M M A a O NNO Q Q 0 7_ M M % r Q N,-,- V M M M 1 Q M N O O,- tO O N r N s- N Hourly Total 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9.45 AM Hourly Total 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM Hourly Total 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM Hourly Total 12:00 PM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 2.45 PM Hourly Total 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1.45 PM Hourly Total 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM Hourly Total 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM Hourly Total Spack Consulting Appendix C: Traffic Counts J Q F 0 H Ol Ol d A OI A N O d N O N M N (O M O W N N N d M O) M d O O d O d' N V d M Q A O Q) Cl 0D to M N N N V CO A O N N CO N N N .- .- c0 A A N IO CO N '' O d O n O A d M .- CO A M N N N N ' N zg O M CO W .- e, N d N N N Eastbound Hazelton Rd U Turns LeftTurns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles O 34 1 40 0 O 50 0 35 0 0 43 0 36 3 O 42 0 25 0 co co O A-A-A-O M m O ‘r N N N o 0 0 0 r 0 Ol N d d o M° 00000 M O O O.- O 00 N Al N M N 0 00000 m 10 d O7 (0 d •d co 00000 A- ° N 0 0.-0,- 00 N MOM N N Al N 00000 d r r co M.— M N.- 00000 O O A-O,- N N M O CO A- A- 00000 V T l0 r N Al N A— noon. M u7 o 07 00000 NCO,-W 00000 N O 00000 O O O .- a N d N N 00000 O ' d N O° 00000 A- 00000 N 0 o o 00000 O M d—— o 00000 y N 2 d 40 CO d d cN'� CO — — N a a o 0 0 Ol r m e f0 $ m r co M e O O o p CJ Northbound York Ave U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles 2 40 156 1 2 1 39 139 0 2 2 23 190 3 3 4 49 161 2 1 a0 f0 8 On O.-O o.- A- .- N N ,4 ,4 „°r '0 N ,. M d M d (0 d a^ O O N M f0 O M N O 2 M.4 c4 CO O j N n d d N N N M d d d° (0 N 7, i0 N � O •- N r- O A-A-A- O7 O co r O ° M N N M N O.- V O O O A- M 00000 e r N M (0 A o o O) , O) (0 A-N L0 A- .- O N m M 0, 00000 00000 co O O co d co N co O A O) o NOCOON O O A-O,- 00000 O A o A- A— Tr M N — N N d N M .- — O O '— O O .000 N M m r c0 (n M.- N N co O O o 3 7 27 0 2 199 1634 7208 144 89 196 1612 7056 141 87 3 22 152 3 2 1.51% 1.35% 2.11% 2.08% 2.25% Westbound Hazelton Rd U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles O 3 0 4 3 O 1 3 3 1 O 3 3 4 4 O 2 5 6 2 O 0 0 A-N O N A (O (0 M e-0 0 d•- M e," 00000 (0 0 0,-N m CON, d .- O O O,- O N A-O 00000 M M O M N M O N A- ON O O A-O A - 00000 (O 00000 o A-A-O O N O .- O O,- co 00000 00000 N A-O O,- 0 0 0,- 00000 O O O N 00000 N O O O,- A- 0 A-O O .000. N 00000 00000 O O O O A-0 0 0 0000 0000 0000 O 0 0 1 0 O 85 58 188 106 0 83 57 186 101 O 2 1 2 5 0.00% 2.35% 1.72% 1.06% 4.72% Southbound York Ave U Turns LeftTurns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles 5 4 169 34 1 6 0 148 38 1 2 2 171 37 0 3 2 156 47 0 N CO A-N O O A (0 A Cr, t0 f. N (0000 .- M M M.-.- O N N N O CO A N t0 2 N— 0 .., .- O o A - M W M A- i0 o A- d f2 Al 0 0 A-M MCOOWr . on Cr; m m O,-0 0 N N At Al. d 00000 M1-m0 A-. A- N W no co A- .- A-0 0 010000 CO N N 00000 ONdrel(NN-NO(OCOi0t A- co°Jh N N .- O .- O O A-A-M o N 0 0 CO N c1 d N O^ N O O O 0 (0 00000 N 00000 N ° o 0 .-O O o,- 00000 e 2,20 00 O O NNNOON 10 CO CO 0 M O a A 0 N Po N N O 0 4O ' (OO O 6 O E naaa O h co to v v 4 a Hourly Total 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM Hourly Tota I 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM Hourly Total 7:00 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:45 PM Hourly Total 8:00 PM 8:15 PM 8:30 PM 8:45 PM Hourly Total 9:00 PM 9:15 PM 9:30 PM 9:45 PM Hourly Total 10:00 PM 10:15 PM 10:30 PM 10:45 PM Hourly Total 11:00 PM 11:15 PM 11:30 PM 11:45 PM Hourly Total DAILY TOTAL Cars Heavy Vehicles Heavy Vehicle co co co 0 0 U VJ C E Q TD i -o LL N C N E u 3 Q N CO O °' U 3 U Q� cn L.0) L c IV: 05 kJwas c X $15 w CN RIG) _ 0_ 0 • Q 7NW d F f0 M M H C NNM CO A A A b OA O M O1 N rO M W M M N N N CO Cr V rN N I8 38 295 5 2 I 0 28 5 38 0 I 812 Eastbound Hazelton Rd U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles 0 1 0 2 1 0 4 0 5 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 1 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0,-0 '- N 0 0 0 0 O - 0 0 0,- 00000 0 0,- ,-N 0 0 0 a s A N M,- C1 v- C0A CO N a OD. O 00000 00000 00000 00000 000.00 0.-._ ON O,-M -no.- O O.-O •- .-O.-O N O N M O (0 O O d' .- 10 I0 a O N A 0(0 O O ..... 00000 ..... ..... .0..0 00.0. .... Northbound York Ave U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles O 0 3 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 O 0 7 0 0 O 0 1 0 0 O 00000 00000 00000 0 0,-0 •- 00000 00000 0,-0,- 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0,-O' N 0,-? CO O N ,( N CO .- O. N R N N° N 0 N N O1 N CO N V O C N N M +D N N O O (") M O N A IA A N O A A Q) O ..... 00000 coon. coon. •- O N M f0 co 0 O A H t 0 '. " O 00000 00000 00000 00000 O - O.- N .0' O N N,- N CO Westbound Hazelton Rd U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 00000 00000 0 0 r' 0,- 0 0" 0,- 00000 0.-0 ,- N N 0 0 c- 0 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0,-0 0,- 0 0 c- F- N 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 0 0 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0 0 .- 0,- 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 Southbound York Ave Straight Right Peds/ Time U Turns Left Turns Through Turns Bicycles 12:OO AM 0 0 6 1 0 12:15 AM 0 0 8 0 0 12:30 AM 0 0 7 0 0 12.45 AM 0 0 5 1 0 0 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0.-O N 0 0' U -IV IIL II 1 3 13 332 36 2 N 00000 00000 00000 00000 ,-, V N CO A A° N gjj C 10 O`-' N 10 ? O N N �- N- CI ,- N N N A < CI N m 2M N M O A m O 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 O O M 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 N,-O Hourly Total 1:00 AM 1:15 AM 1:30 AM 1:45 AM Hourly Total 2:00 AM 2:15 AM 2:30 AM SAM 2.4 Hourly Total 3:00 AM 3:15 AM 3:30 AM 3:45 AM Hourly Total 4:00 AM 4:15 AM 4:30 AM 4:45 AM Hourly Total 5:00 AM 5:15 AM 5:30 AM 5:45 AM Hourly Total 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM Hourly Total 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM Hourly Total Spack Consulting Appendix C: Traffic Counts J f a Om) M CO co 0 NNMN,_ r a to to O N N 0) MMM el,_ V H b m n N MM a,_ N O t t 0) e- as a 10,_ N M N t0 NNNNN M O N n N Na aa,_ O �a tan 0 N 0 Vaa v,_ m t0 lap tOO N as a a� h Eastbound Hazelton Rd U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles O 15 2 12 0 O 16 3 20 0 O 11 2 17 2 O 11 3 13 1 M CO' ,O CO iO O N O O N O N' N N N O 4- 4-N.N-4-CD 00000 V (NO tO .- 0 0 0 N' 4 N O 1-4- .- NMNM.- 00000 e- O C) N O .-.- cN) n M R N O O .- CO CO Ma� 00000 a N M .-,-.- O M C V N 4-N O M avaa'° 00000 CO P- (O N N N 0 V M M N O 4-N O V CO a^ 00000 CO zi C) .- N N A- N M M N OVICONCO 0 CD CI to a aaco 00000 CO CO 0 CO N N N N M I-O N M as MM 0000 O 159 6 115 8 Northbound York Ave U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles 2 8 75 2 0 3 14 100 4 0 3 25 107 4 0 2 18 103 7 1 4- to O to CO 0 N a CO N C) a CO 0 0 N N N N M n a N t0 C (r cn N .- 4- N 4- h to co M' N M N N CO N O .- AT N N iO C.4 CO O O N t- co co N N a n' COOCO a V CO n CO tO to to N CO 4- N .- CO N 4- N a N 2a to M R 3 N 00 M M r m c. 0 h M 0 N CO CO a" N N N N (r•) V m tO a to N. 00 tlNO) a a N CO 4-° N O.- t- M M M O CM) a to N N n R ; CO 1- iO N O V O co M N O M r M 1- (O 17 136 552 7 11 Westbound Hazelton Rd U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles O 0 0 0 1 O 0 0 1 2 O 1 0 1 1 O 1 0 3 0 a tO 0 N O N 4- 4- N N 4- 0 4- N O O 4-CO N 4-O 1- 00000 (0 a a N e- CO a N 0. to N. e-0 0 0 O N 4-O 00000 O 4- (h '- 1- N 4- r CO taco. 4-4-4-tO N N O O 00000 tO 00 O •- 0 a N N O N O N M N I- M N N A- 00000 A h O O 4- a .- N N O tO N° .- N— N 4-O C) a 00000 CO (0 CO tO N A- .- — N (") N DICOOOCO N O O a 00000 m CO (O N O N (V CO tO CO M N M,— N ('4- O a 00000 CO N r Southbound York Ave U Turns Left Turns Straight Right Peds/ Through Turns Bicycles 1 1 113 12 1 1 4 115 14 2 4 9 107 16 3 2 2 106 15 0 CO o- a CO N M .- O N N N N co t0 m - M O N M M N a N CO (O O) N a ' O C) .- (O•) M M C CD N N O O O—^ a 0 C) a. a N N 0 t0 CI < '_. N O m (0.) CO O O tO a CO O N M N° M ta0 r .-- M (O a .- CO a 4' CO N N m A -'LOON- a to M coam t0 CO CO tO t� (O t0 1� 4- M O M O CO N N , (O r N 4- a O COOO CO CO M O O to a N_. O, CAN a a a tO a N N O° a tO N .-- O. coato O a a (O At CO CO M a COCr' N Mc`i C) a 4- N O N. t- a M to M , At N O O CO N N M a O a 17 7 641 137 4 I aoaoE0 LO0v o. rn 00 eel 00 00 Ta ~ = 2 a o r-iCO o1- Oi Oi tT lli Hourly Total 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM Hourly Total 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM Hourly Total 12:00 PM 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 12:45 PM Hourly Total 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM Hourly Total 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM Hourly Total 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM Hourly Total I Spack Consulting • • -J a • 0000 O N N N N F 00 00 r 00 00000 WWVV ?0 U N ONM C H N N 0 0 0 0,00 MNNM M M r o m V M 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 m •0 i O N O a m C C H flH NONV 0 V 10 M a 0 0 0 MMNN O O O M 0 0 0 N W VMNM 0 0 0 0 0 r 0000') V N 00 m) 0 0 0t0 00 0 N N O C00 ca0 M M O V H 0000 001 000 0 0 M 0 N" N N N N N N v 0 ,— .- 0 0 N ,-N N 0 0 0 0 " COI MONN 0 0000 v O .-0 CO 0 0 0 0 N r r a 0 0 N u) N O , M O 00000 0 0 N M r 0 V N W 0 N N N v v O O m 0000 0000 N V ,- N O 0000 N ,-0,-0 o 0 0 0 O m O 0 0I 0 . r O 00,00 Nvvv 0 M 0 V N 0 N v O •- V v V 0 0 M 10 N V N N 0 0 0 0 00000 0000 \ w j0 N O v ME K H L Y _ O � � G Y N F r 0 O a M N N m m 00 000 .-00 0 0 N0 N N V 00 O O M O V N v 0 0 0 0 C00 O0 0) 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 A w0.0 10p COr N v CO N O M M Q O N-N- N O O 0 0000 N 0000 o 0000 0 0 0 0 0 V N N N N .- 0 N - ONMM O O O CO 0 .- 0 0 M 0 N 0 0 0 0 0000 0000 v 0 0 0 0 CO M v O 0 0 0 0 0 '. 0 0 N V M M 0 M Cn M 0 0 00 M 0 M 0 )0 )0 O O O O O 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N 0 .- 0 0 0 V m a ,-0 O M N N O coon m n m O 0 0 — r 0 0 N N 0000 M M N N N 0 0 '- 0 M M 0 ,-N 0000 0,-NO 0 000C 0 0 0 v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N V O v v. r v 0 0 0 0000 o 0 .- 0 N 0000 0 0000 0 0000 0000 ,N� mamma v 0 0 .- " 0 0000 r 0,0N 0 V v 0 0 o .- O C M 0000 0000 0 0000 O O v 0 0 0 0000 Q7 M N V a '- 0 0 0 0 N v .-0 LLO 7 O N M O N 0 n CO 10 V 0) N N N 0) 0 0) M 0 — — 0 0 0 0000 0 0000 0000 0 000C N W . ae. 0 N MN CON-,0 N OMZr r- 0 00 0 r N CO CO N N N 0 0 0 0 m 1+i 0 m-Nn m O n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 • M N '- N-v O N • V N M L r 0 0 om- N O 0 0 0 0 V v NO O 0 0 0 0 V 0000 N N O 0 01 0 O n000 ▪ n O- O V r r O e N n co ,_ N yy o O 00 I O 0 0,22m a a a E o n o o o v v v a 2222 a a a LEI m co m a a a 222 10 �O t0 )0 a a a a onronv H x 7.5 a a a a H HH To H a a a a a ,24 n o 0 H 0 a a a 222 i x O Spack Consulting Appendix D: Level of Service (LOS) CONSULTING Research drief — Volume No. 3 Level of Service (LOS) Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative description, similar to typical school grades, that traffic engineers use to communi- cate how good or bad traffic operations are on a corridor, intersection, or interchange. Common Factors Traffic can be a hard thing to quantify as everyone has a different tolerance for congestion. What seems excessively long to one person may seem good enough for another. These differences are readily apparent when comparing small towns or rural areas, where five cars an hour can be the norm, to big cities or downtowns, where less than hundred cars an hour, even in the middle of night, is rare. To combat this issue and provide a consistent measuring tool for traffic studies, a "Level of Service" rating was developed. Level of Service ratings are based on the roadway or intersection characteristics and the amount of traffic. Just like grade school, LOS A represents the best traffic operations, where traffic flows freely. LOS F, on the other hand, represents failing operations, where the road or intersection is congested and running beyond maximum capacity. LOS E is typically considered "at capacity" which means the amount of traffic is right at the level the roadway or intersection can adequately accommodate. Using Level of Service letter grades provides an easy way to convey road operations to the general public and has been adopted across the United States. Common Factors Impacting Level of Service • Number of Lanes. • Traffic Volumes. • Intersection Control (stop sign, signal, roundabout, interchange.) • Amount of access on a corridor. • Percentage of turning traffic. • Traffic signal cycle length (green time devoted to each approach) and phasing (one green for all approach movements or separate green arrows.) • Percentage of heavy trucks. • Roadway Grades. • Distribution of traffic within a peak hour as well as over the course of a day. • Pedestrian activity. • Bicycle activity. Traffic Impact Study 3650 Hazelton Apartments Redevelopment D1 Level of Service criteria have been developed for multiple types of traffic operations including: • Intersections • Urban Corridors • Freeways • Transit Service • Bicycle Operations • Pedestrian Operations The most common LOS criteria used is for car operations at intersections; both signalized and unsignalized. For an intersection Level of Service analysis, average delay for cars travelling through the intersection is used to determine the appropriate grade. A high delay results in a poor LOS rating and equates to poor operations. Similarly, low delay results in a good LOS rating and equates to good or great operations. LOS can be determined for the intersection as a whole, or for individual movements. It is common during peak periods in major population areas for an intersection to have an acceptable overall LOS rating, but fail to achieve a good grade for individual movements. Spack Consulting Appendix D: Level of Service (LOS) Research Brief Volume No. 3 • • LOS A LOS C LOS D = Acceptable LOS F = Unacceptable Source: City of San Jose, CA. Although a Level of Service rating of A represents the best traffic operations, it is not always the most desirable. Providing LOS A for all corridors and all operations at all times would require a significant amount of land to be devoted to the road infrastructure, which makes it extremely costly to build and maintain. During non -peak times, like overnight, much of that infrastructure would sit unused. On the opposite side of the spectrum, a Level of Service rating of E and F represent traffic operations close to breaking down, or that already have. These ratings mean high delays, long queues, and slow speeds, not to mention driver frustration. Instead of trying to achieve one or the other, government agencies try to strike a balance between providing acceptable operations, neither falling nor flowing too freely. Because of this, LOS D is typically considered the lowest LOS acceptable by government agencies and is reflective of a balanced approach between cost and benefit. There are many tools and guidelines used to determine a roads Level of Service rating. Simple tools like generalized roadway capacities allow for planning -level efforts. While inexpensive and quick to complete, they are not as accurate as other options. More complicated tools, such as mi- cro -simulations, provide more accurate results, but cost more and take more time. It is important to understand the trade-offs between the analysis types as well as the purpose of the study. Detailed Analysis Signal Timing, Corridor Evaluation (Micro-scopic Analyst s) Operational Analysis Intersection Needs, Geometric Dedsions (Macro-Scopi c Analysis) Preliminary Engineering ROW Needs, Cost Estimates (Spreadsheet/Formula Analysis) Planning Level Long Term Plans, ROW Needs (Generalized LOSTables) r__ Effort/Complexity Source: Florida Deptarment of Transportation Resources • Highway Capacity Manual. fifth edition • Nation Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 616; Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets • http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlineoubs/nchrp/nchrn rpt 616. pdf • Florida Department of Transportation Quality/Level of Service Handbook • http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/programs/sm/ los/pdfs/2009FDOTQLOS Handbook.odf About This Brief Spack Consulting prepared this brief as part of our company's vision to significantly improve the practice of traffic engineering and transportation planning. Transportation professionals from around the world have assisted us in developing this document. We are providing this brief under the Creative Commons Attribution License. Feel free to use -modify -share this guide, but please give us some credit in your document. To request our whole series of Design Briefs and to be included on our distribution list for new materials, please email mspack@spackconsulting.com. And please reach out if you have any comments or questions related to this Design Brief. is Impact StuMike O n CONSULTIN�0 Hazelton ApartmentJttII ment S PACK COUNTING pf1$pack Co ACADEMY 1==S. TRAFFIC DATA INC. Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSULTING 3650 Hazelton Road Vistro File: C:\...\Hazelton Vistro - Updates.vistro Report File: C:\...\AM Existing.pdf Intersection Analysis Summary Scenario 1 AM Existing 1 /31 /2018 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 France Avenue & Hazelton Road Signalized HCM 6th Edition NB Left 0.279 12.8 B 2 Hazelton & Site Driveway Roundabout HCM 6th Edition EB Thru 3.7 A 3 York Avenue & Hazelton Road Signalized HCM 6th Edition NB Left 0.259 13.5 B V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road El Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSULTING Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1: France Avenue & Hazelton Road Signalized HCM 6th Edition 15 minutes Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 12.8 B 0.279 Name France Ave France Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration i i l i r 111 F it* l i r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Pocket Length [ft] 150.00 100.00 300.00 225.00 100.00 100.00 75.00 100.00 1 C 125.00 ' 00.00 125.00 Speed [mph] 40.00 40.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Curb Present No No No No Crosswalk Yes Yes No Yes Volumes Name France Ave France Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Base Volume Input [veh/h] 9 622 87 137 895 11 8 10 3 79 10 61 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 3.00 1.25 3.75 1.25 1.30 1.25 0.00 1.80 3.50 3.75 1.00 1.