The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-40_VILLAGE ON THE PONDS 9TH ADDITION BUILDING C-1 (3)CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Payee: VOP I LLC Date: 12/21/2004 Time: 3:06pm Receipt Number: DW / 5739 Clerk: DANIELLE GIS LIST ITEM REFERENCE AMOUNT ------------------------------------------- GIS GIS LIST GIS LIST 99.00 Check --------------- Total: 99.00 5044 99.00 --------------- Change: 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! 0 SCANNED City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 OF (952) 227-1100 To: VOP I, LLC c/o Lotus Realty Services, Inc. P.O. Box 235 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ship To: 0 Invoice SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM 11/4/04 upon receipt QUANTITY I DESCRIPTION I UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 33 Property Owners List within 500' of Outlot B, Village on the Ponds S'" $3.00 $99.00 Addition (33 labels) TOTAL DUE 1 $99.00 Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #04-40. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! {CANNED 0 • Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Village on the Ponds Building C-1 (Food Coop) Outlot B, Village on the Ponds 8th Addition City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-40 ou\eJata Subject Site 5 Arboret�� State HwY Pow 0 171 BISRAT &DENISE ALEMAYEHU AMOCO AMERICAN OIL CO AUSMAR DEVELOPMENT CO LLC 380 HIDDEN LN C/O BP AMERICA INC -TAX DEPT C/O LOTUS REALTY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PO BOX 1548 PO BOX 235 WARRENVILLE IL 60555 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BLUE CIRCLE INVESTMENT CO 1304 MEDICINE LAKE DR STE 301 PLYMOUTH MN 55441 CHANHASSEN NH PARTNERSHIP C/O NEW HORIZON CHILD CARE 16355 36TH AVE N SUITE 700 PLYMOUTH MN 55446 THOMAS CLOUTIER 421 LAKE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARTIN J & TIMAREE FAJDETICH 8100 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HOLIDAY STATION STORES INC ATTN: TAX DEPT #199 PO BOX 1224 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440 JASON K & LAURA J LEHMAN 8090 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PHM/CHANHASSEN INC 2845 HAMLIN AVE N ROSEVILLE MN 55113 ROBERT J & LOIS A SAVARD 8080 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL M & PRUDENCE L BUSCH 8113 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHCR LLC C/O CULVERS 450 POND PROMENADE PO BOX 307 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 COMMUNITY BANK CORP ATTN: PRESIDENT 706 WALNUT ST CHASKA MN 55318 CHADW ICK L GATZ & PEI-SHAN S YEN 8140 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL F & RITA A KLAUDA 8130 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHRISTOPH J LESER & COLLEEN A CANNON 8110 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM R & DEBRA E PRIGGE 390 HIDDEN LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL R SCHNABEL & SANDRA STAI 370 HIDDEN LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSENINN 531 79TH ST W PO BOX 473 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHURCH OF ST HUBERT 8201 MAIN ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DRF CHANHASSEN MEDICAL BLDG C/O FRAUENSHUH COMPANIES 7101 78TH ST W SUITE #100 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55439 RANDY G & KIMBRA J GREEN 8103 MARSH DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY D & MARY A LARSEN 8151 GRANDVIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NORTHCOTT COMPANY 250 EAST LAKE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL E RAMSEY 6362 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRIAN E SEMKE & DEBORAH C SENKE 331 HIDDEN LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SILO I LLC ALBERT & JEAN SINNEN DEAN V SKALLMAN & C/O LOTUS REALTY SERVICES INC 8150 GRANDVIEW RD JOYCE L BISH PO BOX 235 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 8155 GRANDVIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 0 L VOP I LLC DAVID E & KARLI D WANDLING WHEATSTONE RESTAURANT 250 LAKE ST E 8120 MARSH DR GROUP CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 250 EAST LAKE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1180 Enclosed please find Check No. 121978 in the amount of $250 as refund for the Fax: 952.227.1170 overpayment for development review of Village on the Ponds Building C-1. Also Finance enclosed are the fee breakdown and a receipt. Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 952-227-1131 or by email at Park & Recreation bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Phone: 952227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Sincerely, Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 -� Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning 8 Robert Generous Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Senior Planner Fax: 952 227.1110 Public Works RG:ktm 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Enclosures Fax: 952.227.1310 g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-40 - village on the ponds building c-1 food coop\refund letter.doc Senior Center Phone: 952 227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci chanhassennn.us The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. 0 0 October 27, 2004 CITY OF CHONSEN vOP I, LLC Attn: Vemelle Clayton 7700 Market Boulevard c/o Lotus Realty Services, Inc. P 7 P.O. Box 235 Chanhassen,ssen, M MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Re: Overpayment of Development Application Fee Fax: 952.227.1110 Village on the Ponds Building C-1 Building Inspections Planning Case No. 04-40 Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Dear Vernelle: Engineering Phone: 952.227.1180 Enclosed please find Check No. 121978 in the amount of $250 as refund for the Fax: 952.227.1170 overpayment for development review of Village on the Ponds Building C-1. Also Finance enclosed are the fee breakdown and a receipt. Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 952-227-1131 or by email at Park & Recreation bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Phone: 952227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Sincerely, Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 -� Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning 8 Robert Generous Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Senior Planner Fax: 952 227.1110 Public Works RG:ktm 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Enclosures Fax: 952.227.1310 g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-40 - village on the ponds building c-1 food coop\refund letter.doc Senior Center Phone: 952 227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci chanhassennn.us The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. NO.121978 Vendor: VOP VOID • Invoice # Invoice Date Description Distribution Amount 5536 10/19/2004 OVER PAYMENT 250.00 Check Amt Total: Date: 10/21/2004 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 71r,] MRKEF BLVD.. RO 3OX 147 CITYOF CHANHASSEN teams PAY TWO HUNDRED FIFTY TO Check#: 121978 MW MARSHALL & ILSLEY BANK NO. 1219 7 8 ��' f `2 , �• Date: 10/21/2004 � � Check#: 121978 5250.00 4 0121978n, 1:09100ii571: 002S7-77312111 n U Planning Case 04-40 Village on the Ponds Building C-1 (Food Coop) $670 Site Plan Review $250 Final Plat $200 Variance $75 Notification Sign Rental $100 Notification Sign Deposit $50 Escrow for filing fees $1,345 TOTAL 2ITY OF CHANHASSEN • 7'700 MARKET BLVD �HANHASSEN MN 55317 Payee: VOP I LLC Date: 10/19/2004 Time: 10:14am Receipt Number: DW / 5536 --lerk: DANIELLE VILLAGE ON THE PONDS C-1 04-40 ITEM REFERENCE AMOUNT ------------------------------------------- DEVAP VILLAGE ON THE PONDS C-1 04-40 USE & VARIANCE 1,120.00 SIGN RENT 75.00 PLAT RECORDING 50.00 SIGN ESCROW 100.00 250.00 --------------- Total: 1,595.00 heck 5033 1,595.00 --------------- Change: 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BLVD • CHANHASSEN MN f5317 Payee: VOP I LLC Date: 10/19/2004 Time: 10:14am Receipt Number: DW / 5536 Clerk: DANIELLE VILLAGE ON THE PONDS C-1 04-40 ITEM REFERENCE AMOUNT ------------------------------------------- DEVAP VILLAGE ON THE PONDS C-1 04-40 USE & VARIANCE 1,120.00 SIGN RENT 75.00 PLAT RECORDING 50.00 SIGN ESCROW 100.00 250.00 Total: --------------- 1,595.00 Check 5033 1,595.00 Change: --------------- 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! SCMN20 02/08/2005 16:51 6585658203 MAG i ►�►w 1 MILO ARCHITECTURE GROUP. INC- TRANSNWTAL TO: DATF: PROJECT NAME: VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL DELIVERY ❑ MESSENGER Ll ELCOMPAUEPRNYTNT WF, ARE SENDING COPIES I DATED ACTION CODE NOTES C� PAGE 01/02 URBAN PLANNING ARCHITECTURE INTERIOR DESIGN CONSULTING FAXTHIS is gip, gJ �, j�z'^� ", L PAGE 1 OF p2 ❑ HAND DELIVERY I I FAX D WI COPY OW DF-SCRIPTION A FOR YOUR INFORMATION 8 FOR REVIEW k COMMENT ACTION CODE 5F, C FOR YOUR ACTION E FOR YOUR USE D FOR YOUR APPROVAL F AS REQUESTED BY y WAC=aad OfRcelTcmplaftlI ansmittal With lincs.doc 3914 Murphy Canyon Rd. Ste. A144 Son Diego, CA 92123 Phone: 858-565-8485 Fax: 858.565-8203 E:mail: mag@magarcb.com BENSHOOF 8 ASSOC. 952 238 1671 P.02/14 BENSH OF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 10417 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARp, SUITE TWO / HOPIUNS, MN ss343 / (982) 238.1887 /FAX (952) 238-1671 November 13, 2003 MEMORANDUM TO: Dean Williamson, Frauenshuh Companies Duane Spiegle, Park Nicollet Health Services FROM: Edward F. Terhaar E FT' Refer to File: 02-77 RE: Revision #2 - Traffic and Parking Studies for the Proposed Park Nicollet Clinic in Chanhassen, MN PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to present our traffic and parking studies for the Proposed Park Nicollet Clinic in the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. This report represents an update to our reports dated December 20, 2001, March 11, 2002, and May 9, 2003. Revisions were trade to fully account for traffic generated by the Villages on the Ponds development. Based on our discussions with the City, we have focussed our attention on the Great Plains Boulevard/Lake Drive intersection. The proposed site is located to the south of T.H. 5, north of Lake Drive, east of Great Plains Boulevard and west of Dakota Avenue, Figure 1 shows the project location, BACKGROUND INFORMATION Proposed Development Characteristics The proposed clinic will be developed as described below: • Current proposal — Koo square feet of building space • Long term expansion— the addition of 24,000 square feet of building area for a total of 80,000 square feet SAUXEm OI PA53 CNIMIRA TR. w2L1Imm LA, OENT C& cArTETa1rtT cm. PREAFAES$ 4 O LAKDLL AR£DD LL M*ouom 51, SANTA EE CM. SPOm61LL COL NICIIXAS WAY •11lEPLT u SILLY CT. rt�y t ►3CI{A ■. !Sme1 ST. 5 "kR sown ,�'�/ sAnSARA :x wrFmo LT. 125. Ammh M." OR. 5 N h 952 238 1671 P.03/14 • *I ii s� RSM cr. IT. t 13 4 A 12i Y MT i 114. OmECAL cm TuNq tm I15. CAL.1Ar COPE LAKE Im SKNAA 2 TR. S RT. TDR :DYE S, 114 RALDW IE {� CT. 1156 LORD 1EAWN PT. 8 t2o. IEAIOCR CUL � LTMAR 14L Al I(I�� (( [(IAEA Y t.11 Thn 6 CATS 64 WALI.AM CT. I K 2. LOmtWT i, ...s �. _ 6l IR.LAIAIY+ COL LOCATION 1. JJJ n� W/op u. L7c PRTSTIAE PINE LL 7 PRAIRIE POP. 39.311 Tu TLE PT. .' w '4 N INLum I t .APPROXIMATE SCALE nca LFr R6 0 2000' FRAUENSHUH COMPANIES TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 1 CHANHASSEN CLINIC PROJECT LOCATION BMW &ASSOCIATE, INC ixARsroRr�nowEwlwEauugvuwwtxa IZ�Z2� BENSHOOF & ASSOC. 952 238 1671 R.04/14 Mr. Dean Williamso.-3- 10 November 13, 2003 Mr. Duane Spiegle The current site plan shows 217 on-site parking stalls, with 75 located under the building and 142 surface stalls, It is anticipated that a shared parking agreement will be in place with the American Legion site which would allow the clinic to use 50 American Legion stalls during the day. Therefore, a total of 267 parking spaces would be available for clinic use. Phase 1 of the development is expected to be complete in 2005, with the rema;mng phase occurring later in the future. For purpose of our study, we have assumed that the long term phase would occur in 2010. A full access intersection for both the clinic and the American Legion is provided on Lake Drive east of Marsh Drive. A right in/out access will be provided on Great Plains Boulevard north of Lake Drive. The existing access for the property south of the clinic site will remain at its present location. Existing Conditions The site has recently been vacated. The previous American Legion building was replaced by a new building located east of the proposed clinic site. Access to the new Legion building is on Lake Drive east of Great Plains Boulevard. The existing intersection of Great Plains Boulevard/Lake Drive is unsignalized with stop Signs on east and west approaches. The geometrics at the Great Plains Boulevard/Lake Drive intersection are as follows: • East approach — Shared lane for left and through movements and a right -tum lane. • West approach — One lane shared by left turn, through, and right tum movements. • North approach — One left tum lane, one through lane, and one right tum lane • South approach — One lane shared by left tum, through, and right rum movements. Traffic es As part of this current study, new tum movement data svgs collected at the Great Plains Boulevard/Lake Street intersection. Data was collected durin eekday a.m. and rep6 peak periods on Tues x, pacember p2. report. _17 mitis dais is presented later in tlus Mr. Dean Williamsm Mr. Duane Spiegle TRAFFIC FORECASTS Trio Generation 4- • November 13, 2003 The am. peak hour, p.m. peak hour and daily development trips have been estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, 6`h Edition. Table 1 shows the results of the trip generation estimates. Table 1 Trin (yinpmAnn Va*i...o#m {'n.. a.- - - Land Use Size (S ..... A.M. Peak Hour m P.M. Peak Hoar In Out In Out Clinic -current proposal 56,000 82 20 42 112 Clinic -long term expansion 80,000 155 39 79 214 Trip Distribution Based on the existing volumes and locations of major attractions, we obtained the following trip distribution percentages for trips generated by the proposed development: - 15 percent to/from the west on T.H. 5 25 percent to/from the east on T.H. 5 - 10 percent to/from the north on Great Plains Boulevard - 20 percent to/from the south on Great Plains Boulevard 25 percent to/from the north on T.H. 101 5 percent to/from the south on Marsh Drive and Hidden Lane (combined) The distribution percentages listed above were used to determine the development volumes at the Great Plains Boulevard/Lake Drive intersection. Traffic Volumes Weekday a.m. and p.m, peak hour traffic volumes have been developed for the Great Plains Boulevard/Lake Street intersection for each year corresponding to a phase of the development (2005 and 2010). All of the future volume scenarios include the traffic generated by the proposed clinic, the new American Legion building, and other development in the area. Information provided by the City was used to determine the amount of traffic added by the nearby Villages on the Ponds development. Table 2 shows the traffic volumes for existing, 2005, and 2010. NUVF1d 15:19 BENSHOOF 8 ASSOC. 952 238 1671 P.06i14 b&' Dean Wi111an=# -5- • November 13, 2003 Mr. Duane Spiegle Table 2 Weekday A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Volumes at the Great Plains Boulevard/Lake n-.;., T - SCENARIO SCENARIO A.M. PEAK HOUR e tersecdon VOLUMES EBL EBT EBR WBL I WBT WBR NBL I NBT NBR SBL SBTNSBIRExistin 51 24 10 71 18 36 8 77 206 44 392005 without Clinic 53 25 10 78 19 43 8 227 217 59 169 2004 with Clinic 53 25 10 83 19 43 8 238 228 114 169 1 59 2010 without Clinic 55 26 11 82 19 45 9 277 227 62 214 62 2010 with Clinic55 26 11 90 19 45 9 292 243 147 214 1 62 SCENARIO PAL PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Existin EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2005 without Clinic 46 12 8 148 27 57 7 35 77 86 58 49 2004 with Clinic 47 47 12 8 157 28 70 7 208 86 105 238 50 2010 without Clinic 50 12 13 8 187 28 70 7 213 92 133 238 50 2010 with Clinic 50 9 165 29 73 8 260 90 109 298 53 13 9 208 29 84 8 268 98 148 298 53 BENSHOOF Mr. Dean WilliamsoL• Mr. Duane Spiegle TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Level of Service =• 952 238 1671 -6- November 13, 2003 Capacity analyses were performed using the methodologies presented in the Highway Capacity Manual for each of the three scenarios described earlier, Table 3 shows the results of the traffic analysis. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which range from A to F. Level of service A represents the best intersection operation, with very little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. Level of service F represents the worst intersection operation, with excessive delay. In most instances, level of service D or better is considered acceptable in urban areas. For analysis purposes, the existing geometries and traffic control were assumed for all three scenarios. Table 3 presents the capacity analysis results. Table 3 Weekday Peak Hour Levels of Service at Great Plains Boulevard/Lake Drive P. 07/14 - --- - �.-.. "U SCENARIO vc WVarr3anu iwo-wa oto C:Ontrol A M. PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE Existin EBL EBT EBR WBL J WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 2005 without Clinic B C B C A A B C I B C A A A A A A A 2005 with Clinic D D A D D A A A A A A A A 2010 without Clinic C C A C C A A A A A A 2010 with Clinic E E-1 A I E E A A A A A A A I A I A A A A A A SCENARIO P.M PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR I SBL SBT SBR 2005tin 2005 without Clinic B C B C A B B A A A A A A A 2005 with Clinic C C A D D A A A A A A A 2010 without Clinic D D A D D D A A A A A A 2010 with Clinic D D A F F A A A A A A A A F F F A A A A A A As shown in Table 3, all movements at the Great Plains Boulevard/Lake Drive intersection operate at level of service D or better during all 2005 scenarios. Under the 2010 scenarios, the eastbound and westbound movements experience unacceptable levels of service both without and with the proposed clinic. This indicates that while the proposed clinic does add traffic to the intersection, it is not the sole reason for the changes in level of service. In this case, the considerable through traffic added on Great Plans Boulevard by the Villages on the Pond development also plays a major role in the level of service changes. The next form of traffic control considered for this intersection is all -way stop control. All -way stop control works well at intersections with moderate overaIl traffic volumes. 'This form of control was analyzed assuming no changes to the existing roadway geometries for the 2010 scenarios. The results are shown in Table 4. Mr. Dean Williamso,o -7- November 13, 2003 Mr. Duane Spiegle Table 4 Weekday Peak Hour Levels of Service at Great Plains Boulevard/Lake Drive interxectinn Witt, VYi at ]4z �.