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 22 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 19 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 9 622 65 137 895 8 8 10 2 79 10 42 Peak Hour Factor 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 2 169 18 37 243 2 2 3 1 21 3 11 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 10 676 71 149 973 9 9 11 2 86 11 46 Presence of On -Street Parking No No No No No No No No On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 5 5 5 5 v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing n 5 5 5 5 v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 5 0 0 5 v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing ni 5 0 0 5 v_ab, Comer Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5 5 5 5 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 5 5 5 5 Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road Traffic Impact Study E2 Spack Consulting Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Settings CONSULTING Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 90 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 0 1 6 0 3 8 0 7 4 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups Lead / Lag Lead Lag - - - - Minimum Green [s] 5 30 0 5 30 0 10 0 0 10 Maximum Green [s] 10 45 0 10 45 0 0 20 0 0 20 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.r. 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 All red [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 Split [s] 15 50 0 15 50 0 0 25 0 25 Vehicle Extension [s) 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0,0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 7 0 0 7 0 7 7 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 19 0 0 13 0 28 25 Rest In Walk No No No No 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 O.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0. 0.0 2.5 2.5 Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No Yes No Yes No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering 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 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk [s] 0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E3 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • • Generated with Version 5.00-03 Lane Group Calculations CONSULTING Lane Group L C R L C C L C L C R C, Cycle Length [s] 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ., _ , 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 1 54 54 9 62 62 12 12 12 12 12 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.01 0.60 0.60 0.10 0.69 0.69 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.13 0.05 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.03 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1767 5124 1518 1792 3580 1870 1398 1810 1354 1885 1537 c, Capacity [veh/h] 23 3070 909 182 2461 1286 239 250 232 261 213 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 44.08 8.33 7.58 39.62 5.36 5.36 35.59 33.65 37.86 33.61 34.40 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.17 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 12.28 0.17 0.17 12.95 0.26 0.50 0.06 0.09 0.98 0.07 0.50 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.43 0.22 0.08 0.82 0.26 0.26 0.04 0.05 0.37 0.04 0.22 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 56.36 8.50 7.75 52.58 5.62 5.86 35.65 33.74 38.84 33.67 34.90 Lane Group LOS E A A D A A D C D C C Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.29 1.78 0.54 3.76 1.84 2.01 0.18 0.25 1.84 0.21 0.91 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 7.34 44.50 13.47 94.06 46.03 50.26 4.47 6.26 45.93 5.28 22.84 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.53 3.20 0.97 6.77 3.31 3.62 0.32 0.45 3.31 0.38 1.64 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 13.20 80.10 24.25 169.32 82.85 90.47 8.05 11.26 82.67 9.51 41.12 Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E4 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with VISTRO Version 5.00-03 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results CONSJLT,NG d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 56.36 8.50 7.75 52.58 5.70 5.86 35.65 33.74 33.74 38.84 33.67 34.90 Movement LOS E A A D A A D C C D C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 9.06 11.88 34.52 37.18 Approach LOS A B C D d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 12 84 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.279 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 11.0 11.0 11.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft'/ped: 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft'/ped 1160.32 1172.03 1023.37 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 34.67 34.67 34.67 I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersecticn 3.178 2.960 2.259 Crosswalk LOS C C I B s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 1000 1000 456 456 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 11.28 11.28 26.90 26.90 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.988 2.183 1.598 1.827 Bicycle LOS A B A A Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 Ring 2 5 6 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E5 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSULTING Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2: Hazelton & Site Driveway Roundabout Delay (sec / veh): HCM 6th Edition Level Of Service: 15 minutes 3.7 A Name Business Access Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration Orr i ir Turning Movement U-turn Left Thru Right Right2 U-turn Left2 Left Thru Right U-turn Left Thru Right Right2 Lane Wdth [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Volumes Name Business Access Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 15 0 0 12 14 1 2 132 10 0 23 87 6 0 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 0 15 0 0 12 14 1 2 132 10 0 23 87 6 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 Other Adjustment Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 0 4 0 0 3 4 0 1 38 3 0 7 25 2 0 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0 17 0 0 14 16 1 2 150 11 0 26 99 7 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5 5 5 Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E6 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSULTING inns Number of Conflicting Circulating Lanes 1 1 1 Circulating Flow Rate [veh/h] 183 37 37 Exiting Flow Rate [veh/h] 27 135 163 Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 15 0 0 12 14 1 2 132 10 0 23 87 6 0 Adjusted Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 17 0 0 14 16 1 2 150 11 0 26 99 7 0 Overwrite Calculated Critical Headway No No No User -Defined Critical Headway [s] 4.00 Overwrite Calculated Follow -Up Time No No No User -Defined Follow -Up Time [s] 3.00 3.00 A (intercept) 1380.00 1380.00 1380.00 B (coefficient) 0.00102 0.00102 0.00102 HV Adjustment Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 Entry Flow Rate [veh/h] 32 184 135 Capacity of Entry and Bypass Lanes [veh/Ik] 1146 1330 1330 Pedestrian Impedance 1.00 1.00 1.00 Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] 1123 1303 1303 X, volume / capacity 0.03 0.14 0.10 roach, & Intersection Results Lane LOS A A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.09 0.48 0.34 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 2.13 11.99 8.44 Approach Delay [s/veh] 3.44 3.90 3.58 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Delay [s/veh] 3.72 Intersection LOS A Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E7 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • • Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Setu GONSULT W G Name Site Access Business Access Approach Southwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration 1` Turning Movement U-turn Left Thru Right Right2 U-turn Left2 Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Name Site Access Business Access Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 2 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 2 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5 5 Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E8 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Settings ' I CONSULTING Number of Conflicting Circulating Lanes 1 1 Circulating Flow Rate [veh/h] 169 161 Exiting Flow Rate [veh/h] 2 8 Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 2 Adjusted Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 2 Lanes Overwrite Calculated Critical Headway No No User -Defined Critical Headway [s] 4.00 Overwrite Calculated Follow -Up Time No No User -Defined Follow -Up Time [s] 3.00 A (intercept) 1380.00 1380.00 B (coefficient) 0.00102 0.00102 HV Adjustment Factor 0.98 0.98 Entry Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 13 Capacity of Entry and Bypass Lanes [veh/h6 1162 1171 Pedestrian Impedance 1.00 1.00 Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] 1138 1148 X, volume / capacity 0.00 0.01 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results Lane LOS A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.00 0.03 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 0.00 0.79 Approach Delay [s/veh] 3.16 3.22 Approach LOS A A Intersection Delay [s/veh] 3.72 Intersection LOS A Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E9 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study • • Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • Generated with Version 5.00-03 EM CONSULTING Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 3: York Avenue & Hazelton Road Signalized HCM 6th Edition 15 minutes Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 13.5 B 0.259 Name York Ave York Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration 1 i i~ i i i r 1 r + Tuming Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 160.00 10' ' 0.00 175.00 1 Ob.30 275.00 100.00 1 765.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Speed [mph] 35.00 35.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Curb Present No No No No Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes No Volumes Name York Ave York Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Base Volume Input [veh/h] 70 367 19 24 445 68 57 9 55 3 1 4 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.40 2.00 2.10 0.70 1.60 3.60 3.80 0.00 2.20 2.40 1.75 1.10 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 5 0 0 17 0 0 14 0 0 1 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 70 367 14 24 445 51 57 9 41 3 1 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 22 113 4 7 137 16 18 3 13 1 0 1 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 86 453 17 30 549 63 70 11 51 4 1 4 Presence of On -Street Parking No No No No No No No No On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 5 5 5 5 v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 5 5 5 5 v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 5 5 v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing ni 0 5 5 v_ab, Comer Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5 5 5 5 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 5 5 5 5 Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road Traffic Impact Study E10 Spack Consulting Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Settings CONSULTXNG Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 90 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 8 4 Auxiliary Signal Groups Lead / Lag Lead Lag Minimum Green [s] 5 30 5 30 10 10 Maximum Green [s] 10 55 10 55 20 20 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 Split [s] 15 60 15 60 25 25 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 15 25 27 Rest In Walk No No No No 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 Minimum Recall No Yes No Yes No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering 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 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk [s] 0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road Traffic Impact Study El 1 Spack Consulting Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • Generated with VI Version 5.00-03 Lane Group Calculations CONSULTING Lane Group L C C L C R C R C C, Cycle Length [s] 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 I1_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 6 61 61 3 58 58 12 12 12 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.06 0.67 0.67 0.03 0.64 0.64 0.13 0.13 0.13 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.05 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.15 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.01 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1790 1870 1843 1800 3572 1521 1427 1521 1121 c, Capacity [veh/h] 113 1258 1240 55 2288 974 268 206 210 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 41.57 5.53 5.53 43.06 6.88 6.07 35.68 34.79 33.92 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 10.14 0.33 0.34 8.01 0.25 0.13 0.63 0.62 0.08 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.76 0.19 0.19 0.54 0.24 0.06 0.30 0.25 0.04 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 51.71 5.86 5.87 51.07 7.13 6.20 36.31 35.41 34.00 Lane Group LOS D A A D A A D D C Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 2.16 1.48 1.47 0.77 1.98 0.42 1.66 1.02 0.17 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 53.89 36.99 36.67 19.21 49.45 10.47 41.47 25.60 4.36 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 3.88 2.66 2.64 1.38 3.56 0.75 2.99 1.84 0.31 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 97.01 66.58 66.00 34.59 89.02 18.85 74.65 46.08 7.86 Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E12 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with V[STRO Version 5.00-03 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results CONSt1LTXNG d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 51.71 5.86 5.87 51.07 7.13 6.20 36.31 36.31 35.41 34.00 34.00 34.00 Movement LOS D A A D A A D D D C C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 12.95 9.09 35.96 34.00 Approach LOS B A D C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 13 51 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.259 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 9.0 9.0 9.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft2/ped; 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [Wiped 887.59 895.39 682.89 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 36.45 36.45 36.45 I__p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersecticn 2.582 2.803 2.063 Crosswalk LOS B C B s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 1222 1222 456 456 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 6.82 6.82 26.90 26.90 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.022 2.103 1.801 1.576 Bicycle LOS B B A A Sequence Ring 1 Ring 2 Ring 3 Ring 4 1 5 2 6 4 8 Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E13 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • Generated with VISTRO Version 5.00-03 Lane Configuration and Traffic Control ©'' r CONSULTING Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E14 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with ` VISTR© Version 5.00-03 Traffic Volume - Base Volume CONSULTNG Scenario 1: 1 AM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E15 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSULTING 3650 Hazelton Road Vistro File: C:\...\Hazelton Vistro - Updates.vistro Report File: C:\...\PM Existing.pdf Intersection Analysis Summary Scenario 2 PM Existing 1/31/2018 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 France Avenue & Hazelton Road Signalized HCM 6th Edition NB Left 0.465 13.8 B 2 Hazelton & Site Driveway Roundabout HCM 6th Edition EB Thru 5.5 A 3 York Avenue & Hazelton Road Signalized HCM 6th Edition SB Left 0.447 24.4 C V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E16 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSULTING Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1: France Avenue & Hazelton Road Signalized HCM 6th Edition 15 minutes Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 13.8 B 0.465 Name France Ave France Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration i i i i r i i i i~ 11* i i r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Pocket Length [ft] 150.00 ' 00.00 300.00 225.00 100.00 100.00 75.00 100.00 100.00 125.00 100.0( 125.00 Speed [mph] 40.00 40.00 30.00 30.00 Grade j%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Curb Present No No No No Crosswalk Yes Yes No Yes Volumes Name France Ave France Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Base Volume Input [veh/h] 11 1313 179 184 993 8 17 26 5 134 24 163 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 3.00 1.25 3.75 1.25 1.30 1.25 0.00 1.80 3.50 3.75 1.00 1.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 45 0 0 2 2 0 41 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 11 1313 134 184 993 6 17 26 3 134 24 122 Peak Hour Factor 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 3 334 34 47 253 2 4 7 1 34 6 31 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 11 1336 136 187 1010 6 17 26 3 136 24 124 Presence of On -Street Parking No No No No No No No No On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] .. 