�w t it As shown in Table 4, all movements will operatte-at-aceeptable_levels ofsem ce_wlth all_ way stop control. Therefore, we recommend that intersection operations be monitored as the area develops to determine when all -way stop control should be installed. Access Location on Great Plains Boulevard As described earlier, a right in/out access will be provided on Great Plains Boulevard between Lake Drive and T.H. 5. Based on observations at the site, we recommend that the right in/out access be located no farther north than the former American Legion access due to vehicle queues on Great Plains Boulevard at T.H. 5. Mn/DOT staff reviewed and approved the access as proposed in March, 2002. Recent discussions with Mn/DOT staff indicate that the former American Legion access location would be acceptable for the proposed right in/out access. Operations at the Right In/Right Out Access Points Using the volumes shown in Figure 1 and existing geometries and intersection control, capacity analyses were performed using the methodologies presented in the Highway Capacity Manual, Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which range from A to F. Level of service A represents the best intersection operation, with very little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. Level of service F represents the worst intersection operation, with excessive delay. Under all scenarios, all movements at both right Wright out access points operate at level of service B or better during both the a.m. and p,m, peak periods. Therefore, both access Points will operate at acceptable levels of service. Anon factor that was considered in the analysis of these access points was the impact of northbound vehicles queued on Great Plans Boulevard at T.H. 5. Observations were made at the site during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods on several weekdays. During these observations, the vehicle queues never extended far enough south to impact either access point. it � oil i0iof ��mmFJ�mQ'- �Im��tQT� As shown in Table 4, all movements will operatte-at-aceeptable_levels ofsem ce_wlth all_ way stop control. Therefore, we recommend that intersection operations be monitored as the area develops to determine when all -way stop control should be installed. Access Location on Great Plains Boulevard As described earlier, a right in/out access will be provided on Great Plains Boulevard between Lake Drive and T.H. 5. Based on observations at the site, we recommend that the right in/out access be located no farther north than the former American Legion access due to vehicle queues on Great Plains Boulevard at T.H. 5. Mn/DOT staff reviewed and approved the access as proposed in March, 2002. Recent discussions with Mn/DOT staff indicate that the former American Legion access location would be acceptable for the proposed right in/out access. Operations at the Right In/Right Out Access Points Using the volumes shown in Figure 1 and existing geometries and intersection control, capacity analyses were performed using the methodologies presented in the Highway Capacity Manual, Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which range from A to F. Level of service A represents the best intersection operation, with very little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. Level of service F represents the worst intersection operation, with excessive delay. Under all scenarios, all movements at both right Wright out access points operate at level of service B or better during both the a.m. and p,m, peak periods. Therefore, both access Points will operate at acceptable levels of service. Anon factor that was considered in the analysis of these access points was the impact of northbound vehicles queued on Great Plans Boulevard at T.H. 5. Observations were made at the site during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods on several weekdays. During these observations, the vehicle queues never extended far enough south to impact either access point. Mr. Dean Williatnsmo -8- November 13, 2003 Mr. Duane Spiegle The spacing between the two access points was also reviewed. Measurements at the site�L indicate the two access points are approximately 75 feet apart. This spacing exceeds the r��- minimum spacing recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. „ .Cc %r ,1 Based on the points described above, we expect that both right in/right out access points Will be able to adequately accommodate the forecasted traffic volumes. Need for Traffic Signal Control at the Great Plains Boulevard/lake Drive Intersection We compared the forecasted volumes to the peak hour traffic signal warrant requirement as presented in the Minnesota Manual on Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD). The peak hour warrant if one of eight warrants used to determine if an intersection should be considered for signal control. In this case we were able to check the peak hour warrant against the existing, 2005, and 2010 volumes as presented in this report. The comparison showed that none of the forecasted volumes meet the required volume level. Based on the acceptable level of service with intersection control described above and volume levels below the peak hour warrant requirement, it is our opinion that a traffic signal will not be necessary at this intersection 952 23e 1671 P.10/14 Mr' Dean Willramsot -9- November 13, 2003 Mr. Duane Spiegle PARCUIG ANALYSIS Existing conditions In order to completely understand the parking characteristics of each proposed use, we collected parking usage information at comparable sites. Data was collected at the new American Legion building in Chanhassen and at two Park Nicollet clinics in the metro area. Data at the American Legion was collected on Friday, February 7, 2003, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. This time period was chosen for the American Legion site because it includes the busy lunch time rush and it represents a busy time for the proposed clinic. A Friday was chosen because it represents a busier than usual day for the American Legion and a typical day for the clinic. The data for the American Legion is shown in Table 4. Table 4 Existing Parkin Demand at the New American Legion merican L 'on Number of vehicles narked Z1:00 23 25 28 11:45 __E m 29 12:00 m 35 12:15 m 44 12:30 pm 50 12:45 47 1:00 m 45 1:15 m 36 1:30 1:45 prn 31 25 2:00 Pro 28 The new American Legion site has approximately 115 on-site parking spaces. Our survey showed that during the lunch time period, a maximum of 50 spaces were used, which allows opportunity for some of the available spaces to be used by clinic patrons. Parking survey data was also collected at two Park Nicollet clinic sites. Data was collected at the clinics in Burnsville and Minnetonka in December, 2002. The Minnetonka clinic surveyed is known as the Carlson clinic. Data at the Burnsville clinic was collected on Tuesday, December 3, 2002, and the data for the Carlson clinic was collected on Thursday, December 5, 2002. These clinics were chosen because they represent a good comparison the expected uses and size of the proposed clinic. Data was collected on typical weekdays to capture normal clinic use characteristics. The data collected is summarized in the following two tables. Table 5 Parking Survey Information for Bumsvilie Park Nlcollet Clinic Bumsvllie Tuesday 1223102 Total spaces available 398 Building size 93,629 sq. ft. Number of X11 350 M 300 m 1� 250 ra CL w 200 m u r 150 d 100 50 0 ^moo ^,,'L° ��°° ^,y�° ^,�° foo ��° �,�°°° �° y�o °o° Time of day • • vehicles % spaces Time of day parked used 800 183 46.0% 820 245 61.8% 840 280 70.4% 900 300 75.4% 920 321 80.7% 940 326 81.9% 1000 341 85.7% 1020 335 84.2% 1040 330 82.9% 1100 335 84.2% 1120 308 77.4% 1140 282 70.9% 1200 270 67.8% 1220 219 55.0% 1240 209 52.5% 100 249 62.6% 120 268 67.3% 140 294 73.9% 200 300 75A% 220 297 74.6% 240 292 73.4% 300 293 73.6% 320 288 72.4% 340 262 70.9% 400 273 68.6% 420 244 61.3% 440 184 46.2% 500 153 38.4% 520 91 22.9% 540 63 15.8% 000 50 12.6% X11 350 M 300 m 1� 250 ra CL w 200 m u r 150 d 100 50 0 ^moo ^,,'L° ��°° ^,y�° ^,�° foo ��° �,�°°° �° y�o °o° Time of day • • Carlson Time of day 800 820 840 900 920 940 1000 1020 1040 1100 1120 1140 1200 1220 1240 100 120 140 20D 220 240 300- 320 340 400 420 440 500 520 640 600 Table 6 Parking Survey information for Carlson (Minnetonka) Park Nlcollet Clinic Thursday 1215102 Total spaces avallable 213 Number of vehicles % spaces parked used 85 39.9% 102 47.9% 138 64.8% - --- -- - — . - 147 69.0% 101 400 76 184 770% 27.2% 51 -- 161 75.6% 350 160 75.1% — - - - 158 742% 300 163 76.5% 13 161 75.6% 0250 - 158 74.2% rs - 149 70.0% G 200 131 61.5% m 117 54.9% .2 150 113 53.1% m - 110 55.4% > 100 149 70.0% 150 70.4% 50 lea 78.8% - 165 77.5% 0 164 77.0% 159 146 68.5% o'`l� �DO� V3 Z) 155 72.8% 145 68.1% Time of day 127 59.6% _ ._.- 101 47.4% 76 35.7% 58 27.2% 51 23.9% 43 202% N 1671 P.13i14 Mr. Dean Williamsor.0 -12- 0 November 13, 2003 Mr. Duane Spiegle As shown in the tables, the Burnsville clinic parking demand peaked in the morning, decreased during the noon hour, and then increased during the afternoon. A similar pattern was seen at the Carlson clinic, with the actual peak occurring in the afternoon. Future Parking Demand Parking demand calculations were performed for the 11 am. to 2 p.m. time period on a typical weekday. This period was chosen because it will represent a busy time for both the American Legion and the clinic. During the morning hours before 11 a.m., the American Legion site is not busy while the clinic site is quite active. The opposite is true for the evening hours, when the American Legion is busy and the clinic is quiet. The Burnsville clinic is 93,629 square feet in size. The peak parking demand of 341 spaces, which occurred at 10 am., equates to a parking demand of 3.64 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area. The Carlson clinic is 45,294 square feet in size. The peak Parking demand of 168 spaces, which occurred at 2 p.m., equates to a parking demand of 3.71 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area. The surveyed parking demand ratios are very similar for the two clinics. To be on the conservative side, we used the higher ratio to estimate the future parking demand for the proposed clinic. The estimated peak Parking demand for each phase of the clinic development is shown in Table 7. Table 7 Weekday Peak Parkingr, Demand for the Proposed Clinic Pki hase Size (sq. ft) Peak Parking Demand Clinic -current to sal 56,000 `208 spaces Clinic -long term ex ansion 80,000 297 spaces Future Parking Demand Verses Future Parkin& Su*+ I Based on the current site plan, the clinic site will have 217 on-site parking spaces. We have also assumed that 50 spaces on the American Legion site will be available for clinic patrons during the day. Therefore, a total of 267 parking spaces would be available for clinic use. For parking calculations, the total available supply is reduced by 5 Dercent. resulting in the total effective supply. The effective supply takes into account parking inefficiencies due to space turnover, two spaces occupied by one vehicle, spaces occupied by things other than vehicles (e.g. snow), handicap spaces not used, etc. Therefore, the effective supply available for the clinic is 254 spaces. Comparing this to the peak Parking demand numbers shown in Table 7, the current proposal (56,000 square feet) scenario can be accommodated on site. The parking demand for the long term expansion (80,000 square feet) scenario will exceed both the on-site supply and the 50 shared parking spaces. When this expansion occurs, approximately 50 off-site parking will be needed to accommodate the additional demand. On an overall basis, the clinic and American Legion uses compliment each other with respect to parking demand because they tend to peak at different times during the day. ASS C. 952 238 1671 P.14i14 Mr. Dean Williamson* -13- • November 13, 2003 Mr. Duane Spiegle The clinic will have higher parking usage during morning and afternoon times, while the American Legion will be busiest in the evenings and on weekends. CONCLUSIONS Based on the information presented in this report, we have made the following conclusions: • On an average weekday, the 56,000 square foot clinic is estimated to generate 136 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 205 trips during the p.m. peak hour. The 80,000 square foot clinic is estimated to generate 194 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 293 trips during the p.m. peak hour. • The Great Plains Boulevard/Lake Drive intersection is expected to operate at acceptable levels of service with existing two-way stop control under all 2005 scenarios. • Under the 2010 scenario with two-way stop control, the eastbound and westbound movements experience unacceptable levels of service both without and with the proposed clinic, • Under the 2010 scenario with all -way stop control, all movements operate at acceptable levels of service. Therefore, we recommend that intersection operations be monitored as the area develops to determine when all -way stop control should be installed. • The existing right in/right out access for the gas station and the proposed right in/right out for the clinic will be able to adequately accommodate the forecasted traffic volumes. • The parking demand for the current proposal (56,000 square feet) scenario can be accommodated on site. • The parking demand for the longterm expansion (80,000 square feet) scenario will exceed both the on-site supply and the 50 shared parking spaces. When this expansion occurs, approximately 50 off-site parking will be needed to accommodate the additional demand • We recommend that the proposed right in/out on Great Plains Boulevard be located no farther north than the former American Legion access due to vehicle queues on Great Plains Boulevard at T.H. 5. Recent discussions with Mn/DOT staff indicate that the former American Legion location would be acceptable for the proposed right in/out access. TOTAL P.14 u 0 0 Villages on the Ponds Food Coop Chanhassen, Minnesota Traffic Impact Analysis CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOV 0 9 2004 Prepared for: ENGINEERING DEPT. City of Chanhassen November 2004 PP's Kimley-Horn hkil— and Associates, Inc. 0 Traffic Impact Analysis for Villages on the Ponds Food Coop Chanhassen, Minnesota Prepared for: City of Chanhassen Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc 2550 University Avenue West Suite 345N St. Paul, Minnesota 55114 Phone: 651.645.4197 Fax: 651.645.5116 160511002 November 2004 Villages on the Ponds Food Coop • Table of Contents 11/05/3101 i.o Introduction i 2.0 Project Background 3 2.1 Related Traffic Studies 3 2.2 Study Area 3 2.3 Existing Conditions and Traffic. 3 3.o Traffic Generation 5 4.o Traffic Distribution . 7 5.o Projected Traffic Volumes. 9 5.i Historic Traffic Growth 9 5.2 Total Traffic 9 6.o Traffic Analysis . 12 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations. i5 Appendix Villages on the Ponds Food Coop 1.0 Introduction 0 11/05/2004 Kimley-Horn and Associates was retained by the City of Chanhassen to perform a traffic analysis at the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard/Lakc Drive East/Pond Promenade in the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. The purpose of this study is to investigate traffic impacts at this intersection caused by the final phase of the Villages on the Ponds development. Figure 1 illustrates the site location. Villages on the Ponds is a mixed-use development that is primarily commercial with some residential. The additional development studied as part of the report includes the following land uses: food coop, bank, retail, apartments, residential, hotel, and office. The construction and occupancy timeline of additional development is approximately 5 years or by 2010. As shown in Figure 1, Lake Drive East/Pond Promenade runs in an approximate east/west direction and Great Plains Boulevard in an approximate north/south direction. This report has been prepared to evaluate existing conditions as well as future traffic conditions that include the proposed development. Two future scenarios were considered in this study: 2007 buildout and 2010 buildout. The 2007 build -out scenario evaluates traffic conditions when only the Food Coop is completed. The 2010 buildout scenario evaluates traffic conditions when the entire project is anticipated to be completed. Assumptions regarding the study area, traffic generation, access, and traffic control were discussed with City staff prior to the completion of this analysis. Page 1 T L O Z \� �t 'A� _ . s'• VFW Site j 3d�� ` Medical Clinic L ' Under Construction t- - Lake Or. East -s Ow= • Pond Promenade Retail/Apartments _ Food Coop Hotel/Retail Bank/Office Vt East . Office/Residential ; �ii"�`i��•" rwA � - l ITS r �> _ 1 = •� ""��'�7-._Y`LT yam✓ $ �S�VS'f•q ' J Office i� vim Legend ® -Proposed Deveiopment O-Study lnterseLton C, Z" Villages on the Ponds Food Coop Stud Area FIGURE Kaley -Horn Chanhassen, MN y and Associates, Inc. Villages on the Ponds Foal Coop 0 � 11/05/2004 2.0 Project Background 2.1 Related Traffic Studies Several traffic studies have been completed recently that have included the study area or developments located near the site. The original Village on the Ponds development plan was studied by BRW, Inc. in 1996. Benshoof & Associates, Inc. completed a traffic study dated November 13, 2003 for the Park Nicollet Clinic, currently under construction to the northeast of the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard/Lake Drive East/Pond Promenade. The primary purpose of this study is to determine if changes in land use within the Village on the Ponds development will impact the previous recommendation of an all -way stop control at the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard/ Lake Drive East. 2.2 Study Area The study area for this analysis includes the following roadways and intersections: Roadways • Great Plains Boulevard • Lake Drive East/Pond Promenade Intersections Great Plains Boulevard/Lake Drive East/Pond Promenade 2.3 Existing Conditions and Traffic The intersection of Great Plains Boulevard/Lake Drive East is currently two-way stop controlled, with free-flow conditions on the Great Plains Boulevard approaches to the intersection. AM and PM peak hour weekday turning movement counts were performed by Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. at the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard/Lake Drive East/Pond Promenade on October 27 and October 26, 2004 respectively. Figure 2 depicts existing lane geometry and traffic volumes at the intersection. In addition to turning movement counts, daily traffic volume counts were collected by the City of Chanhassen on all entering approaches to the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard and Lake ]hive on October 25 and 26, 2004. The daily traffic volume data was aggregated in 15 -minute intervals. Page 3 llllllpp�= Existing Lane Geometry 1111111h,=ri Villages on the Ponds Food Coop and Weekday AM and FIGURE Kimley-Horn Chanhassen, MN PM Peak Hour Turning 2 and Associates, Inc. Movement Volumes Villages on the Ponds Foal Capp 0 • 11/05/2004 3.o Traffic Generation Traffic generation potential for the proposed development