0 0 0 0 0 Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0 0 v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 0 0 0 0 v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0 0 v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road Traffic Impact Study E17 Spack Consulting Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Settings CONSULTMG Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 140 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 8 4 Auxiliary Signal Groups Lead / Lag Lead Lead Minimum Green [s] 5 30 5 30 10 10 Maximum Green [s] 25 75 25 75 25 25 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 Split [s] 30 80 30 80 30 30 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 7 7 7 7 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 19 13 28 25 Rest In Walk No No No No 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No Yes No Yes No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering 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 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk [s] 0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E18 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with ill Version 5.00-03 Lane Group Calculations CONSULTING Lane Group L C R L C C L C L C R C, Cycle Length [s] 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 0.0` 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 2 89 89 17 104 104 20 20 20 20 20 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.01 0.63 0.63 0.12 0.74 0.74 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.26 0.09 0.10 0.19 0.19 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.08 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1767 5124 1567 1792 3580 1875 1409 1839 1361 1885 1602 c, Capacity [veh/h] 23 3250 994 212 2648 1387 217 265 207 271 231 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 68.36 4.62 4.11 58.03 0.25 0.25 55.20 52.12 60.96 51.96 55.60 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.13 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 15.43 0.39 0.29 12.92 0.23 0.44 0.15 0.18 3.49 0.14 1.94 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.49 0.41 0.14 0.88 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.11 0.66 0.09 0.54 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 83.78 5.00 4.40 70.95 0.48 0.69 55.36 52.30 64.45 52.09 57.54 Lane Group LOS F A A E A A E D E D E Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.48 2.42 0.73 6.91 0.21 0.30 0.55 0.91 4.97 0.75 4.21 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 12.07 60.47 18.22 172.76 5.14 7.38 13.75 22.72 124.15 18.74 105.24 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.87 4.35 1.31 11.22 0.37 0.53 0.99 1.64 8.62 1.35 7.57 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 21.73 108.85 32.79 280.54 9.24 13.28 24.75 40.90 215.52 33.72 189.37 Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E19 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • • Generated with, VISTRO Version 5.00-03 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results CONSULTING d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 83.78 5.00 4.40 70.95 0.55 0.69 55.36 52.30 52.30 64.45 52.09 57.54 Movement LOS F A A E A A E D D E D E d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 5.53 11.50 53.43 60.39 Approach LOS A B D E d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 13 81 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.465 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 11.0 11.0 11.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [Wiped: 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft'/ped 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 59.43 59.43 59.43 I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersecticn 3.439 3.148 2.386 Crosswalk LOS C C B s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/I-] 1071 1071 364 364 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 15.09 15.09 46.82 46.82 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.400 2.222 1.639 2.096 Bicycle LOS B B A B Sequence 1 Ring 1 1 2 4 Ring 2 5 6 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E20 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSULTING Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2: Hazelton & Site Driveway Roundabout Delay (sec / veh): HCM 6th Edition Level Of Service: 15 minutes 5.5 A Name Business Access Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration 1 it Turning Movement U-turn Left Thru Right Right2 U-turn Left2 Left Thru Right U-turn Left Thru Right Right2 Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Volumes Name Business Access Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 31 1 1 36 37 1 13 292 14 2 69 234 3 13 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 0 31 1 1 36 37 1 13 292 14 2 69 234 3 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 Other Adjustment Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 0 8 0 0 10 10 0 3 77 4 1 18 62 1 3 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0 33 1 1 38 39 1 14 309 15 2 73 248 3 14 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5 5 5 Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E21 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • • Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Settings CONSULTING Number of Conflicting Circulating Lanes 1 1 1 Circulating Flow Rate [veh/h] 400 110 91 Exiting Flow Rate [veh/h] 81 340 345 Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 31 1 1 36 37 1 I 13 292 14 2 69 234 3 13 Adjusted Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 33 1 1 38 39 1 14 309 15 2 73 248 3 14 Lanes Overwrite Calculated Critical Headway No No No User -Defined Critical Headway [s] Overwrite Calculated Follow -Up Time No No No User -Defined Follow -Up Time [s] A (intercept) 1380.00 1380.00 1380.00 B (coefficient) 0.00102 0.00102 0.00102 HV Adjustment Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 Entry Flow Rate [veh/h] 75 386 347 Capacity of Entry and Bypass Lanes [veh/tj] 918 1234 1258 Pedestrian Impedance 1.00 1.00 1.00 Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] 900 1209 1233 X, volume / capacity 0.08 0.31 0.28 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results Lane LOS A A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.26 1.35 1.13 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 6.61 33.71 28.29 Approach Delay [s/veh] 4.76 5.89 5.41 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Delay [s/veh] 5.50 Intersection LOS A Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E22 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Li Version 5.00-03 Intersection Setup CONSULTMG Name Site Access Business Access Approach Southwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration ite Turning Movement U-turn Left Thru Right Right2 U-turn Left2 Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Volumes Name Site Access Business Access Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 8 1 12 0 0 0 18 5 10 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 0 8 1 12 0 0 0 18 5 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 5 1 3 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0 8 1 13 0 0 0 19 5 11 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5 5 Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E23 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Settings CONSULTING Number of Conflicting Circulating Lanes 1 1 Circulating Flow Rate [veh/h] 408 425 Exiting Flow Rate [veh/h] 15 5 Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 8 1 12 0 0 0 18 5 10 Adjusted Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 8 1 13 0 0 0 19 I 5 11 Lanes Overwrite Calculated Critical Headway No No User -Defined Critical Headway [s] Overwrite Calculated Follow -Up Time No No User -Defined Follow -Up Time [s] A (intercept) 1380.00 1380.00 B (coefficient) 0.00102 0.00102 HV Adjustment Factor 0.98 0.98 Entry Flow Rate [veh/h] 23 36 Capacity of Entry and Bypass Lanes [vehh-k] 911 895 Pedestrian Impedance 1.00 1.00 Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] 892 877 X, volume / capacity 0.02 0.04 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results Lane LOS A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.08 0.12 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 1.90 3.12 Approach Delay [s/veh] 4.26 4.48 Approach LOS A A Intersection Delay [s/veh] 5.50 Intersection LOS A Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E24 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSULTING Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 3: York Avenue & Hazelton Road Signalized HCM 6th Edition 15 minutes Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 24.4 c 0.447 Name York Ave York Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration 1117 1 i i r 1 r 1 Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 160.00 100.00 100.00 175.00 100.00 275.00 100.00 100.00 765.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Speed [mph] 35.00 35.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Curb Present No No No No Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes No Volumes Name York Ave York Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Base Volume Input [veh/h] 170 731 6 22 668 137 184 2 127 12 10 31 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.40 2.00 2.10 0.70 1.60 3.60 3.80 0.00 2.20 2.40 1.75 1.10 Growth Rate 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 2 0 0 35 0 0 32 0 0 8 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 170 731 4 22 668 102 184 2 95 12 10 23 Peak Hour Factor 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 43 187 1 6 171 26 47 1 24 3 3 6 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 174 747 4 22 682 104 188 2 97 12 10 23 Presence of On -Street Parking No No No No No No No No On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 5 5 5 5 v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 5 5 5 5 v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 5 5 0 v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing ni 0 5 5 0 v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5 5 5 5 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 5 5 5 5 Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road Traffic Impact Study E25 Spack Consulting Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • • Generated with Version 5.00-03 PTV V1STRo CONSULTING Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 140 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand f Lost time [s] 0.00 J Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 0 3 8 0 7 4 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups Lead / Lag Lead Lead - - Minimum Green [s] 5 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 5 Maximum Green [s] 25 65 25 65 0 35 0 0 35 0 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0,0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 All red [s] 2.0 2.0 v. , 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 9 Split [s] 30 70 0 30 70 0 40 0 0 40 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.5 0.0 3.0 3.5 0.0 0,0 3.0 0,0 0,0 3.0 0.0 Walk [s] 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 10 15 0 0 25 0 0 27 0 Rest In Walk No No No No 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0,0 0,0 2.0 0.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 Minimum Recall No Yes No Yes No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering 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 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk [s] 0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E26 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with VI Version 5.00-03 Lane Group Calculations CONSULTING Lane Group L C C L C R C R C C, Cycle Length [s] 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0,0C• 0.00 0.0( 2.00 0.00 2.00 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 16 97 97 3 85 85 25 25 25 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.11 0.70 0.70 0.02 0.60 0.60 0.18 0.18 0.18 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.01 0.19 0.07 0.16 0.06 0.04 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1790 1870 1866 1800 3572 1520 1200 1533 1200 c, Capacity [veh/h] 200 1299 1296 38 2158 919 268 277 249 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 61.18 8.16 8.16 67.90 13.55 11.74 55.85 50.07 48.84 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.17 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 11.00 0.56 0.56 13.09 0.38 0.25 5.46 0.76 0.34 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.87 0.29 0.29 0.58 0.32 0.11 0.71 0.35 0.18 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 72.19 8.73 8.73 80.99 13.94 11.99 61.31 50.82 49.18 Lane Group LOS E A A F B B E D D Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 6.67 4.32 4.31 0.92 5.29 1.43 6.95 3.05 1.38 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 166.75 107.94 107.76 22.93 132.25 35.78 173.74 76.32 34.47 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 10.91 7.73 7.72 1.65 9.06 2.58 11.27 5.50 2.48 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 272.64 193.13 192.88 41.28 226.55 64.41 281.82 137.38 62.05 Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E27 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study • • Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • • Generated with is VISTRO Version 5.00-03 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results CONSULTING d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 72.19 8.73 8.73 80.99 13.94 11.99 61.31 61.31 50.82 49.18 49.18 49.18 Movement LOS E A A F B B E E D D D D d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 20.67 15.51 57.77 49.18 Approach LOS C B E D d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 24 43 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.447 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 9.0 9.0 9.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [fe/ped_ 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [fe/pedl 456.50 354.95 272.44 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 61.29 61.29 61.29 I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersecticn 2.740 3.135 2.217 Crosswalk LOS B C B s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicyclesfr] 929 929 507 507 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 20.14 20.14 39.10 39.10 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.324 2.255 2.086 1.647 Bicycle LOS B B B A Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 Ring 2 5 6 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E28 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with �� VISTRO Version 5.00-03 Lane Configuration and Traffic Control CONSULTING Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E29 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with GE Version 5.00-03 Traffic Volume - Base Volume VISTRO CONSULTING Scenario 2: 2 PM Existing 3650 Hazelton Road E30 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSULTING 3650 Hazelton Road Vistro File: C:\...\Hazelton Vistro - Updates.vistro Report File: C:\...WM 2020 No Build.pdf Intersection Analysis Summary Scenario 3 AM 2020 No Build 1 /31 /2018 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 France Avenue & Hazelton Road Signalized HCM 6th Edition NB Left 0.284 12.9 B 2 Hazelton & Site Driveway Roundabout HCM 6th Edition EB Thru 3.7 A 3 York Avenue & Hazelton Road Signalized HCM 6th Edition NB Left 0.265 13.6 B V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Scenario 3: 3 AM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E31 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • • Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSULTING Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: n Setu Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1: France Avenue & Hazelton Road Signalized HCM 6th Edition 15 minutes Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 12.9 B 0.284 Name France Ave France Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration 111 I r 111 1 114 l i r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Pocket Length [ft] 150.00 300.00 225.00 100.00 100.00 75.00 100.00 100.00 125.00 100.00 125.00 Speed [mph] 40.00 40.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Curb Present No No No No Crosswalk Yes Yes No Yes Name France Ave France Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Base Volume Input [veh/h] 9 622 87 137 895 11 8 10 3 79 10 61 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 3.00 1.25 3.75 1.25 1.30 1.25 0.00 1.80 3.50 3.75 1.00 1.00 Growth Rate 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 in -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 22 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 19 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 9 634 67 140 913 8 8 10 2 81 10 43 Peak Hour Factor 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 2 172 18 38 248 2 2 3 1 22 3 12 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 10 689 73 152 992 9 9 11 2 88 11 47 Presence of On -Street Parking No No No No No No No No On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate (/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 5 5 5 5 v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 5 5 5 5 v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 5 0 0 5 v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing ni 5 0 0 5 v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5 5 5 5 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 5 5 5 5 Scenario 3: 3 AM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road Traffic Impact Study E32 Spack Consulting Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Settings CONSULTING Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 90 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 0 3 8 0 7 4 Auxiliary Signal Groups Lead / Lag Lead Lag - - - - Minimum Green [s] 5 30 5 30 0 0 10 10 0 Maximum Green [s] 10 45 10 45 0 0 20 0 20 0 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 All red [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 Split [s] 15 50 15 50 0 0 25 0 25 0 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0,0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Walk [s] 7 7 0 0 7 7 0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 19 13 t? 0 28 25 0 Rest In Walk No No No No 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.0 3.0 u.5 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No Yes No Yes No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 1, Upstream Filtering 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 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk [s] 0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 Scenario 3: 3 AM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E33 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • Generated with VI Version 5.00-03 Lane Group Calculations CONSULTING Lane Group L C R L C C L C L C R C, Cycle Length [s] 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 1 54 54 9 62 62 12 12 12 12 12 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.01 0.60 0.60 0.10 0.69 0.69 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.13 0.05 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.03 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1767 5124 1518 1792 3580 1871 1398 1810 1354 1885 1537 c, Capacity [veh/h] 23 3060 906 185 2461 1286 239 251 232 261 213 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 44.08 8.44 7.66 39.54 5.39 5.39 35.57 33.64 37.90 33.59 34.40 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.18 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 12.28 0.17 0.17 13.55 0.27 0.51 0.06 0.08 1.02 0.07 0.52 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.43 0.23 0.08 0.82 0.27 0.27 0.04 0.05 0.38 0.04 0.22 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 56.36 8.61 7.83 53.09 5.66 5.90 35.64 33.72 38.91 33.66 34.92 Lane Group LOS E A A D A A D C D C C Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.29 1.84 0.56 3.87 1.89 2.07 0.18 0.25 1.88 0.21 0.93 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 7.34 45.91 13.99 96.64 47.31 51.66 4.47 6.25 47.04 5.28 23.34 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.53 3.31 1.01 6.96 3.41 3.72 0.32 0.45 3.39 0.38 1.68 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 13.20 82.63 25.19 173.95 85.16 92.99 8.04 11.25 84.67 9.50 42.01 Scenario 3: 3 AM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E34 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results CONSULTING d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 56.36 8.61 7.83 53.09 5.74 5.90 35.64 33.72 33.72 38.91 33.66 34.92 Movement LOS E A A D A A D C C D C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 9.15 11.98 34.50 37.23 Approach LOS A B C D d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 12 94 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.284 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 11.0 11.0 11.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [Wiped] 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft'/pedl 1158.17 1170.84 1019.76 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 34.67 34.67 34.67 I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersecticn 3.186 2.967 2.261 Crosswalk LOS C C B s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/r] 1000 1000 456 456 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 11.28 11.28 26.90 26.90 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.996 2.195 1.598 1.832 Bicycle LOS A B A A Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 Ring 2 5 6 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 Scenario 3: 3 AM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E35 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSJLTING Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2: Hazelton & Site Driveway Roundabout Delay (sec / veh): HCM 6th Edition Level Of Service: 15 minutes 3.7 A Name Business Access Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration lt Turning Movement U-turn Left Thru Right Right2 U-turn Left2 Left Thru Right U-turn Left Thru Right Right2 Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Volumes Name Business Access Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 15 0 0 12 14 1 2 132 10 0 23 87 6 0 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 0 15 0 0 12 14 1 2 135 10 0 23 89 6 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 Other Adjustment Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 0 4 0 0 3 4 0 1 38 3 0 7 25 2 0 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0 17 0 0 14 16 1 2 153 11 0 26 101 7 0 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5 5 5 Scenario 3: 3 AM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E36 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Settings CONSULTING Number of Conflicting Circulating Lanes 1 1 • 1 Circulating Flow Rate [veh/h] 186 37 37 Exiting Flow Rate [veh/h] 27 137 166 Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 15 0 0 12 14 1 2 135 10 0 23 89 6 0 Adjusted Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 17 0 0 14 16 1 2 153 11 0 26 101 7 0 Lanes Overwrite Calculated Critical Headway No No No User -Defined Critical Headway [s] 4.00 4.00 Overwrite Calculated Follow -Up Time No No No User -Defined Follow -Up Time [s] 3.0( 3.00 3.00 A (intercept) 1380.00 1380.00 1380.00 B (coefficient) 0.00102 0.00102 0.00102 HV Adjustment Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 Entry Flow Rate [veh/h] 32 187 137 Capacity of Entry and Bypass Lanes [veh/hj 1142 1330 1330 Pedestrian Impedance 1.00 1.00 1.00 Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] 1119 1303 1303 X, volume / capacity 0.03 0.14 0.10 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results Lane LOS A A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.09 0.49 0.34 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 2.14 12.22 8.58 Approach Delay [s/veh] 3.45 3.92 3.60 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Delay [s/veh] 3.73 Intersection LOS A Scenario 3: 3 AM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E37 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • • Generated with Ell= Version 5.00-03 Name Site Access Business Access Approach Southwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration1114 ` Turning Movement U-turn Left Thru Right Right2 U-turn Left2 Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] J0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Name Site Access Business Access Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 2 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 2 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5 5 Scenario 3: 3 AM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E38 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Settings PTV VISTRO CONSULTING Number of Conflicting Circulating Lanes 1 1 Circulating Flow Rate [veh/h] 171 163 Exiting Flow Rate [veh/h] 2 8 Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 2 Adjusted Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 2 Lanes Overwrite Calculated Critical Headway No No User -Defined Critical Headway [s] 4.00 Overwrite Calculated Follow -Up Time No No User -Defined Follow -Up Time [s] 3,00 3,00 A (intercept) 1380.00 1380.00 B (coefficient) 0.00102 0.00102 HV Adjustment Factor 0.98 0.98 Entry Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 13 Capacity of Entry and Bypass Lanes [veh/ J 1159 1169 Pedestrian Impedance 1.00 1.00 Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] 1136 1145 X, volume / capacity 0.00 0.01 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results Lane LOS A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length [vehj 0.00 0.03 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 0.00 0.79 Approach Delay [s/veh] 3.17 3.23 Approach LOS A A Intersection Delay [s/veh] 3.73 Intersection LOS A Scenario 3: 3 AM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E39 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • • Generated with Version 5.00-03 EXEI CONSULTING Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM 6th Edition 15 minutes Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 3: York Avenue & Hazelton Road Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 13.6 B 0.265 Name York Ave York Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration 11 I i i i r I r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 160.00 100.00 10u.00 175.00 100.00 275.00 100.00 100.00 765.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Speed [mph] 35.00 35.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Curb Present No No No No Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes No Volumes Name York Ave York Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Base Volume Input [veh/h] 70 367 19 24 445 68 57 9 55 3 1 4 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.40 2.00 2.10 0.70 1.60 3.60 3.80 0.00 2.20 2.40 1.75 1.10 Growth Rate 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 5 0 0 17 0 0 14 0 0 1 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 71 374 14 24 454 52 58 9 42 3 1 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 22 115 4 7 140 16 18 3 13 1 0 1 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 88 462 17 30 560 64 72 11 52 4 1 4 Presence of On -Street Parking No No No No No No No No On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 5 5 5 5 v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 5 5 5 5 v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 5 5 0 v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0 5 5 0 v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5 5 5 5 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 5 5 5 5 Scenario 3: 3 AM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road Traffic Impact Study E40 Spack Consulting Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Settings CONSULTING Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 90 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 8 4 Auxiliary Signal Groups Lead / Lag Lead Lag Minimum Green [s] 5 30 5 30 10 10 Maximum Green [s] 10 55 10 55 20 20 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 Split [s] 15 60 15 60 25 25 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 15 25 27 Rest In Walk No No No No 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 Minimum Recall No Yes No Yes No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .. 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering 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 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk [s] 0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 Scenario 3: 3 AM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E41 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSULTING Lane Group Calculations Lane Group L C C L C R C R C C, Cycle Length [s] 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 6 61 61 3 58 58 12 12 12 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.06 0.67 0.67 0.03 0.64 0.64 0.14 0.14 0.14 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.05 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.16 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.01 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1790 1870 1843 1800 3572 1521 1415 1521 1101 c, Capacity [veh/h] 115 1258 1240 55 2282 972 267 207 207 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 41.50 5.55 5.55 43.06 6.97 6.13 35.75 34.79 33.90 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 10.00 0.34 0.35 8.01 0.26 0.13 0.66 0.63 0.09 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.76 0.19 0.19 0.54 0.25 0.07 0.31 0.25 0.04 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 51.51 5.89 5.90 51.07 7.23 6.26 36.40 35.43 33.99 Lane Group LOS D A A D A A D D C Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 2.20 1.51 1.50 0.77 2.04 0.43 1.70 1.04 0.17 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 55.00 37.85 37.52 19.21 50.98 10.72 42.60 26.11 4.36 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 3.96 2.73 2.70 1.38 3.67 0.77 3.07 1.88 0.31 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 99.00 68.13 67.54 34.59 91.76 19.29 76.68 47.00 7.86 Scenario 3: 3 AM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E42 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with gifi Version 5.00-03 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results VISTRO CONSULT?NG d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 51.51 5.89 5.90 51.07 7.23 6.26 36.40 36.40 35.43 33.99 33.99 33.99 Movement LOS D A A D A A D D D C C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 12.97 9.14 36.03 33.99 Approach LOS B A D C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 13 56 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.265 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 9.0 9.0 9.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft2/ped: 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [Wiped' 886.04 892.70 680.27 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 36.45 36.45 36.45 I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersecticn 2.588 2.810 2.065 Crosswalk LOS B C B s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 1222 1222 456 456 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 6.82 6.82 26.90 26.90 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.032 2.113 1.805 1.576 Bicycle LOS B B A A Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 Ring 2 5 6 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 Scenario 3: 3 AM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E43 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • Generated with VISTRQ Version 5.00-03 Lane Configuration and Traffic Control CONSULTING Scenario 3: 3 AM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E44 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with ria Version 5.00-03 Traffic Volume - Base Volume VISTRO CONSUhTMG Scenario 3: 3 AM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E45 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with mg Version 5.00-03 Traffic Volume - Future Total Volume VISTRO CONSUtTMG Scenario 3: 3 AM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E46 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSOLING 3650 Hazelton Road Vistro File: C:\...\Hazelton Vistro - Updates.vistro Report File: C:\...\PM 2020 No Build.pdf Intersection Analysis Summary Scenario 4 PM 2020 No Build 1 /31 /2018 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 France Avenue & Hazelton Road Signalized HCM 6th Edition NB Left 0.475 14.0 B 2 Hazelton & Site Driveway Roundabout HCM 6th Edition EB Thru 5.6 A 3 York Avenue & Hazelton Road Signalized HCM 6th Edition SB Left 0.455 24.6 C V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Scenario 4: 4 PM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E47 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • • Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSULTING Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1: France Avenue & Hazelton Road Signalized HCM 6th Edition 15 minutes Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 14.0 B 0.475 Name France Ave France Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration '1111 r ill I-' 1 h i l r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Pocket Length [ft] 150.00 100.00 300.00 225.00 100.00 100.00 75.00 100.00 100.00 125.00 100.00 125.00 Speed [mph] 40.00 40.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Curb Present No No No No Crosswalk Yes Yes No Yes Name France Ave France Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Base Volume Input [veh/h] 11 1313 179 184 993 8 17 26 5 134 24 163 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 3.00 1.25 3.75 1.25 1.30 1.25 0.00 1.80 3.50 3.75 1.00 1.00 Growth Rate 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 45 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 41 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 11 1339 138 188 1013 6 17 27 3 137 24 125 Peak Hour Factor 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 3 341 35 48 258 2 4 7 1 35 6 32 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 11 1362 140 191 1031 6 17 27 3 139 24 127 Presence of On -Street Parking No No No No No No No No On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0 0 v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 0 0 0 0 v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0 0 v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0 0 0 0 v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Scenario 4: 4 PM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road Traffic Impact Study E48 Spack Consulting Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Settings CONSULTING Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 140 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 0 1 6 0 3 8 0 7 4 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups Lead / Lag Lead Lead Minimum Green [s] 5 30 0 5 30 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 Maximum Green [s] 25 75 0 25 75 0 0 25 0 0 25 0 Amber[s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 All red [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 Split [s] 30 80 0 30 80 0 0 30 0 0 30 0 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0,0 3.0 0.0 0,0 3.0 0.0 Walk [s] 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 19 0 0 13 0 0 28 0 0 25 0 Rest In Walk No No No No 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0,0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No Yes No Yes No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering 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 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk [s] 0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 Scenario 4: 4 PM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E49 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • • Generated with Version 5.00-03 VISTRO CONSULTING ns Lane Group L C R L C C L C L C R C, Cycle Length [s] 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 2 88 88 17 103 103 21 21 21 21 21 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.01 0.63 0.63 0.12 0.74 0.74 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.27 0.09 0.11 0.19 0.19 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.01 0.08 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1767 5124 1567 1792 3580 1875 1409 1841 1360 1885 1602 c, Capacity [veh/h] 23 3226 987 216 2639 1382 221 270 210 276 235 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 68.36 4.91 4.35 57.82 0.32 0.32 54.86 51.83 60.80 51.64 55.37 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.13 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 15.43 0.41 0.30 13.68 0.24 0.45 0.15 0.18 3.79 0.13 1.93 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 rX, volume / capacity 0.49 0.42 0.14 0.89 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.11 0.66 0.09 0.54 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 83.78 5.32 4.65 71.50 0.56 0.77 55.01 52.01 64.60 51.77 57.30 Lane Group LOS F A A E A A E D E D E Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.48 2.59 0.78 7.10 0.24 0.34 0.55 0.94 5.09 0.75 4.30 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 12.07 64.75 19.58 177.44 6.06 8.42 13.70 23.44 127.27 18.67 107.62 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.87 4.66 1.41 11.47 0.44 0.61 0.99 1.69 8.79 1.34 7.71 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 21.73 116.55 35.24 286.67 10.92 15.15 24.66 42.19 219.78 33.60 192.69 Scenario 4: 4 PM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E50 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with VISTRO Version 5.00-03 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results CONSJLT1NG d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 83.78 5.32 4.65 71.50 0.63 0.77 55.01 52.01 52.01 64.60 51.77 57.30 Movement LOS F A A E A A E D D E D E d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 5.83 11.66 53.09 60.34 Approach LOS A B D E d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 14 01 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.475 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 11.0 11.0 11.