was determined using traffic generation rates published in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE], 7`h Edition, 2003). Table 1 summarizes the estimated traffic generation potential for the proposed development. Table 1—Proposed Development Trip Generation Weekday AMPeakHour PM Peak Hour rrECode Description Size Daily In Out Total In Out Total Commercial Component 850 Supermarket 17,000 sf 1,738 34 21 55 117 113 230 912 Drive -In Bank 5,500 sf 1,356 38 30 68 126 126 252 310 Hotel 75 units 298 26 16 42 23 21 44 710 General Office Bu ilding 30,000 sf 528 63 9 72 19 93 112 710 General Office Building 20,000 sf 386 46 6 52 1 17 84 101 710 General Office Building 5,500 sf 143 16 2 18 14 71 85 814 Specialty Retail 19,000 sf 842 100 109 209 29 38 67 880 Pharmacy w/o Drive Thru 13,000 sf 1,171 34 23 57 55 55 110 Residential Component 220 Apartment 45 units 421 5 21 26 27 15 1 42 230 Residential Condominium 40 units 295 4 21 25 19 9 28 Total New Trips 7178 366 258 624 446 625 1071 Specific information regarding the retail development is not available at this time. Trip generation for the retail portion of the development was completed assuming a combination of specialty retail and pharmacy w/o drive thru land uses. These land uses were selected because the ITE Trip Generation rates for these development types are based on similar sized retail facilities and are relatively common in developments similar to the Villages on the Ponds. Table 1 indicates the proposed development having the potential to generate a total of 7178 new daily trips, 624 of those occurring in the AM peak hour and 1071 occurring in the PM peak hour. Page 5 Villayres on the Porn1s Food Coop• • 11/05/2004 Reductions in trip generation caused by internal, multi-purpose trips or pass -by trips were not taken into consideration for this analysis because their impact is negligible. Page 6 Vdkgs w the Pons Food Coop • 4.o Traffic Distribution 0 11/05/2ID4 The directional distribution and assignment of trips generated by the Villages on the Ponds planned development is based on a review of existing and historic roadway volumes from Mn/DOT, information from recent traffic studies, and from assumptions of travel patterns within the study area. Below is a list of the site traffic distribution percentage: 20% to/from north TH 101 20% to/from south TH 101 ■ 20% to/from east TH 5 20% to/from west TH 5 10% to/from Great Plains Drive north of TH 5 5% to/from east Lake Drive 5% to/from Market Boulevard north of TH 5 Site traffic distribution is shown in Figure 3. Page 7 o\° ry0 a s ro �00�0 v �N5 m ° c O a � o v 20% Pond Promenade 5% Lake Drive East Lake Drive East �a5t `aKe pc . y c ro r f N O 0 T r 0 0 z Villages on the Ponds Food Coop Site Traffic Distribution FIGURE Kimley-Horn Chanhassen, MN 3 and Associates, Inc. Villages on the Ponds Food Coop • 5.0 Projected Traffic Volumes 5.i Historic Traffic Growth 0 11/05/20)4 Historic traffic growth is the increase in the volume of traffic due to usage increases and non- specific growth throughout an area. The growth rate used in the original study by BRW, Inc. in 1996 was 0.5% on Lake Drive East and 0% growth on the north and south approaches to the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard/Lake Drive East. Based on a review of the existing roadway network, historic traffic volumes, and conversations with City staff an average annual growth rate of three percent was determined for through traffic on Great Plains Boulevard. There have been two significant land use changes adjacent to Lake Drive East. These include the addition of the new VFW and the upcoming opening of the new Park Nicollet Clinic. The traffic counts completed for this analysis include the new VFW traffic. The trips generated for the year 2010 Park Nicollet Clinic development completed by Benshoof & Associates, Inc. have been added to the existing traffic volumes to obtain the portion of the background traffic that will be generated by the clinic. 5.2 Total Traffic To obtain total 2007 no build traffic volumes, existing (2004) traffic volumes were increased to account for the traffic generated by the 2010 Park Nicollet Clinic development and background growth to the through traffic on Great Plains Boulevard. Once existing volumes were increased to account for background traffic growth, all traffic generated by the Food Coop was added to develop total traffic volumes for 2007. Figure 4 illustrates weekday AM and PM peak hour 2007 turning movement volumes. To obtain total 2010 no build traffic volumes, existing (2004) traffic volumes were increased to account for the traffic generated by the 2010 Park Nicollet Clinic development and background growth to the through traffic on Great Plains Boulevard. Once existing volumes were increased to account for background traffic growth, all traffic generated by the entire proposed Village on the Ponds development was added to develop total traffic volumes for 2010. Figure 5 illustrates weekday AM and PM peak hour 2010 turning movement volumes. Page 9 1� O Of O P � N Pond Promenade � 1 47 (4) [5114 20 (0) [20)—* 4 (0) (41 �4 Site traffic includes only super market trips from Table 1 that are distributed through the intersection Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive East l7 N N N C r to 10 Pond Promenade J 37 (19) [561-14 10 (0) 7 (B) Pl �4 Legend 4---- PM Traffic Volumes - Background (Site) [Totaq Lake Drive East N h $ NN *,— 100 (0) (1001 0 24 (0) [241 4e— 220 (6)12261 Legend 4 AM Traffic Volumes - Background (Site) [Totall Lake Drive East Site traffic includes onty super market trips from Table 1 that are distributed through the intersection Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive East 2007 Weekday AM Villages on the Ponds Food Coop FIGURE and PM Peak Hour Kimley-Horn Chanhassen, MN Trak Volumes 4 and Associates, Inc. m u C L a O Z m Q! 20(0)[291 �— 20 (0)1201 �— 64 (2) [661 Lake Drive East N h $ NN *,— 100 (0) (1001 0 24 (0) [241 4e— 220 (6)12261 Legend 4 AM Traffic Volumes - Background (Site) [Totall Lake Drive East Site traffic includes onty super market trips from Table 1 that are distributed through the intersection Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive East 2007 Weekday AM Villages on the Ponds Food Coop FIGURE and PM Peak Hour Kimley-Horn Chanhassen, MN Trak Volumes 4 and Associates, Inc. 2010 Weekday AM kh" = F1 Villages on the Ponds Food Coop and PM Peak Hour FIGURE Kimley-Horn Chanhassen, MN and Associates, Inc. Traffic Volumes 5 v m C L A 0 o O Z e W 0 m 29 (0) (291 d 20 (7) (271 Pond PromenaderLegend 47 (n) [124)ast 20(6)14(0)[4)Site traffic includes all site generated trips from Table 1 that are distributed through the intersection 4 AM Traffic Volumes - Background (Site) [Total] Great Plains Boulevard and take cave East m u, c .2 a N � _ A d n O 1n ,\ V\— 100(0)[100] 4 24 (9) [331 lI Pond Promenade y 11(— 220 (14) [2341 Drive East 37 (130) (1671 — — - Lake 10 (10) [201 7 (0) Pl --�4 �a O � N Legend Site traffic includes all site generated trips from Table 1 that are disinbuted through the intersection F— PM Traffic Volumes - Background (Site) [total] Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive East 2010 Weekday AM kh" = F1 Villages on the Ponds Food Coop and PM Peak Hour FIGURE Kimley-Horn Chanhassen, MN and Associates, Inc. Traffic Volumes 5 Villsge on the Ponds Food Coop • 6.o Traffic Analysis • 11/05/2004 Capacity analyses for the unsignalized intersection in the AM and PM peak hours (Appendix) were performed for the following scenarios: Existing 2007 no build 2007 with Food Coop • 2010 no build 2010 with the proposed development Analyses were completed to determine the operating characteristics of the study area intersection and roadways using HCS 4.1e, which uses methodologies contained in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) [TRB Special Report 209, 2000]. Intersection turning movement counts were used with information about the number of lanes and traffic control to determine existing and future levels of service. Level of service (LOS) describes traffic conditions—the amount of traffic congestion—at an intersection or on a roadway. LOS ranges from A to F—A indicating a condition of little or no congestion and F a condition with severe congestion, unstable traffic flow, and stop -and -go conditions. For intersections, LOS is based on the average delay experienced by all traffic using the intersection during the busiest (peak) 15 -minute period. LOS A through D are generally considered acceptable. Each of the aforementioned scenarios was analyzed during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The results are presented in the following summaries and supporting calculations are presented in the Appendix. This unsignalized intersection of Great Plains Boulevard/Lake Drive East currently provides the following lane geometry: Great Plains Boulevard (southbound) --one exclusive left -tum lane, one exclusive through lane, and one exclusive right -tum lane Great Plains Boulevard (northbound)— this approach is not striped but traffic operations observed in the field show that this approach operates as if it has one shared through and left -turn lane and one exclusive right -tum lane Lake Drive East (westbound) --one shared through and left -tum lane and one exclusive right -tum lane Pond Promenade (eastbound) --one shared through, right -tum, and left -tum lane Page 12 Villages on the Powis Food Coop • • 11/05/-V)4 Table 2 shows levels of service and delay for the stopped approaches under existing (2004), 2007 