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [W/ped; 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [Wiped 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 59.43 59.43 . _ 59.43 I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersecticn 3.452 3.158 2.389 Crosswalk LOS C C B s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 1071 1071 364 364 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 15.09 15.09 46.82 46.82 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.417 2.236 1.640 2.106 Bicycle LOS B B A B Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 Ring 2 5 6 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 Scenario 4: 4 PM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E51 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSULTING Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2: Hazelton & Site Driveway Roundabout Delay (sec / veh): HCM 6th Edition Level Of Service: 15 minutes 5.6 A Name Business Access Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration4141 Turning Movement U-turn Left Thru Right Right2 U-turn Left2 Left Thru Right U-turn Left Thru Right Right2 Lane Wdth [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Volumes Name Business Access Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 31 1 1 36 37 1 13 292 14 2 69 234 3 13 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 0 32 1 1 37 38 1 13 298 14 2 70 239 3 13 Peak Hour Factor 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 Other Adjustment Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 0 8 0 0 10 10 0 3 79 4 1 19 63 1 3 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0 34 1 1 39 40 1 14 316 15 2 74 253 3 14 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5 5 5 Scenario 4: 4 PM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E52 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Settings CONSULTING Number of Conflicting Circulating Lanes 1 1 1 Circulating Flow Rate [veh/h] 408 111 93 Exiting Flow Rate [veh/h] 82 347 352 Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 32 1 1 37 38 1 13 298 14 2 70 239 3 13 Adjusted Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 34 1 1 39 40 1 14 316 15 2 74 253 3 14 Lanes Overwrite Calculated Critical Headway No No No User -Defined Critical Headway [s] Overwrite Calculated Follow -Up Time No No No User -Defined Follow -Up Time [s] A (intercept) 1380.00 1380.00 1380.00 B (coefficient) 0.00102 0.00102 0.00102 HV Adjustment Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 Entry Flow Rate [veh/h] 77 394 353 Capacity of Entry and Bypass Lanes [veh/ 911 1233 1256 Pedestrian Impedance 1.00 1.00 1.00 Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] 892 1208 1230 X, volume / capacity 0.08 0.32 0.28 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results Lane LOS A A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.27 1.39 1.16 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 6.87 34.79 29.05 Approach Delay [s/veh] 4.83 5.98 5.48 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Delay [s/veh] 5.57 Intersection LOS A Scenario 4: 4 PM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E53 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Setup CONSULTING Name Site Access Business Access Approach Southwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration jay sThru Turning Movement U-turn Left Right Right2 U-turn Left2 Left Thru Right Lane Wdth [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Volumes Name Site Access Business Access Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 8 1 12 0 0 0 18 5 10 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 0 8 1 12 0 0 0 18 5 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 5 1 3 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0 8 1 13 0 0 0 19 5 11 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5 5 Scenario 4: 4 PM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E54 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with IV Version 5.00-03 Intersection Settings CONSULTING Number of Conflicting Circulating Lanes Circulating Flow Rate [veh/h] Exiting Flow Rate [veh/h] 1 416 1 434 15 5 Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] Adjusted Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 0 8 8 1 1 12 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 19 5 5 10 11 La nes Overwrite Calculated Critical Headway No No User -Defined Critical Headway [s] 4.00 4.00 Overwrite Calculated Follow -Up Time No No User -Defined Follow -Up Time Is] 3.00 3.00 A (intercept) 1380.00 1380.00 B (coefficient) 0.00102 0.00102 HV Adjustment Factor 0.98 0.98 Entry Flow Rate [veh/h] 23 36 Capacity of Entry and Bypass Lanes [veh/hk] 903 887 Pedestrian Impedance 1.00 1.00 Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] 885 869 X, volume / capacity 0.02 0.04 Lane LOS A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.08 0.13 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 1.91 3.14 Approach Delay Is/veh] 4.30 4.52 Approach LOS A A Intersection Delay [s/veh] 5.57 Intersection LOS A Scenario 4: 4 PM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E55 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • • Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSULTING Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 3: York Avenue & Hazelton Road Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM 6th Edition Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 24.6 C 0.455 Name York Ave York Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration 1 i 1 i i i r 1 r + Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 160.00 100.00 175.00 100.00 275.00 100.00 100.00 765.00 100.00 100,00 100.00 Speed [mph] 35.00 35.00 30.00 30.00 Grade (%1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Curb Present No No No No Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes No Volumes Name York Ave York Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Base Volume Input [veh/h] 170 731 6 22 668 137 184 2 127 12 10 31 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.40 2.00 2.10 0.70 1.60 3.60 3.80 0.00 2.20 2.40 1.75 1.10 Growth Rate 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 2 0 0 35 0 0 32 0 0 8 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 173 746 4 22 681 105 188 2 98 12 10 24 Peak Hour Factor 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 44 191 1 6 174 27 48 1 25 3 3 6 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 177 762 4 22 696 107 192 2 100 12 10 25 Presence of On -Street Parking No No No No No No No No On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate Uhl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 5 5 5 5 v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 5 5 5 5 v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 5 5 0 v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0 5 5 0 v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5 5 5 5 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 5 5 5 5 Scenario 4: 4 PM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road Traffic Impact Study E56 Spack Consulting Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Settings CONSULTING Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 140 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 0 1 6 0 8 0 7 4 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups Lead / Lag Lead Lead - - - - - Minimum Green [s] 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 Maximum Green [s] 25 65 0 25 65 0 35 0 0 35 0 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 All red [s] 2.0 2.0 0,0 2.0 2.0 1.5 0.0 1.5 Split [s] 30 70 0 30 70 a 40 0 40 u Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.5 0,0 3.0 3.5 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 Walk [s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 5 5 0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 10 0 0 15 ^ 25 27 0 Rest In Walk No No No No F11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0,0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0,0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 Minimum Recall No Yes No Yes No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering 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 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk [s] 0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 Scenario 4: 4 PM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E57 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • • Generated with, V Version 5.00-03 Lane Group Calculations CONSULTING Lane Group L C C L C R C R C C, Cycle Length [s] 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 O.Ch. 2.00 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 16 97 97 3 84 84 26 26 26 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.11 0.69 0.69 0.02 0.60 0.60 0.18 0.18 0.18 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.10 0.21 0.21 0.01 0.19 0.07 0.16 0.07 0.04 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1790 1870 1866 1800 3572 1520 1200 1533 1200 c, Capacity [veh/h] 203 1293 1290 39 2141 911 271 281 252 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 61.05 8.39 8.39 67.81 13.94 12.05 55.68 49.82 48.58 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.18 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 10.92 0.59 0.59 11.99 0.40 0.26 5.83 0.76 0.35 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.87 0.30 0.30 0.56 0.33 0.12 0.72 0.36 0.19 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 71.97 8.98 8.98 79.81 14.35 12.31 61.51 50.58 48.93 Lane Group LOS E A A E B B E D D Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 6.78 4.49 4.48 0.91 5.50 1.50 7.12 3.14 1.44 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 169.45 112.17 111.98 22.73 137.58 37.41 178.04 78.53 35.93 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 11.05 7.96 7.95 1.64 9.35 2.69 11.50 5.65 2.59 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 276.19 199.01 198.75 40.91 233.76 67.35 287.46 141.36 64.67 Scenario 4: 4 PM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E58 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with VISTRQ Version 5.00-03 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results CONSGIPNG d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 71.97 8.98 8.98 79.81 14.35 12.31 61.51 61.51 50.58 48.93 48.93 48.93 Movement LOS E A A E B B E E D D D D d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 20.80 15.83 57.79 48.93 Approach LOS C B E D d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 24 64 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.455 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 9.0 9.0 9.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft'/ped: 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft2/ped 451.87 346.86 264.60 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 61.29 61.29 61.29 I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersecticn 2.748 3.148 2.221 Crosswalk LOS B C B s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/r] 929 929 507 507 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 20.14 20.14 39.10 39.10 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.339 2.269 2.098 1.650 Bicycle LOS B B B A Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 Ring 2 5 6 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 Scenario 4: 4 PM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E59 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • Generated with VISTRO Version 5.00-03 Lane Configuration and Traffic Control CONSULTING Scenario 4: 4 PM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E60 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with • VIS T RO Version 5.00-03 Traffic Volume - Base Volume CONSULTING Scenario 4: 4 PM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E61 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • • Generated with V I S T R C? Version 5.00-03 Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips CONSULTING Scenario 4: 4 PM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E62 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with T, VISTRO Version 5.00-03 Traffic Volume - Future Total Volume 17 T 166 27 — = 24 5 -� 137 188 J 32 2 • 10 130 12 CONSGLTtNG Scenario 4: 4 PM 2020 No Build 3650 Hazelton Road E63 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • • Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSULTNG 3650 Hazelton Road Vistro File: C:\...\Hazelton Vistro - Updates.vistro Report File: C:\...\AM 2020 Build.pdf Intersection Analysis Summary Scenario 5 AM 2020 Build 1 /31 /2018 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 France Avenue & Hazelton Road Signalized HCM 6th Edition NB Left 0.300 14.0 B 2 Hazelton & Site Driveway Roundabout HCM 6th Edition EB Thru 3.8 A 3 York Avenue & Hazelton Road Signalized HCM 6th Edition NB Left 0.278 14.1 B V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Scenario 5: 5 AM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E64 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 GONSULTSNG Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1: France Avenue & Hazelton Road Signalized HCM 6th Edition 15 minutes Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 14.0 B 0.300 Name France Ave France Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration 1 i i i r 111 h , h , 1 r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pocket Length [ft] 150.00 300.00 225.00 75.00 125.00 " :? ? 125.00 Speed [mph] 40.00 40.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Curb Present No No No No Crosswalk Yes Yes No Yes Volumes Name France Ave France Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Base Volume Input [veh/h] 9 622 87 137 895 11 8 10 3 79 10 61 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 3.00 1.25 3.75 1.25 1.30 1.25 0.00 1.80 3.50 3.75 1.00 1.00 Growth Rate 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 16 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 23 3 1 19 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 9 634 71 145 913 8 8 10 2 97 11 59 Peak Hour Factor 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 0.9200 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 2 172 19 39 248 2 2 3 1 26 3 16 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 10 689 77 158 992 9 9 11 2 105 12 64 Presence of On -Street Parking No No No No No No No No On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 5 5 5 5 v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 5 5 5 5 v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 5 5 v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing ni 5 5 v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5 5 5 5 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 5 5 5 5 Scenario 5: 5 AM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road Traffic Impact Study E65 Spack Consulting Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • • Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Settings CONSULTING Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 90 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timin Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss 1 Signal group 5 2 0 1 6 0 3 8 0 7 4 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups Lead / Lag Lead Lag - - - - Minimum Green [s] 5 30 0 5 30 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 Maximum Green [s] 10 45 0 10 45 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 All red [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 Split [s] 15 50 0 15 50 0 0 25 0 0 25 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Walk [s] 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 7 0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 19 0 G 13 0 0 28 0 0 25 0 Rest In Walk No No No No 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No Yes No Yes No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering 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 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk [s] 0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 Scenario 5: 5 AM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E66 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with • VI Version 5.00-03 Lane Group Calculations 423 CONSULTING Lane Group L C R L C C L C L C R C, Cycle Length [s] 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 0.0'_i 0.0 : 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 1 52 52 10 61 61 14 14 14 14 14 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.01 0.58 0.58 0.11 0.67 0.67 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.13 0.05 0.09 0.18 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.04 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1767 5124 1518 1792 3580 1871 1400 1811 1357 1885 1541 c, Capacity [veh/h] 22 2969 879 191 2411 1260 253 277 247 288 236 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 44.13 9.20 8.38 39.39 5.88 5.88 34.77 32.52 37.50 32.49 33.63 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.19 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 13.85 0.18 0.20 14.75 0.28 0.54 0.06 0.07 1.16 0.06 0.61 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.45 0.23 0.09 0.83 0.27 0.27 0.04 0.05 0.43 0.04 0.27 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 57.98 9.39 8.57 54.14 6.16 6.42 34.83 32.59 38.66 32.55 34.24 Lane Group LOS E A A D A A C C D C C Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.30 1.96 0.63 4.07 2.04 2.23 0.18 0.24 2.24 0.23 1.26 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 7.49 49.03 15.78 101.87 51.10 55.69 4.40 6.11 56.09 5.63 31.45 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.54 3.53 1.14 7.33 3.68 4.01 0.32 0.44 4.04 0.41 2.26 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 13.48 88.25 28.40 183.36 91.98 100.24 7.92 11.00 100.97 10.14 56.62 Scenario 5: 5 AM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E67 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • • Generated with Version 5.00-03 CipMI CONSUIT:NG Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 57.98 9.39 8.57 54.14 6.24 6.42 34.83 32.59 32.59 38.66 32.55 34.24 Movement LOS E A A D A A C C C D C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 9.93 12.78 33.50 36.69 Approach LOS A B C D d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 13 98 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.300 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 11.0 11.0 11.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ft'/ped: 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [fV/ped 1139.87 1150.48 1012.54 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 34.67 34.67 34.67 I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersecticn 3.216 2.971 2.272 Crosswalk LOS C C B s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/I-] 1000 1000 456 456 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 11.28 11.28 26.90 26.90 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 1.999 2.199 1.598 1.890 Bicycle LOS A B A A Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 Ring 2 5 6 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 Scenario 5: 5 AM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E68 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSU.TaNG Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2: Hazelton & Site Driveway Roundabout Delay (sec / veh): HCM 6th Edition Level Of Service: 15 minutes 3.8 A Name Business Access Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration `I - Turning Movement U-turn Left Thru Right Right2 U-turn Left2 Left Thru Right U-turn Left Thru Right Right2 Lane Wdth [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%J 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Volumes Name Business Access Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 15 0 0 12 14 1 2 132 10 0 23 87 6 0 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 0 15 0 0 12 14 1 10 135 10 0 23 89 6 6 Peak Hour Factor 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 Other Adjustment Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 0 4 0 0 3 4 0 3 38 3 0 7 25 2 2 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0 17 0 0 14 16 1 11 153 11 0 26 101 7 7 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5 5 5 Scenario 5: 5 AM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E69 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • • Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Settings CONSULTING Number of Conflicting Circulating Lanes 1 1 1 Circulating Flow Rate [veh/h] 217 59 46 Exiting Flow Rate [veh/h] 27 175 189 Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 15 0 0 12 14 1 10 135 10 0 23 89 6 6 Adjusted Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 17 0 0 14 16 1 11 153 11 0 26 101 7 7 Lanes Overwrite Calculated Critical Headway No No No User -Defined Critical Headway [s] Overwrite Calculated Follow -Up Time No No No User -Defined Follow -Up Time [s] A (intercept) 1380.00 1380.00 1380.00 B (coefficient) 0.00102 0.00102 0.00102 HV Adjustment Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 Entry Flow Rate [veh/h] 32 196 144 Capacity of Entry and Bypass Lanes [veh/hj 1106 1300 1317 Pedestrian Impedance 1.00 1.00 1.00 Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] 1084 1273 1291 X, volume / capacity 0.03 0.15 0.11 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results Lane LOS A A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.09 0.53 0.37 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 2.21 13.27 9.18 Approach Delay [s/veh] 3.56 4.08 3.68 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Delay [s/veh] 3.83 Intersection LOS A Scenario 5: 5 AM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E70 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Setup CONSULTNG Name Site Access Business Access Approach Southwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration ► Turning Movement U-turn Left Thru Right Right2 U-turn Left2 Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Volumes Name Site Access Business Access Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 2 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 19 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 0 19 0 33 0 0 0 9 0 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 0.8800 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 0 5 0 9 0 0 0 3 0 1 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0 22 0 38 0 0 0 10 0 2 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5 5 Scenario 5: 5 AM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E71 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Settings CONSULTING Number of Conflicting Circulating Lanes 1 1 Circulating Flow Rate [veh/h] 171 224 Exiting Flow Rate [veh/h] 11 8 Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 19 0 33 0 0 0 9 0 2 Adjusted Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 22 0 38 0 0 0 10 0 2 Overwrite Calculated Critical Headway No No User -Defined Critical Headway [s] 4 00 Overwrite Calculated Follow -Up Time No No User -Defined Follow -Up Time [s] 3 08 3.00 A (intercept) 1380.00 1380.00 B (coefficient) 0.00102 0.00102 HV Adjustment Factor 0.98 0.98 Entry Flow Rate [veh/h] 62 13 Capacity of Entry and Bypass Lanes [veh/ht] 1159 1098 Pedestrian Impedance 1.00 1.00 Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] 1136 1076 X, volume / capacity 0.05 0.01 , Approach, 8� Intersection Results Lane LOS A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.17 0.03 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 4.18 0.85 Approach Delay [s/veh] 3.61 3.44 Approach LOS A A Intersection Delay [sNeh] 3.83 Intersection LOS A Scenario 5: 5 AM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E72 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 Emu CONSULTING Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Signalized HCM 6th Edition 15 minutes Name Approach Lane Configuration Turning Movement Lane Wdth [ft] No. of Lanes in Pocket Pocket Length [ft] Speed [mph] Grade [%] Curb Present Crosswalk Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 3: York Avenue & Hazeiton Road Delay (sec / veh): Level Of Service: Volume to Capacity (v/c): 14.1 B 0.278 York Ave York Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound III~ ilir Ir + Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 160.00 00 t 0 175.00 100.00 275.00 100.00 100.00 765.00 100,00 100.00 100.00 35.00 35.00 30.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No No No No Yes Yes Yes No Volumes Name Base Volume Input [veh/h] Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] Growth Rate In -Process Volume [veh/h] Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] Diverted Trips [veh/h] Pass -by Trips [veh/h] Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] Other Volume [veh/h] Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] Peak Hour Factor Other Adjustment Factor Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] Presence of On -Street Parking On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossin v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing r v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossin v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing n v_ab, Comer Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] York Ave York Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd 70 367 19 0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.40 2.00 2.10 1.02 1.02 1.02 0 0 0 3 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 74 374 14 ).8100 0.8100 0.8100 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 23 115 4 91 462 17 24 1.0000 0.70 445 68 1.0000 1.0000 1.60 3.60 57 1.0000 3.80 9 1.0000 0.00 55 1.0000 2.20 3 1.0000 2.40 1 1.0000 1.75 4 1.0000 1.10 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10 0 9 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 16 0 0 1 24 454 54 68 9 49 3 1 3 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 0.8100 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 7 140 17 21 3 15 1 0 30 560 67 84 11 60 4 1 No No 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 5 5 No No No No No 1 4 No 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Scenario 5: 5 AM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E73 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • • Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Settings 1423 CONSULTING Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 90 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 0 1 6 0 3 8 0 7 4 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups Lead / Lag Lead - - Lag - - - - - - - Minimum Green [s] 5 30 0 5 30 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 Maximum Green [s] 10 55 0 10 55 0 0 20 0 0 20 0 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 All red [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 Split [s] 15 60 0 15 60 0 0 25 0 0 25 0 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.5 0.0 3.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.0 0,0 0,0 3.0 0.0 Walk [s] 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 10 0 0 15 0 0 25 0 0 27 0 Rest In Walk No No No No 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0,0 2.0 0,0 0,0 2.0 0.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0,0 2.5 0.0 Minimum Recall No Yes No Yes No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 I, Upstream Filtering 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 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk [s] 0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 Scenario 5: 5 AM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E74 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with • VI Version 5.00-03 Lane Group Calculations CONSULTING Lane Group L C C L C R C R C C, Cycle Length [s] 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 0.00 0.0C 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 6 61 61 3 57 57 12 12 12 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.07 0.67 0.67 0.03 0.64 0.64 0.14 0.14 0.14 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.05 0.13 0.13 0.02 0.16 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.01 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1790 1870 1843 1800 3572 1521 1344 1521 969 c, Capacity [veh/h] 119 1255 1237 55 2270 967 260 209 191 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 41.40 5.59 5.60 43.06 7.10 6.25 36.19 34.88 33.86 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.11 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 9.82 0.34 0.35 8.01 0.26 0.14 0.86 0.75 0.10 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.77 0.19 0.19 0.54 0.25 0.07 0.37 0.29 0.05 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 51.21 5.93 5.94 51.07 7.36 6.39 37.06 35.63 33.96 Lane Group LOS D A A D A A D D C Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 2.27 1.52 1.51 0.77 2.07 0.46 1.98 1.21 0.17 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 56.66 38.08 37.75 19.21 51.68 11.39 49.58 30.27 4.37 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 4.08 2.74 2.72 1.38 3.72 0.82 3.57 2.18 0.31 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 101.99 68.54 67.95 34.59 93.02 20.51 89.25 54.49 7.86 Scenario 5: 5 AM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E75 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • • Generated with VISTRO Version 5.00-03 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results CONSUIT!NG d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 51.21 5.94 5.94 51.07 7.36 6.39 37.06 37.06 35.63 33.96 33.96 33.96 Movement LOS D A A D A A D D D C C C d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 13.17 9.25 36.50 33.96 Approach LOS B A D C d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 14 05 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.278 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 9.0 9.0 9.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [fr/ped_ 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft'/ped 873.69 876.51 672.42 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 36.45 36.45 36.45 l_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersecticn 2.591 2.832 2.078 Crosswalk LOS B C B s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/11 1222 1222 456 456 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 6.82 6.82 26.90 26.90 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.034 2.116 1.842 1.576 Bicycle LOS B B A A Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 Ring 2 5 6 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 Scenario 5: 5 AM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E76 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with ` VISTRO Version 5.00-03 Lane Configuration and Traffic Control CONSULTING Scenario 5: 5 AM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E77 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • Generated with VISTRO Version 5.00-03 Traffic Volume - Base Volume 4,) i 8 J 61 10 ---*10 3 f 79 - 1 r CONSULTING Scenario 5: 5 AM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E78 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with�� V15 I RV Version 5.00-03 Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips L3 CONSULTING Scenario 5: 5 AM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E79 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with gm= Version 5.00-03 Traffic Volume - Future Total Volume EMMI CONSULTING Scenario 5: 5 AM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E80 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSULTING 3650 Hazelton Road Vistro File: C:\...\Hazelton Vistro - Updates.vistro Report File: C:\...\PM 2020 Build.pdf Intersection Analysis Summary Scenario 6 PM 2020 Build 1 /31 /2018 ID Intersection Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt V/C Delay (s/veh) LOS 1 France Avenue & Hazelton Road Signalized HCM 6th Edition NB Left 0.484 14.7 B 2 Hazelton & Site Driveway Roundabout HCM 6th Edition EB Thru 5.8 A 3 York Avenue & Hazelton Road Signalized HCM 6th Edition SB Left 0.458 24.8 C V/C, Delay, LOS: For two-way stop, these values are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. for all other control types, they are taken for the whole intersection. Scenario 6: 6 PM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E81 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSULTING Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 1: France Avenue & Hazelton Road Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM 6th Edition Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 14.7 B 0.484 Name France Ave France Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration i i i i r 1111~ 411- i i r Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Wdth [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 Pocket Length [ft] 150.00 300.00 225.00 75.00 125.00 125.00 Speed [mph] 40.00 40.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Curb Present No No No No Crosswalk Yes Yes No Yes Volumes Name France Ave France Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Base Volume Input [veh/h] 11 1313 179 184 993 8 17 26 5 134 24 163 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 3.00 1.25 3.75 1.25 1.30 1.25 0.00 1.80 3.50 3.75 1.00 1.00 Growth Rate 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 17 17 0 0 0 1 0 10 0 10 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 -6 -7 0 0 0 -1 0 -5 -1 -6 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 46 2 2 40 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 11 1339 148 198 1013 6 17 27 3 142 23 130 Peak Hour Factor 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 0.9830 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 3 341 38 50 258 2 4 7 1 36 6 33 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 11 1362 151 201 1031 6 17 27 3 144 23 132 Presence of On -Street Parking No No No No No No No No On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 0 0 v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing m 0 0 0 0 v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 0 v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing mi 0 0 v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 0 0 0 0 Scenario 6: 6 PM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road Traffic Impact Study E82 Spack Consulting Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with minis Version 5.00-03 CONSULTING Intersection Settings Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 140 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 0 1 6 8 0 4 0 Auxiliary Signal Groups Lead / Lag Lead - - Lead - Minimum Green [s] 5 30 0 5 30 10 10 0 Maximum Green [s] 25 75 0 25 75 25 0 25 0 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 All red [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 Split [s] 30 80 0 30 80 30 0 0 30 0 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Walk [s] 0 7 0 0 7 0 I 0 7 0 0 7 0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 19 0 0 13 0 0 28 0 0 25 0 Rest In Walk No No No No 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 0.0 2.5 Minimum Recall No No No No No No Maximum Recall No Yes No Yes No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering 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 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk [s] 0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 Scenario 6: 6 PM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E83 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • • Generated with Version 5.00-03 Lane Group Calculations CONSULTING Lane Group L C R L C C L C L C R C, Cycle Length [s] 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 I1_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 2 87 87 18 103 103 21 21 21 21 21 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.01 0.62 0.62 0.13 0.73 0.73 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.01 0.27 0.10 0.11 0.19 0.19 0.01 0.02 0.11 0.01 0.08 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1767 5124 1567 1792 3580 1875 1410 1841 1360 1885 1602 c, Capacity [veh/h] 23 3180 973 225 2627 1376 226 276 215 283 240 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 68.36 5.44 4.81 57.32 0.41 0.41 54.36 51.41 60.56 51.20 55.12 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.16 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.11 I, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 15.43 0.42 0.34 15.50 0.24 0.46 0.14 0.17 4.30 0.12 1.95 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume / capacity 0.49 0.43 0.16 0.89 0.26 0.26 0.08 0.11 0.67 0.08 0.55 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 83.78 5.86 5.15 72.81 0.65 0.87 54.50 51.58 64.86 51.32 57.07 Lane Group LOS F A A E A A D D E D E Critical Lane Group No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.48 2.81 0.91 7.57 0.29 0.38 0.55 0.93 5.30 0.71 4.47 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 12.07 70.26 22.83 189.20 7.15 9.56 13.63 23.33 132.50 17.80 111.74 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.87 5.06 1.64 12.08 0.51 0.69 0.98 1.68 9.08 1.28 7.94 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 21.73 126.47 41.09 301.99 12.86 17.21 24.53 41.99 226.89 32.04 198.42 Scenario 6: 6 PM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E84 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with VISTRO Version 5.00-03 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results CONSULTING d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 83.78 5.86 5.15 72.81 0.73 0.87 54.50 51.58 51.58 64.86 51.32 57.07 Movement LOS F A A E A A D D D E D E d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 6.36 12.43 52.64 60.38 Approach LOS A B D E d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 14 67 Intersection LOS B Intersection V/C 0.484 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 11.0 11.0 11.