no build, 2007 build out, 2010 no build, and 2010 build out conditions under two-way stopped control. Table 2—Great Plains Blvd./Lake Drive East -Two -Way Stopped Control Approach LOS *-denotes greater than 100 sec/veh delay The level of service on the stopped approaches are satisfactory for 2004, 2007 no build, 2007 build, and 2010 no build conditions but unacceptable LOS values will occur under the 2010 build out scenario. Analysis on an all -way stop scenario was then completed to determine if the change in intersection control was a viable mitigation measure. The HCM methodology does not provide a procedure that can be used to evaluate the existing lane geometry because there are more than two traffic lanes on the north approach. The geometry of the northbound approach was changed to a shared -through left lane and a shared -through right lane due to changes in the future traffic volumes and the modification to all -way stopped control. SimTraffic was used to analyze traffic conditions with the modification to northbound lane geometry under all -way stopped control. This microsimulation software is based on methodologies contained in the HCM, adapted for simulation purposes. Table 3 summarizes the results of this all -way stop controlled unsignalized analysis. Page 13 Weekday AM • • (delay) Eastbound Westbound (delay) Eastbound WestboundYear 2004 8 B B B 14 seGveh 11 seGveh 13 seGveh 14 seGveh 2007 No C 8 C C Build 19 seGveh 14 seGveh 16 seGveh 19 seGveh 2007 Build C C C D Out wl Food (20 sec/veh) (15 seGveh) (21 seGveh) (31 seGveh) Coop 2010 No C B C C Build 19 seGveh 15 seGveh 16 seGveh 20 seGveh 2010 Build FD F F Out 79 seclveh 29 sedveh Source: Kimley-Hom and Associates. Inc. I *-denotes greater than 100 sec/veh delay The level of service on the stopped approaches are satisfactory for 2004, 2007 no build, 2007 build, and 2010 no build conditions but unacceptable LOS values will occur under the 2010 build out scenario. Analysis on an all -way stop scenario was then completed to determine if the change in intersection control was a viable mitigation measure. The HCM methodology does not provide a procedure that can be used to evaluate the existing lane geometry because there are more than two traffic lanes on the north approach. The geometry of the northbound approach was changed to a shared -through left lane and a shared -through right lane due to changes in the future traffic volumes and the modification to all -way stopped control. SimTraffic was used to analyze traffic conditions with the modification to northbound lane geometry under all -way stopped control. This microsimulation software is based on methodologies contained in the HCM, adapted for simulation purposes. Table 3 summarizes the results of this all -way stop controlled unsignalized analysis. Page 13 ViLges on the Punds Fw>d Coup 0 . 11/05/2(M Table 3—Gre2t Plains Boulevard/Lake Drive East – All -Way Stop Approach LOS The results of the SimTraffic analysis indicate that under all -way stop control the intersection operates at acceptable LOS values during both 2010 build out weekday peak periods. A review of the SimTraffic output shows that the 95h percentile queue experienced is anticipated to be around 100 feet for the southbound through traffic. This distance is considerably less than the actual distance between the intersections of TH 5 and Lake Drive East (approximately 400 feet). Therefore no significant impact on the signalized intersection at TH 5/Great Plains Boulevard is anticipated. Page 14 Villages on the Ponds Foal Cupp • 0 11/05/2W4 7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations The proposed development will increase traffic volumes at the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard and Pond Promenade. The recommendations listed below will create better traffic operations as the development is being built: • All -way stopped control is not required under the 2007 Build Out Food Coop Scenario. Under the two-way stopped control the northbound approach should be signed and striped so that the lane geometry is modified to a shared through -left and an exclusive right -tum lane. • All -way stopped control is required under the 2010 Build Out Scenario. When the all - way stopped control is installed the northbound approach should be signed and striped so that the lane geometry is modified to a shared through -left and a shared through -right to allow more through traffic to reach the stop -bar, particularly during the PM peak period. Page 15 0 Vilhges on the Ponds Food Coop Appendix Page 16 • _ 11/05/20N HCS2000: U*nalized Intersections Relef& 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Kim Benson Agency/Co.: Kimley-Horn and Assoc., Inc. Date Performed: 10/27/2004 Analysis Time Period: Existing AM Peak Intersection: Great Plains/Lake Drive E Jurisdiction: Chanhassen Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2004 Project ID: East/West Street: Pond Promenade/Lake Dr. East North/South Street: Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 5 65 244 55 28 59 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 5 72 271 61 31 65 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Undivided 32 / 22 4 No 2 No 0 1 1 1 1 1 LT R L T R No 0 13.5 No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 56 20 29 47 20 4 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 62 22 32 52 22 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) B 0 0 13.5 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage 3 / No / Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration LT R LTR Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS lay, NB 1 LT Queue Length, and Level of Service SB Westbound Eastbound 4 17 8 9 10 11 L I LT R LTR 5 61 84 32 78 1498 1216 607 990 501 0.00 0.05 0.14 0.03 0.16 0.01 0.16 0.48 0.10 0.55 7.4 8.1 11.9 8.8 13.5 A A B A B 11.0 13.5 3 2 12 HCS2000: U0gnalized Intersections Rel 1W 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Kim Benson Agency/Co.: Kimley-Horn and Assoc., Inc. Date Performed: 10/27/2004 Analysis Time Period: Existing PM Peak Intersection: Great Plains/Lake Drive E Jurisdiction: Chanhassen Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2004 Project ID: East/West Street: Pond Promenade/Lake Dr. East North/South Street: Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 8 66 76 73 60 55 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 73 84 81 66 61 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / 2 RT Channelized? 2 No Percent Gude (%) No Lanes B 0 1 1 1 1 1 Configuration Exists?/Storage LT R L T R Upstream Signal? No / No 0 No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 177 24 89 37 10 7 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 196 26 98 41 11 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Gude (%) 0 B 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage / No / Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration LT R LTR Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service NB SB Westbound 1 4 7 8 9 10 LT L LT R 8 81 222 98 1459 1423 551 989 0.01 0.06 0.40 0.10 0.02 0.18 1.93 0.33 7.5 7.7 15.9 9.0 A A C A 13.8 B Eastbound 11 LTR 59 490 0.12 0.41 13.4 B 13.4 B 12 HCS2000: Unwnalized Intersections Relel# 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Kim Benson Agency/Co.: Kimley-Horn and Assoc., Inc. Date Performed: 10/27/2004 Analysis Time Period: 2007 No Build AM Peak Intersection: Great Plains/Lake Drive E Jurisdiction: Chanhassen Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2007 Project ID: East/West Street: Pond Promenade/Lake Dr. East North/South Street: Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 5 84 260 140 30 59 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 93 288 155 33 65 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided 2 / 32 RT Channelized? C(m) (vph) 1495 No 410 No Lanes v/c 0 1 1 1 1 1 Configuration 0 LT R L T R Upstream Signal? Configuration No R 16.3 No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 64 20 29 47 20 4 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 71 22 32 52 22 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 32 0 C(m) (vph) 1495 0 410 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage v/c 0.00 / 0.23 No / Lanes 0 1 1 0.45 0 1 0 Configuration LT R 16.3 8.9 LTR LOS Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 17 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT L LT R LTR v (vph) 5 155 93 32 78 C(m) (vph) 1495 1177 410 964 335 v/c 0.00 0.13 0.23 0.03 0.23 95% queue length 0.01 0.45 0.86 0.10 0.89 Control Delay 7.4 8.5 16.3 8.9 19.0 LOS A A C A C Approach Delay 14.4 19.0 Approach LOS B C HCS2000: UWnalized Intersections Rel 4.1d 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Kim Benson Agency/Co.: Kimley-Horn and Assoc., Inc. Date Performed: 10/27/2004 Analysis Time Period: 2007 No Build PM Peak Intersection: Great Plains/Lake Drive E Jurisdiction: Chanhassen Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2007 Project ID: East/West Street: Pond Promenade/Lake Dr. East North/South Street: Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? Minor Street: Approach Movement 8 78 84 112 64 55 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 8 86 93 124 71 61 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Undivided / No 0 1 1 LT R No Westbound 7 8 9 L T R No 1 1 1 L T R No Eastbound 10 11 12 L T R Volume 220 24 100 37 10 7 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 244 26 111 41 11 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percant Grade (%) A 0 0 19.2 