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [Wiped: 0.00 0.00 0.00 M_CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [Wiped' 0.00 0.00 0.00 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 59.43 59.43 59.43 I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersecticn 3.464 3.160 _ , 2.395 Crosswalk LOS C C B s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/h] 1071 1071 364 364 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 15.09 15.09 46.82 46.82 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.423 2.242 1.640 2.119 Bicycle LOS B B A B Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 Ring 2 5 6 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 Scenario 6: 6 PM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E85 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSULTING Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 2: Hazelton & Site Driveway Roundabout Delay (sec / veh): HCM 6th Edition Level Of Service: 15 minutes 5.8 A Name Business Access Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Approach Northbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration is Turning Movement U-turn Left Thru Right Right2 U-turn Left2 Left Thru Right U-turn Left Thru Right Right2 Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes Volumes Name Business Access Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 31 1 1 36 37 1 13 292 14 2 69 234 3 13 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -14 0 0 0 0 0 0 -14 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 0 32 1 0 37 38 1 34 298 14 2 70 239 3 20 Peak Hour Factor 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 0.944 Other Adjustment Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 0 8 0 0 10 10 0 9 79 4 1 19 63 1 5 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0 34 1 0 39 40 1 36 316 15 2 74 253 3 21 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5 5 5 Scenario 6: 6 PM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E86 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSULTING WWI IIeI ael.LIUI 1 JGLLIILyo Number of Conflicting Circulating Lanes 1 1 1 Circulating Flow Rate [veh/h] 437 116 114 Exiting Flow Rate [veh/h] 81 355 358 Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 32 1 0 37 38 1 } 34 298 14 2 70 239 3 20 Adjusted Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 34 1 0 39 40 1 36 316 15 2 74 253 3 21 LG I IG. Overwrite Calculated Critical Headway No No No User -Defined Critical Headway [s] Overwrite Calculated Follow -Up Time No No No User -Defined Follow -Up Time [s] A (intercept) 1380.00 1380.00 1380.00 B (coefficient) 0.00102 0.00102 0.00102 HV Adjustment Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 Entry Flow Rate [veh/h] 76 417 361 Capacity of Entry and Bypass Lanes [veh/hj 885 1226 1229 Pedestrian Impedance 1.00 1.00 1.00 Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] 867 1201 1204 X, volume / capacity 0.09 0.34 0.29 Its Lane LOS A A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.28 1.52 1.23 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 6.99 38.01 30.78 Approach Delay [s/veh] 4.97 6.23 5.70 Approach LOS A A A Intersection Delay [s/veh] 5.79 Intersection LOS A Scenario 6: 6 PM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E87 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • • Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Setup CONSULTING Name Site Access Business Access Approach Southwestbound Southeastbound Lane Configuration ► 1► Turning Movement U-turn Left Thru Right Right2 U-turn Left2 Left Thru Right Lane Wdth [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 0 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] Speed [mph] 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 Crosswalk Yes Yes Volumes Name Site Access Business Access Base Volume Input [veh/h] 0 8 1 12 0 0 0 18 5 10 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Growth Rate 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 0 13 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] 0 -8 -1 -12 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 0 13 0 20 0 0 0 18 5 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 0.9440 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 0 3 0 5 0 0 0 5 1 3 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 0 14 0 21 0 0 0 19 5 11 Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5 5 Scenario 6: 6 PM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E88 Speck Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Settings ©;=3 CONSULTNG Number of Conflicting Circulating Lanes 1 1 Circulating Flow Rate [veh/h] 416 447 Exiting Flow Rate [veh/h] 37 5 Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 13 0 20 0 0 0 18 5 10 Adjusted Demand Flow Rate [veh/h] 0 14 0 21 0 0 0 19 5 11 Lanes Overwrite Calculated Critical Headway No No User -Defined Critical Headway [s] Overwrite Calculated Follow -Up Time No No User -Defined Follow -Up Time [s] A (intercept) 1380.00 1380.00 B (coefficient) 0.00102 0.00102 HV Adjustment Factor 0.98 0.98 Entry Flow Rate [veh/h] 36 36 Capacity of Entry and Bypass Lanes [veh/li] 903 875 Pedestrian Impedance 1.00 1.00 Capacity per Entry Lane [veh/h] 885 858 X, volume / capacity 0.04 0.04 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results Lane LOS A A 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 0.12 0.13 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 3.09 3.19 Approach Delay [s/veh] 4.44 4.58 Approach LOS A A Intersection Delay [s/veh] 5.79 Intersection LOS A Scenario 6: 6 PM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E89 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • Generated with Version 5.00-03 CONSULTING Control Type: Analysis Method: Analysis Period: Intersection Setup Intersection Level Of Service Report Intersection 3: York Avenue & Hazelton Road Signalized Delay (sec / veh): HCM 6th Edition Level Of Service: 15 minutes Volume to Capacity (v/c): 24.8 C 0.458 Name York Ave York Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Approach Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Lane Configuration 11 h 1 11 r 1 r + Turning Movement Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Width [ft] 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 No. of Lanes in Pocket 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Pocket Length [ft] 160.00 10' '.' 100.00 175.00 100.00 275.00 100.00 100.00 765.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Speed [mph] 35.00 35.00 30.00 30.00 Grade [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Curb Present No No No No Crosswalk Yes Yes Yes No Volumes Name York Ave York Ave Hazelton Rd Hazelton Rd Base Volume Input [veh/h] 170 731 6 22 668 137 184 2 127 12 10 31 Base Volume Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Heavy Vehicles Percentage [%] 1.40 2.00 2.10 0.70 1.60 3.60 3.80 0.00 2.20 2.40 1.75 1.10 Growth Rate 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 In -Process Volume [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Site -Generated Trips [veh/h] 10 0 0 0 0 11 7 0 6 0 0 0 Diverted Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass -by Trips [veh/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing Site Adjustment Volume [veh/h] -8 0 0 0 0 -6 -5 0 -3 0 0 0 Other Volume [veh/h) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right -Turn on Red Volume [veh/h] 0 0 2 0 0 35 32 0 0 8 Total Hourly Volume [veh/h] 175 746 4 22 681 110 190 2 101 12 10 24 Peak Hour Factor 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 0.9790 Other Adjustment Factor 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Total 15-Minute Volume [veh/h] 45 191 1 6 174 28 49 1 26 3 3 6 Total Analysis Volume [veh/h] 179 762 4 22 696 112 194 2 103 12 10 25 Presence of On -Street Parking No No No No No No No No On -Street Parking Maneuver Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Local Bus Stopping Rate [/h] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v_do, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 5 5 5 5 v_di, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing n 5 5 5 5 v_co, Outbound Pedestrian Volume crossing 0 5 5 0 v_ci, Inbound Pedestrian Volume crossing ni 0 5 5 0 v_ab, Corner Pedestrian Volume [ped/h] 5 5 5 5 Bicycle Volume [bicycles/h] 5 5 5 5 Scenario 6: 6 PM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road Traffic Impact Study E90 Spack Consulting Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with Version 5.00-03 Intersection Settings CONSULT%NG Located in CBD No Signal Coordination Group - Cycle Length [s] 140 Coordination Type Time of Day Pattern Coordinated Actuation Type Fully actuated Offset [s] 0.0 Offset Reference LeadGreen Permissive Mode SingleBand Lost time [s] 0.00 Phasing & Timing Control Type Protecte Permiss Permiss Protecte Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Permiss Signal group 5 2 1 6 8 4 Auxiliary Signal Groups Lead / Lag Lead Lead Minimum Green [s] 5 5 5 5 5 5 Maximum Green [s] 25 65 25 65 35 35 Amber [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 All red [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 Split [s] 30 70 30 70 40 40 Vehicle Extension [s] 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 Walk [s] 5 5 5 5 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 10 15 25 27 Rest In Walk No No No No 11, Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 Minimum Recall No Yes No Yes No No Maximum Recall No No No No No No Pedestrian Recall No No No No No No Detector Location [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Detector Length [ft] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I, Upstream Filtering 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 Exclusive Pedestrian Phase Pedestrian Signal Group 0 Pedestrian Walk [s] 0 Pedestrian Clearance [s] 0 Scenario 6: 6 PM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E91 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • • Generated with VI Version 5.00-03 Lane Group Calculations Q:33 CONS JLTMG Lane Group L C C L C R C R C C, Cycle Length [s] 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 L, Total Lost Time per Cycle [s] 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 11_p, Permitted Start -Up Lost Time [s] 2.00 2.00 12, Clearance Lost Time [s] 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 g_i, Effective Green Time [s] 16 97 97 3 84 84 26 26 26 g / C, Green / Cycle 0.11 0.69 0.69 0.02 0.60 0.60 0.18 0.18 0.18 (v / s)_i Volume / Saturation Flow Rate 0.10 0.21 0.21 0.01 0.19 0.07 0.16 0.07 0.04 s, saturation flow rate [veh/h] 1790 1870 1866 1800 3572 1520 1200 1533 1200 c, Capacity [veh/h] 205 1290 1287 39 2133 907 273 283 254 d1, Uniform Delay [s] 60.97 8.47 8.47 67.81 14.12 12.24 55.60 49.75 48.41 k, delay calibration 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.19 0.11 0.11 1, Upstream Filtering Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 d2, Incremental Delay [s] 10.94 0.59 0.59 11.99 0.41 0.28 6.03 0.78 0.35 d3, Initial Queue Delay [s] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rp, platoon ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PF, progression factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Group Results X, volume /capacity 0.87 0.30 0.30 0.56 0.33 0.12 0.72 0.36 0.19 d, Delay for Lane Group [s/veh] 71.91 9.06 9.06 79.81 14.53 12.52 61.62 50.53 48.76 Lane Group LOS E A A E B B E D D Critical Lane Group Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No 50th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 6.85 4.51 4.51 0.91 5.55 1.58 7.21 3.24 1.43 50th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 171.34 112.84 112.65 22.73 138.65 39.61 180.21 80.90 35.86 95th-Percentile Queue Length [veh] 11.15 8.00 7.99 1.64 9.41 2.85 11.61 5.83 2.58 95th-Percentile Queue Length [ft] 278.67 199.94 199.68 40.91 235.21 71.29 290.29 145.63 64.54 Scenario 6: 6 PM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E92 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with, VISTRO Version 5.00-03 Movement, Approach, & Intersection Results CONSGLTRNU d_M, Delay for Movement [s/veh] 71.91 9.06 9.06 79.81 14.53 12.52 61.62 61.62 50.53 48.76 48.76 48.76 Movement LOS E A A E B B E E D D D D d_A, Approach Delay [s/veh] 20.96 15.99 57.80 48.76 Approach LOS C B E D d_I, Intersection Delay [s/veh] 24 82 Intersection LOS C Intersection V/C 0.458 Other Modes g_Walk,mi, Effective Walk Time [s] 9.0 9.0 9.0 M_corner, Corner Circulation Area [ftr/ped_ 0.00 0.00 0.00 M CW, Crosswalk Circulation Area [ft'/ped 447.25 344.17 251.54 d_p, Pedestrian Delay [s] 61.29 61.29 61.29 I_p,int, Pedestrian LOS Score for Intersection 2.749 3.152 2.225 Crosswalk LOS B C B s_b, Saturation Flow Rate of the bicycle lane 2000 2000 2000 2000 c_b, Capacity of the bicycle lane [bicycles/r] 929 929 507 507 d_b, Bicycle Delay [s] 20.14 20.14 39.10 39.10 I_b,int, Bicycle LOS Score for Intersection 2.341 2.273 2.106 1.650 Bicycle LOS B B B A Sequence Ring 1 1 2 4 Ring 2 5 6 8 Ring 3 Ring 4 Scenario 6: 6 PM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E93 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup • Generated with • VISTRO Version 5.00-03 Lane Configuration and Traffic Control CONSULTING Scenario 6: 6 PM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E94 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with, VISTRO Version 5.00-03 Traffic Volume - Base Volume CONSULTING Scenario 6: 6 PM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E95 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with MIME Version 5.00-03 Traffic Volume - Net New Site Trips CONSULTING Scenario 6: 6 PM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E96 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study Appendix E: Capacity Analysis Backup Generated with VIST ftf) Version 5.00-03 Traffic Volume - Future Total Volume IEW CONSULTING Scenario 6: 6 PM 2020 Build 3650 Hazelton Road E97 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study CONSULTING ENGINEERING TRAFFIC FORWARD Technical Memorandum To: Cary Teague, Community Development Director — City of Edina From: Max Moreland, PE Date: July 15, 2019 Re: 3650 Hazelton - Parking Review Spack Consulting completed a traffic study for a proposed high-rise apartment development located at 3650 Hazelton Road in Edina, Minnesota in February 2018. This technical memorandum is an addendum to that study, providing a review of parking. The purpose is to determine the adequacy of the proposed off-street parking. To that end, this memorandum documents the proposed supply of off-street parking, examine the City code requirements for parking, and review the expected parking demand for the site. Conclusions The principal findings of this technical memorandum are: • The proposed high-rise apartment development will provide 277 parking stalls for the 185-unit building. • Peak parking demand based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' national data is expected to be 242 occupied stalls during a typical weekday. • Peak parking demand based on Spack Consulting local data for similar residential development is expected to be 147 occupied stalls during a typical weekday. Based on the above findings, we expect the proposed parking supply to adequately accommodate the parking needs. Site Characteristics The development site is located at the current Guitar Center site on Hazelton Road. The high-rise apartment development is proposed to house 185 dwelling units in 19. The current planned parking is 277 stalls in a fully enclosed parking garage, a rate of 1.50 stalls per unit, to accommodate both residents of the building and their guests. One SE Main Street, Suite 204, Minneapolis, MN 55414 • 888.232.5512 • www.SpackConsulting.com Spack Consulting 2 of 2 3650 Hazelton Parking Review Parking Review A parking generation analysis was performed for the proposed site based on the methods and average rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Parking Generation, 5th Edition. The ITE Parking Generation is an informational report of compiled parking studies for existing developments throughout the United States. Using the supplied data for a high-rise apartment building, Table 1 shows the weekday parking generation of the proposed development based on the number of dwelling units. Spack Consulting also collects local data to supplement the national ITE data. Local data better reflects our region's driving habits and can be a more reliable indicator of demand. Table 1 also presented our local parking generation for similar residential developments. Table 1— Weekday Peak Period Parking Demand — High -Rise Apartment Source - Land Development Use Code Description (size) Peak Parking Occupied Stalls Weekday 222 High -Rise Apartment (185 Dwelling Units) 181 Local' Apartment (185 Dwelling Units) 147 1 Local = Parking generation data collected by Spack Consulting. The national and local data both suggest the peak demand for the proposed residential development will be less than the proposed supply. Thus, we expect the proposed parking supply to accommodate peak parking demand adequately. One SE Main Street, Suite 204, Minneapolis, MN 55414 • 888.232.5512 • www.SpackConsulting.com • • • CITY OF EDINA 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov Date: July 24, 2019 Agenda Item #: VII.A. To: Planning Commission Item Type: Report and Recommendation From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Subject: 2020 Planning Commission Work Plan Item Activity: Discussion ACTION REQUESTED: No action requested. INTRODUCTION: Attached is a draft of the Planning Commission Work Plan for 2020. The purpose of Commission work plans is to ensure that the priorities of the City Council and Commission are aligned, and that the City has the appropriate financial and staff resources to support Commission work. Over the next couple months, the Planning Commission is asked to consider its work for the next year. In October, each Commission Chair will present their 2020 Work Plan to the City Council in a Work Session. The list should all be considered a draft at this time. Each item listed should be agreed upon by the commission as a whole as to whether it should be recommended to the City Council for Planning Commission consideration. If one or two commissioners think one topic is a good idea, but the rest do not, then it should not be put on the work plan. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Memo Draft 2020 Planning Commission Work Plan CITY OF EDINA City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: July 24, 2012 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: 2020 Planning Commission Work Plan MEMO Attached is a draft of the Planning Commission Work Plan for 2020. The purpose of Commission work plans is to ensure that the priorities of the City Council and Commission are aligned, and that the City has the appropriate financial and staff resources to support Commission work. Over the next couple months, the Planning Commission is asked to consider its work for the next year. In October, each Commission Chair will present their 2020 Work Plan to the City Council in a Work Session. The list should all be considered a draft at this time. Each item listed should be agreed upon by the commission as a whole as to whether it should be recommended to the City Council for Planning Commission consideration. If one or two commissioners think one topic is a good idea, but the rest do not, then it should not be put on the work plan. The draft plan contains a lot of time consuming initiatives. The Commission should consider what it can realistically get done over the next year. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 2020 Commission Work Plan Instructions Wtommission work plans are developed by the commission. Not the staff liaison. Schedule September Meetings: Commission Approves proposed work plan. Plans due to MJ by September 25 October 1 Work Session: Chairs present proposecd work plan to Council. Chair must be present. November 19 Work Session: City Manager and staff liaison present proposed revisions. December 3 Council Meeting: Council feedback incorporated and City Council approves work plan. January 1: Commissioner officially starts implementing work plans. General ► Each section with a white background should be filled out. ► List initiatives in order of priority / Parking Lot: These are items the commission considered but did not propose as part of the work plan. These items are not considered approved and would require a work plan amendment approved by Council to allow the commission to begin work. Initiative When writing initiatives, start with the action (council charge). Make sure the following points are addressed 1) What is the specific action/outcome 2) Describe what the commission will do 3) Describe wha the outcome(s) will look like •Examples: Review and recommend a building energy benchmarking policy. Study and report on possible city actions to reduce access and usage of vaping for youth. Initiative Type ► New Initiative — not on previous work plan and has completion date ► Continued Initiative — carried over from a previous work plan with a revised target completion date / Ongoing Responsibility — annually on the work plan and may or may not have a target completion date ► Event — Events coordinated and implemented by the Commission, not the City. Completion Date Provide a target date for the initiaive to be completed by. If the date has passed, provide an update in the progress field Council Charge City Manager will propose council charge for Council consideration.lf Council charge changes, initiative action will be updated. Budget - Staff Liaison Completes If funds are available, the staff liaison must provide the amount that will be used. If funds are NOT available, the staff liaison must explian the impact of Council approving this initiative. .Staff Support - Staff Liaison Completes Note additional staff support needed including the hours and responsitilities. Select all that are needed. 2020 DRAFT Commission Work Plan ounci ar:a, om. etion Dat& 3 (review and recommend) CU LLJ nTritekannuistoitsw District Plan for the Cahill Area Industrial Park Staff Liaison Funds not available Staff Liaison Comments: This is a recommendation in the 70th and Cahill Small Area Plan. Staff has made a request of the City Council to provide funds in the 2020 Budget. Progress Report: Staff Liaison Comments: Properties need to be brought into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan (70th and Cahill SAP), if there are conflicts in land use between the Comp. Plan and Zoning Ordinance. City Manager Comments: Progress Report: I\CVIOVY C111,1 I 1,1 of 7101-7155 Amundson Avenue from Industrial use to Lead Commissioners cial/Mixed Use. Staff Liaison Comments: These are items to be considered for change to the Ordinance, it does not conclude that a change will be recommended. City Manager Comments: Progress Report: Lead Commissioners Budget Commission Initiative Type Select Commission Name New Arts & Culture Continue Heritage Preservation Ongoing Community Health Event Human Rights & Relations Planning Transportation Parks & Recreation Energy & Environment • • • • Council Charge Budget Staff Support 1 (study and report) Funds available Staff Liaison 2 (review and comment) Funds not available CTS (including video) 3 (review and recommend) Other 4 (review and decide) Initiative Start Start your initiative with an action Study and Report Review and Comment Review and Recommend Review and Decide • • • 3650 Hazelton Rd. Promenade Res L 1 M Rtr LA z W c 0 CU co O Li)• 0 M DRAWING INDEX O 1N31.NONRIV 9NINOZ311 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • DRAWING NAME i gd 0 G sW331.1 F t g€€€E oo o j o= a$assssssssssss i z 1N3WON3V V 9NINOZ3Z • • • • • • • • • • • z § s o O ap ` a a a o t 10 vc 0 0- E. 5 7. F. t o o a z 0. c C O J 8 I O 1 G g.. 0 } 06/24/2019 N o = OR wa • i 3650 Hazelton Rd. - Edina TITLE SHEET T1.1 z 4 o ..n= tin 0g 0 2 NE WE UNIT MIX & SQUARE FOOTAGES M e o X g. m n 4 m n m m m T. m m m T. m g m m m 4 m m a a m m n 1 8 m N r 0 S Em m r n N ni ,. n r r N n r r r n r r 0. E ��f. 18.866 20,013 20,579 20.579 a a p Res/Parking Res/Parking Res/Amenity Residential m m m m m m a m m m m Q n d v 3d o d d 3o iil' o 3o~ o 1 A u o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r,. o m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W ES. eeeon..r.. «,.,.,.0000 N M o e ,. ,. m m m m m m m m m o 0 0 o q g o ., n e CO m CO m m m m m CO 0 0 0 0 N o n n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S yyyisiy� 0 9 S Y S y S PROJECT TEAM OWNER/DEVELOPER: a S `dam .2 o« z a' z v N �gm 83 og oaf of - ��fa 3i EL9Ea LL�i£ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CIVIL ENGINEER C 0 PLUMBING ENGINEE ELECTRICAL ENGINEER c PROJECT LOCATION Site Location W! N6Fi 6I0Z/IZ/9 3IVO ltlOM CAN I SVf SYr KOZ/EZ/20 yy VIC0NNIVI SflOcIV3.111 )11 'N0113ZVH 059£ :110i 038Vd321d NW VNI03 S3DIN13015311 301M3161011d VNI03 NVld S1VAOVIDJ 1 0 0 SNOI1IJNOD ONIISIX3 SDN305.130.31.10.1 VNIG3 8 43) 0 5 OMITIOMEOF0100 \IAD OMMOOTOEVIOOVN woo U. 03.113 V1O53NNIV3 5110dV3NNIIN Dll'NO1l32VH 059£ VOA 03uVd333d 60170E, °Nlsnnn 6T/VZ/90 'ira 30. QMV9 NW'VNIO3 S3DN343IS3113OVN3WOdd VNI03 a�sr+l�rw�.ew, poompam i NVld 3lIS S33143015. 113.31,10bd VN103 0 DM0'10d520E0i00\1 W J\OM0\00'ZOEV100\V N g I SW NANWCI BICIVEZ/ZO lnsN lvww V1053NNII SllOdtl3NNIW 311'N0113ZVH 059E 1103 038Vd3ad NW ‘VNICI3 S37N30IS31130VN3WOIId VNI03 SDN3QIS3d 3aVN3WOMd VN103 8 NV1d 1O211NOJ 01 NOISO2i3 ?8 9NIab219 E O g M V 0 OMa LO09ZOEPlOO\11/flD1 MaurozOEPtOO\N 'Rya 1111.01 013101540 BTOZ/EZ/Z0 lnesllhuw V1053NNIW SI100/3NNIW 711 'N01132VH 059E 10 60b0b '""'m bt/tZ/90 jars QIAYO 22 NW'VNIa3 S33N30IS31130VN3W0Nd VNIG3 co co h co co ▪ 14. Il J 022 64 i 53]14301SM 300431,30ed VN103 NVld DNIGV21D a3921V1N3 OM070aDZ0Et100\11UDU' MO\00'LWEVIDO N I SW 31.V0 AV V10S3NNIW Sf1Odtl3NNINI 311 'N0113ZVH 059E 41O1 939Yd39d 61/bZ/90 39Y9Q{AY9 NW "VNI03 S3,N301S31I30VN3111011d VNIa3 +r<nann.rww.+r poompem NVld NIV1N2131VM GNV aVIINVS S3JN301S3M 30.013 WOMJ tlN103 a a fV O 9M010111,00 00VIIAOS MQOOZOfrtOO\N I SW liWnISOM WWI BIOVEZ/ZO 3risv "^ll'^ ,O53NMIN S aJUNNM 311'NO113ZVH 059E :1101 03JVd3ad 60600 0N35N3J" 6t/bZ/90 ana 3OY9 NVQ Nk' VNI03 S3DN30IS3M 30VN3VlO21d VNIa3 +1 an+3ra.r. r.• r+rr tek3f nN 1 i ry E[v3 [[6 RSW +�h � PoonM NVld 2i3M3S W2iOIS S33N301S3$ 30VN3 W OMd VN103 $ao co STORM SEWER LEGEND s Dra n - K100 a anis 3 1 uo!lvaiJ13ads OD if GENERAL STORM SEWER NOTES �1s �I gl!!111111111 A '. •:.b: b4i444b 49 ::a ig7a AA IAFaaTA9`, :,d= 1 -':R68RN �Rkaaal la a h" " Hsi I'fl ? .Q!RR] 2i _a. gQ�adsg@d2a�aa�a�4i1Q6i�ii1lz=��' I ! a a 11111111 1111111i11 iP 5NV44 1A a aA d '° Be anew slme?.e eet5ll6 s"rw+'ll9, j a ?s'&: a.wel:1 1,:3a1 1 942ai99dlc III1111111111Ii11111111111111111! II 1. / g ve ¢.gggR-1 , t `t 1 { 3yp 11 ! !I 1 11 t111 a1111 boas ?>>iiiiiiffi lib.nO�v.axq., Ialrtr uo11nluaofuj uo►jv)if}aads ODV 611 STORM SEWER CASTING SCHEDULE a G 1 1 17, STORM KEYNOTES 5W 1 CMG 'TO1SZOE>I00\1MD\0MOwazOftloo\ N An. WNW) 03.10 EITOVEZ/Z0 SI100/31.11,1 '11 'N0113ZVH 059£ '401 03NVd3181 NIN 'VNILL1 S3DN30153113CIVN3INOIld VNIC13 ,........11.9.4‘. P0.4.. poompam S1IVI3Cl AID CD LO 8 0 900 1010NE9(00 11...410 ZOE VIOLA N 010310 O3NOISIN FITOZ/EZ/Z0 V.LOSENINIVI N1OLIVENPILIN Dll *N0.1.13ZVH 059E 0326/d3ild 60POP 6I/V2/90 301(11e0 1 IN ...OS 1.4..4 P.MIA S3DN3053/1 301/N3010dd VNia3 'VN833 poompem SlIVI3C1 533E1301Na Eavnalev011e NNIC3 CO clE). 8 ,794 CPI 6, .21 22 0 Fg 8 8 - i s ‘s• . 3 ,74 8 •dt I e a ' . 1 • g 1 t s ii g;',,, $t, 62 .35 t 0IMm111 9 •I' ., ,... V.- ... ii1ll ial mlife. i i. / n! g ! _ 8 •• 1 Ilk ?, hL .,. % IL" i 1618 .. ROAD DRAIN CG 23 NAIRACV CURB INLET PROTECTIi 55 - = 5 5 5 5 Xari' • • .. i . 4 •^ - — . . g E 2 55' 5 r..., .: II Mr 11 45 .'' § i .‘ — 8 • . %UP \ N.. lts'4. 'It•'.„ '00 ' 2 3 ! 4 I r ',.; °, !;::': i i 21 Mg -4 . k''',', St 2 'P.'i. .° * P p 6 ,5 '' '' :ANCE GDOI Nrg;',,s,vs 0110411604 .• •4•• .• :.. I. HEAVY DUTY CON° SECTION LOADING 0 s s t 1..—P—. ... 6 j , - ; P'At, i • At • ' "' A. If. i' \\A . 0 . • 8 i ° \ 1.8.4-,„ =HINE SLICED SILT FENCE (HEAVY ourn • '• '‘''• g - p ,^ igill'' - . , , ' , 11,01 • . S ili '• " ; 3 4 S ; ' _., ,^„ . \ ,8 7 . 'X • @ - ; , ,, ii. i 42. 1 , . • 0. 5; ,, 1g- 6 ',....? Nr SA s ,• . A:J.: ;Ate '1..184 . ‘17 IGARDEN DE TA, • 4%0 1 ,! J al' '51, 7. Z .... 5 , '; 5 5 '5'5° 1 20 .!. .5 6 22 2 2 2 22' g -2 g _._ s, y s., g ' o •, . giliiig . 1 , ' - .•^. g * ---1 Tgx 1 „ , J 1 •i il .5 r 5 WATERMAIN INSULATION '51E s ' . . .. .. • ,. •,' h 4o •\10 . q :4:: i t- ... . -• ko ogg 0 iri s- , . '• ' 11 N • 'g° 0 "P, '..;2 8 I _s.• 8 6 '.4 .: • • • . • • • ' • . ..3 1 12H 2 E 2.' . '''' 5 . 0 . g i I N g 5 1 . 1 lo 11 A* 0 ,,m_r 11 10 41 40 " - - - .s- z ''.i' ,.. ' i g 5 `. 2' g : -, 5 - .N. ' ' 11111P ..!i '''. •6, q `1 s 353 ION i 6' El- 2 • i P i i . ir 9M01014:1,0E0IDOVIMMOMO \ 00 NEPIO0 \ N COf1FL Ef10E PLANTING SCHEDULE //, a I 7//'iII�\\�\\ 0 HIYd `JNIISIX3 1Vd JNIISIX3 11I/1/,\1Id/ ��/%/,d ///1011,, 1ld/{\Il!/, f i//// \\\• {/�✓Z 0 / /7 //� I 1104)11 p A‘‘. 0 0 0 IN / / T \\' 0 s_ 0 w z z 0 IV cc AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 o e Hazelton Rd Apts, Edina LANDSCAPE PLAN L1.0 a = .-_ k3 0 ,g . tl! F °-' lir w i N K X o ti %660 dJ/1 „5 0 w 0 W C1 mo pw ZU � W UJ O < U Z a -Nz oo awl o<zz_ ozN W�o i02 7 Ill& V 'fir —�—• • —t111d//, O iii iil it* lAJ �LJ 0 0 0 0 z 0 W 0 0 z z 0 l 0 63, Or Wd BE'ZE ZI BiaZ/Zi/Z ,N J a a U to 2 J -J U. PLANTING NOTES REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 ! e Hazelton Rd Apts, Edina LANDSCAPE DETAILS L2.0 , § (� ! k ) R| } ]| ,it ; LANDSCAPE CHARACTER ,■ VrA r TYPICAL TREE PLANTING DETAIL PLANT SPACING TYPICAL PERENNIAL PLANTING DETAIL cl 3650 Hazelton Rd. u z o W o w cc m U rp co w c Li6 W cc REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 j Lm U 5 3650 Hazelton Rd. - Edina SITE IMAGES A0.1 2 O otri 2 i 1- Oa z rvd ROM THE ROAD AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE Yid EMU, 610Z/Li/9 3650 Hazelton Rd. L L C C u REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 H oo n� ry 3 _ a ...It a _ 3 s ii 3650 Hazelton Rd. - Edina P2 AND P1 PARKING PLAN A0.2 I T_T_-_I'C C C C PM1P 5 RAMP 00 b 9 1 s 9! 3 1 S I \ I I 1 T s s s \t s s s\\C RAMP UP u $ $ I_. lh\\\\\\\\\ L I Il 0 ■ r r_ L j I' I L ■ ■ ■ ■' ■ • ■ • • • ■ ■ ■ • • ■ • W tl 504P P 6IUZ/li/9 3650 Hazelton Rd. esG ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 N vm v8 v5 3650 Hazelton Rd. - Edina STREET LEVEL AND LEVEL 2 PLAN A0.3 Et Et V. z �_ f O rc z No Qo RAMP DOWN ano lean leeM limo'leal aim lean liana k n k. -[T19- I I f i RAMP UP r ©® W< 60 8F Z 610Z/IZ/9 3650 Hazelton Rd. V0 z 0 s, Vw ro cul u, Ct c = U W Q o o to CO CRI --- CO \\\\\\All ID UR 41 RAMP 00 J z 0 z NUJ W m CC Q Crl r-I 0 N 0 ua 3650 Hazelton Rd. - Edina LEVEL 3 AND LEVEL 4 PLAN A0.4 o o �_> O¢ z rva! a Tr "pit Hilili11II II \ RAMP UP ©® WC LIff:L 6I0Z/IZ/9 3650 HazeIton Rd. u z W o V Iw W m co • 1W F 2 • REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 H G O a ., t\ il W L 5 3650 Hazelton Rd. - Edina LEVEL 5 AND LEVEL 6-14 PLAN A0.5 a z rva • • ■ • ■ • • ti Ad 6[,B[Z 6SOZ/IZ/9 3650 Hazelton Rd. esG ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 ym v8 tW 3650 Hazelton Rd. - Edina LEVEL 15-16 AND LEVEL 17 PLAN A0.6 N a u3 ' oo > na o- 54 d 0 2r era a`a • • • ■ �u• • p we 226,2 62a2/22/9 3650 Hazelton Rd. REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 N t. Y 3650 Hazelton Rd. - Edina LEVEL 18 / ROOF A0.7 Z ON o > `^G r` W .L. o t ; 'a 'g 7 R I I I 111! 111111 :0 7 • • W a et 9[ Z 6100109 3650 Hazelton Rd. METAL PANEL COLOR Ni 0 REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 o 3650 Hazelton Rd. - Edina EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A0.8 oo �_ o no ao NMI IIIII NI MI Ell IIII Ell it Coll 7114 rmil ELM -- A= INS MN r IIMKMNIL1M1MI 1111M” 1001•Aill MM! MA! MU. MO. MOM .r. IMAM r. MAC. ■�v5 mataii ■.. t-it I•ii 1.e: 1.1 1-1 I.* II .a i-i .0- 90Z -.Ci .0- dl 0 - I m LL Q i 9 4 9 ^ 4 ^ 9 ^: ^ 4 ^ 4 n mil" lam' B mil" Eli III MI Ill MI MI III III MI mi emu -----_I--gm IV 1111111111111111111.11.11111111 y rr 111 -- MOM MINIM -- --- III MN MI MN UM IMO — IM = In O - _I MI III III III II III 1■11 III i Tai rim 11 7: Is: Inc 7171 71 WI =MII=I= NM 11.11r1=1a1M1 J lluiflflj w moo all _I�1 MOMIMin �_I�I MAIM MAIIIMIk 4 SOUTH ELEVATION Ad LP:BE Z 6ZOZ/LZ/9 3650 Hazelton Rd. SUBMITTAL Cn 0 N tip 0 a 3650 Hazelton Rd. - Edina EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A0.9 op i rv, _ttII,ItIItt NANINIMMEMBEIN mono mom ��' �i �� fir. MINI- .—M Mole NMa WM MN lime Imo ■-E I-j Igo* 1-i IOW Imam 1-■ �NI Ell MIMI MI NI NO MI ■ �� WWWWW- _ MINI MI IN —.—_ MI MI MI In MI -e I-r 1-i IMN 11111Y: -O 1-W WWI IIIII II aril 111111111111 WEST ELEVATION 4® W tl 006fZ 610Z/1Z/9 3650 Hazelton Rd. u Z W 0 � V /ez w w Li CO co cc c = U W cc do JNY 04, DARK ANODIZED MULLIONS BRICK AT TOWER 0 H z-Ja. W Q Q z z — o z LU 2 Q � o METAL 2 - PREFINISHED METAL PANEL - WOOD LOOK (3 COLOR BLEND) N s vW rw Lk a m 3650 Hazelton Rd. - Edina EXTERIOR MATERIALS A0.10 o o �=tmo ., a 5 a BRICK AT TOWN HOME AND GARAGE (BLEND OF THE TWO IMAGES ABOVE) METAL 3 - METAL PANEL - DARK CHARCOAL GREY METAL 1- COMPOSITE METAL PANEL - CORTEN Yid [0.66 i 6112/1i/9 AERIAL CONTEXT LOOKING NORTHWEST AERIAL CONTEXT LOOKING NORTHEAST REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 N 85 3650 Hazelton Rd. - Edina PERSPECTIVE VIEWS A0.11 Z O a I r 1 iTh O = = Nu EET LEVEL CONTEXT VIEW LOOKING NORTHE AERIAL CONTEXT LOOKING NORTH Ad 0,6E'Z 6I0Z/IZ/9 3650 Hazelton Rd. I~II MIMI MT MI/ _/ 11111111 _I MINN MIN =\ _% - l 3650 Hazelton Rd. - Edina PERSPECTIVE VIEWS A0.12 J o �W -48 r, s g STREET LEVEL VIEW FROM NEIGHBORING PARKING LOT (LOOKING EAST) STREET VIEW ALONG PROMENADE (LOOKING WEST) Ad VI 6F Z 6IOVII/9 3650 Hazelton Rd. ro esG ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN do 7 0 Lu 3i w 0 REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 Y1 v6 t U w 5 3650 Hazelton Rd. - Edina PERSPECTIVE VIEWS A0.13 Zi „ O �a Om ? P....?z s DETAIL VIEW AT FRONT PORCH nr AT TOWNHOMES ALONG PROMENADE 0 Yid [I:6Z:Z 6IOZ/IZ/9 3650 Hazelton Rd. 7,19 3650 Hazelton Rd. - Edina PERSPECTIVE VIEWS A0.14 g > . N€ ? ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING STRATEGY (LOOKING NW) ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING STRATEGY (LOOKING NE) w,ot6E.z610c/rz/s 3650 Hazelton Rd. LID Zo N W o V / m W n (300) o o cc REZONING AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 06/24/2019 N % 3650 Hazelton Rd. - Edina SECTIONS A0.15 i o p 173 z 0 G W N w z 0 S 0 O Z Z O N w z 0 5 W<H:6F Z 610Z/[Z/9