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage / No / Lames 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration LT R LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 Lane Config LT L LT R v kvpn) 8 124 270 111 C(m) (vph) 1453 1397 460 973 v/c 0.01 0.09 0.59 0.11 95% queue length 0.02 0.29 3.69 0.38 Control Delay 7.5 7.8 23.4 9.2 LOS A A C A Approach Delay 19.2 Approach LOS C Eastbound 11 LTR 59 398 0.15 0.52 15.6 C 15.6 C 12 HCS2000: 0ignalized Intersections Re *e 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Kim Benson Agency/Co.: Kimley-Horn and Assoc., Inc. Date Performed: 10/27/2004 Analysis Time Period: 2007 Build AM Peak (Food Coop) Intersection: Great Plains/Lake Drive E Jurisdiction: Chanhassen Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2007 Project ID: East/West Street: Pond Promenade/Lake Dr. East North/South Street: Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 5 94 261 140 47 64 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 5 104 290 155 52 71 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Undivided 32 / 22 4 No 2 No 0 1 1 1 1 1 LT R 0 L T R No Flared Approach: No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 66 20 29 51 20 4 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 73 22 32 56 22 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) C 0 Approach Delay 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage / C No / Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration LT R LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Movement 1 4 17 8 9 10 Lane Config LT L LT R v (vph) 5 155 95 32 C(m) (vph) 1464 1165 389 951 v/c 0.00 0.13 0.24 0.03 95% queue length 0.01 0.46 0.95 0.10 Control Delay 7.5 8.6 17.2 8.9 LOS A A C A Approach Delay 15.1 Approach LOS C Eastbound 11 LTR 82 319 0.26 1.00 20.1 C 20.1 C 12 HCS2000: Unalized Intersections Rel 4.1d 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Kim Benson Agency/Co.: Kimley-Horn and Assoc., Inc. Date Performed: 10/27/2004 Analysis Time Period: 2007 Build PM Peak (Food Coop) Intersection: Great Plains/Lake Drive E Jurisdiction: Chanhassen Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2007 Project ID: East/West Street: Pond Promenade/Lake Dr. East North/South Street: Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 8 135 90 112 123 75 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 8 150 100 124 136 83 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Undivided 111 / 11 7 No 2 No 0 1 1 1 1 1 LT R L T R No 0 No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 226 24 100 56 10 7 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 251 26 111 62 11 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 D 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage / No / Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration LT R LTR Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Delay NB 1 LT Queue Length, and Level of Service SB Westbound Eastbound 4 17 8 9 10 11 L LT R LTR 8 124 277 111 1350 1316 368 896 0.01 0.09 0.75 0.12 0.02 0.31 5.98 0.42 7.7 8.0 39.2 9.6 A A E A 30.7 D 80 311 0.26 1.00 20.5 C 20.5 C 12 HCS2000: U*nalized Intersections Rele! 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMAR Analyst: Kim Benson Agency/Co.: Kimley-Horn and Assoc., Inc. Date Performed: 10/27/2004 Analysis Time Period: 2010 No Build AM Peak Intersection: Great Plains/Lake Drive E Jurisdiction: Chanhassen Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2010 Project ID: East/West Street: Pond Promenade/Lake Dr. East North/South Street: Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 5 90 260 140 32 59 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 5 100 288 155 35 65 2 -- -- 2 - -- Undivided 32 / 22 4 No 2 No 0 1 1 1 1 1 LT R L T R No 0 No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R volume 64 20 29 47 20 4 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 71 22 32 52 22 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 B 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage / No / Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration LT R LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 17 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT L I LT R LTR v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 5 155 93 32 1493 1170 404 956 0.00 0.13 0.23 0.03 0.01 0.46 0.88 0.10 7.4 8.5 16.6 8.9 A A C A 14.6 B 78 331 0.24 0.90 19.2 C 19.2 C HCS2000: U*gnalized Intersections Rel so 4.1d -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Kim Benson Agency/Co.: Kimley-Horn and Assoc., Inc. Date Performed: 10/27/2004 Analysis Time Period: 2010 No Build PM Peak Intersection: Great Plains/Lake Drive E Jurisdiction: Chanhassen Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2010 Project ID: East/West Street: Pond Promenade/Lake Dr. East North/South Street: Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 8 85 84 112 70 55 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 8 94 93 124 77 61 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Undivided 111 / 11 7 No 2 No 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 LT R 0 L T R No 0.60 Flared Approach: No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 220 24 100 37 10 7 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 244 26 111 41 11 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 963 0 v/c 0.01 0 0.60 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage 9596 queue length 0.02 / 3.84 No / Lanes 0 1 1 7.9 0 1 0 Configuration LT R C A LTR Approach Delay Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT L LT R LTR v (vph) 8 124 270 111 59 C(m) (vph) 1446 1387 450 963 390 v/c 0.01 0.09 0.60 0.12 0.15 9596 queue length 0.02 0.29 3.84 0.39 0.53 Control Delay 7.5 7.9 24.3 9.2 15.9 LOS A A C A C Approach Delay 19.9 15.9 Approach LOS C C HCS2000: U*nalized Intersections Rele* 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Kim Benson Agency/Co.: Kimley-Horn and Assoc., Inc. Date Performed: 10/27/2004 Analysis Time Period: 2010 Build AM Peak Intersection: Great Plains/Lake Drive E Jurisdiction: Chanhassen Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2010 Project ID: East/West Street: Pond Promenade/Lake Dr. East North/South Street: Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments or Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 5 192 267 140 183 143 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 5 213 296 155 203 158 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Undivided HFR / 30 32 No 28 No 0 1 1 1 1 1 LT R L T R No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 75 27 29 124 26 4 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 83 30 32 137 28 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade ($) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage / No / Lanes 0 1 1 0 1 0 Configuration LT R LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT L LT R LTR v (vph) 5 155 113 32 169 C(m) (vph) 1198 1056 230 827 199 v/c 0.00 0.15 0.49 0.04 0.85 95% queue length 0.01 0.51 2.46 0.12 6.30 Control Delay 8.0 9.0 34.9 9.5 79.0 LOS A A D A F Approach Delay 29.3 79.0 Approach LOS D F HCS2000: *gnalized Intersections Re * e 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: Kim Benson Agency/Co.: Kimley-Horn and Assoc., Inc. Date Performed: 10/27/2004 Analysis Time Period: 2010 Build PM Peak Intersection: Great Plains/Lake Drive E Jurisdiction: Chanhassen Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: 2010 Project ID: East/West Street: Pond Promenade/Lake Dr. East North/South Street: Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 8 354 105 112 259 174 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 8 393 116 124 287 193 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 260 Undivided 111 / 22 7 No 2 No 0 1 1 1 1 1 LT R L T R No 0 656 No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R volume 234 33 100 167 20 7 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 260 36 111 185 22 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (a) 214 0 1082 1056 0 656 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage v/c 0.01 0.12 / 0.17 No / Lanes 0 1 1 21.23 0 1 0 Configuration LT R 11.6 359.5 LTR A Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LT L LT R LTR v (vph) 8 124 296 111 214 C(m) (vph) 1082 1056 168 656 134 v/c 0.01 0.12 1.76 0.17 1.60 95°% queue length 0.02 0.40 21.23 0.61 15.26 Control Delay 8.4 8.9 413.2 11.6 359.5 LOS A A F B F Approach Delay 303.7 359.5 Approach LOS F F • • AM AWSC 2010 Build RNS: 78 Baseline 11/8/2004 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Performance by movement EBL' "'EBT" 'EBR `WBL" WBT''WBR-NBL--fNBT NBR`'`SBL'''`"SBT ASBR Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 Delay/ Veh (s) 5.7 7.6 2.7 7.3 10.5 3.7 4.5 7.3 5.1 7.2 7.8 4.5 Vehicles Entered 109 31 4 67 29 36 4 198 283 128 190 164 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Performance EB---7---W87, NB $B_,..,.7`i'6f6F`-77i - r'x,�„ Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.9 2.2 Delay / Veh (s) 6.0 7.0 6.0 6.6 6.3 Vehicles Entered 144 132 485 482 1243 Total Network Performance .. -. `71 Alf- Total Delay (hr) 2.9 Delay / Veh (s) 8.4 Vehicles Entered 1244 SimTraffic Report Page 1 kimleylvl7-ff51 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 175 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 000 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 5: Bend Movement — -- -_-- , Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Nework Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 SimTraffic Report Page 2 kimleylvl7-ff51 • • AM AWSC 2010 Build RNS: 78 Baseline 11/8/2004 Intersection: 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Movement ", r ""EB "`WB-'' WB- ' N6 '- QNB I &S -` � SSB ._.- SB Y' SB Directions Served LTR LT R LT TR T L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 82 88 51 112 120 32 73 95 69 Average Queue (ft) 38 39 20 45 65 1 42 44 41 95th Queue (ft) 68 66 47 79 92 10 62 75 60 Link Distance (ft) 404 463 48 48 291 356 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0.05 0.13 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 175 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 000 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 5: Bend Movement — -- -_-- , Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Nework Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 SimTraffic Report Page 2 kimleylvl7-ff51 AM AWSC 2010 Build • RNS: 91 Baseline 11/8/2004 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Performance bV movement -' 'TEBL % EBT EBR WBL' WB'f WBIR NBL 'NBT rtNBR .SBL. SBT"SBR 0.8 Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.1 Delay/ Veh (s) 5.1 5.1 4.5 7.4 9.7 3.8 5.1 7.1 4.9 7.8 8.1 4.1 Vehicles Entered 127 26 3 57 31 30 5 205 272 136 185 129 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Performance Total Network Performance All Total Delay (hr) 2.8 Delay / Veh (s) 8.3 Vehicles Entered 1208 SimTraffic Report Page 1 kimleylvl7-ff51 EB _.... WB_.__ Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.9 2.1 Delay / Veh (s) 5.1 7.1 5.8 6.9 6.3 Vehicles Entered 156 118 482 450 1206 Total Network Performance All Total Delay (hr) 2.8 Delay / Veh (s) 8.3 Vehicles Entered 1208 SimTraffic Report Page 1 kimleylvl7-ff51 AM AWSC 2010 Build RNS: 91 Baseline 11/8/2004 Intersection: 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Movement`'" ; EB- '=WB "s,WB"QNB 1JB ; B5 SBY =SB A"SB`"` Directions Served LTR LT R LT TR T L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 68 87 50 74 112 50 70 90 54 Average Queue (ft) 38 41 19 46 61 2 43 48 36 95th Queue (ft) 61 68 47 71 94 17 65 73 51 Link Distance (ft) 404 463 48 48 291 356 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0.05 0.11 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 175 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0.01 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Intersection: 5: Bend Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Nework Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 SimTraffic Report Page 2 kimleylvl7-ff51 AM AWSC 2010 Build • • Total Delay (hr) RNS: 4 Baseline 0.8 0.9 2.1 Delay / Veh (s) 11/8/2004 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Performance by movement 6.7 6.2 Vehicles Entered 153 125 467 500 1245 EBL EBT="EBR WBL "WBT-WBR ' NBC -NBT 'NBR SBL''SBT- SBR Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 Delay / Veh (s) 5.1 4.7 4.7 7.0 8.8 3.6 6.4 7.0 5.0 7.7 8.1 4.6 Vehicles Entered 124 27 2 78 26 21 3 185 279 139 184 177 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Performance EB. WB " 'tVB Total Network Performance Total Delay (hr) 2.8 Delay / Veh (s) 8.1 Vehicles Entered 1245 SirnTraffc Report Page 1 kimleylvl7451 SB- Tota(" may. "77 Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.9 2.1 Delay / Veh (s) 5.0 6.8 5.8 6.7 6.2 Vehicles Entered 153 125 467 500 1245 Total Network Performance Total Delay (hr) 2.8 Delay / Veh (s) 8.1 Vehicles Entered 1245 SirnTraffc Report Page 1 kimleylvl7451 Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Nework Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 SimTraffic Report Page 2 kimleylvl7-ff51 • • AM AWSC 2010 Build RNS: 4 Baseline 11/8/2004 Intersection: 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Movement "- " "` EB -WB -,-'WB NB NB B5 SB SB SB Directions Served LTR LT R LT TR T L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 55 71 87 71 108 32 70 70 72 Average Queue (ft) 34 38 20 42 62 1 43 43 40 95th Queue (ft) 51 61 53 62 95 11 62 63 62 Link Distance (ft) 404 463 48 48 291 356 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0.03 0.13 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 175 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0.00 0.00 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Intersection: 5: Bend Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Nework Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 SimTraffic Report Page 2 kimleylvl7-ff51 • • AM AWSC 2010 Build RNS: 53 Baseline 11/8/2004 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Performance by movement 7��-- -- - -- --EBT EBL EBR WBIL ` WEIT --NBT7NBR---:SBL WBR NBL �',-SBT�- B 8 [4 Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.,3 0.3 0.4 0.2 Delay/ Veh (s) 5.3 5.4 2.6 5.5 7.8 4.1 5.4 7.0 4.8 7.5 8.1 4.1 Vehicles Entered 118 29 2 72 21 40 3 202 257 124 186 152 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Performance WB 7 -'NE7 SB 77'7 . Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.8 2.0 Delay / Veh (s) 5.3 5.4 5.7 6.6 6.0 Vehicles Entered 149 133 462 462 1206 Total Network Performance All Total Delay (hr) 2.7 Delay I Veh (s) 8.0 Vehicles Entered 1205 SimTraffic Report Page 1 kimleylviF-ff51 AM AWSC 2010 Build • RNS: 53 Baseline 11/8/2004 Intersection: 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Movement =EB WB' WB ` 'NB r' -'NB SB Directions Served LTR LT R LT TR L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 88 54 51 76 113 72 89 53 Average Queue (ft) 40 35 24 45 63 42 45 36 95th Queue (ft) 67 48 48 67 100 66 72 52 Link Distance (ft) 404 463 48 48 356 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0.04 0.11 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 175 125 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Nework Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 SimTraffic Report Page 2 kimleylvl7-ff51 AM AWSC 2010 Build • • RNS: 13 Baseline 11/8/2004 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Performance by movement 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Performance EBL EBT' EBR "WBL WBT WBR' NBL NBT NBR'""SBL' 'SBV7SBR Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 Delay/ Veh (s) _ 5.3 4.5 3.4 6.5 7.8 3.9 5.6 6.7 4.7 7.2 7.4 4.3 Vehicles Entered 133 21 5 72 32 28 6 203 276 130 179 137 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Performance Total Network Performance All t _•r 7 Total Delay (hr) 2.7 Delay / Veh (s) 7.9 Vehicles Entered 1222 SirnTraffic Report Page 1 kimleylvl7-ff51 Eg--.,;-. WB- --QNB - `_-=_-:SB_,,.w-,.,To ' _ _- Total Delay (hr) 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.8 2.0 Delay/ Veh (s) 5.1 6.2 5.5 6.4 5.9 Vehicles Entered 159 132 485 446 1222 Total Network Performance All t _•r 7 Total Delay (hr) 2.7 Delay / Veh (s) 7.9 Vehicles Entered 1222 SirnTraffic Report Page 1 kimleylvl7-ff51 AM AWSC 2010 Build • RNS: 13 Baseline 11/8/2004 Intersection: 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Movement '" - EB _"> WB WB,:.,. NB-:- NB '85 SB --''781B, "SB Directions Served LTR LT R LT TR T L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 68 54 50 117 92 44 70 90 55 Average Queue (ft) 38 38 21 43 62 2 40 43 41 95th Queue (ft) 62 55 46 74 89 18 58 68 62 Link Distance (ft) 404 463 48 48 291 356 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0.04 0.12 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 175 125 Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Bend Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Nework Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0 SimTraffic Report Page 2 kimleylvl7-ff51 Total Delay (hr) 0.5 1.1 1.2 1.5 4.3 Delay / Veh (s) 8.7 10.5 9.1 9.2 9.4 Vehicles Entered 215 361 469 587 1632 Total Network Performance Total Delay (hr) 5.3 Delay / Veh (s) 11.6 Vehicles Entered 1632 SimTraffic Report Page 1 kimleylv17-ff51 • PM AWSC 2010 Build RNS: 78 Baseline 11/8/2004 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Performance by movement „"`"T EBL '-EBT EBR' -WBC'--WBTWBR-"'NBL" NBT' NBR" SRt:- SBT-7 SBR Total Delay (hr) 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.3 Delay/ Veh (s) 8.7 9.2 7.0 12.0 12.4 7.0 7.8 9.7 6.7 9.6 11.7 5.7 Vehicles Entered 183 21 11 225 29 107 4 365 100 112 271 204 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Performance Total Delay (hr) 0.5 1.1 1.2 1.5 4.3 Delay / Veh (s) 8.7 10.5 9.1 9.2 9.4 Vehicles Entered 215 361 469 587 1632 Total Network Performance Total Delay (hr) 5.3 Delay / Veh (s) 11.6 Vehicles Entered 1632 SimTraffic Report Page 1 kimleylv17-ff51 PM AWSC 2010 Build • • RNS: 78 Baseline 11/812004 Intersection: 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Movement -=''EB' "`WB WB "-'''N " NB " 'B577 B� 77 SB 77SB 77',7, Directions Served LTR LT R LT TR T L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 120 205 101 112 118 187 55 131 147 Average Queue (ft) 56 71 45 65 67 7 41 61 50 95th Queue (ft) 94 125 92 97 101 64 58 98 86 Link Distance (ft) 404 463 48 48 291 356 Upstream Bilk Time (%) 0.14 0.14 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 175 125 Storage Bilk Time (%) 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 1 1 0 Intersection: 5: Bend Movement ,77�-,:. � ,�''. ,,,'..',F,�,'-.•.�-.--7 Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%). . Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Bilk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Nework Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 9 SimTraffic Report Page 2 kimleylvl7-ff51 • • PM AWSC 2010 Build RNS: 91 Baseline 11/8/2004 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Performance by movement 7-- 'EBL' `EBT" EBR WEIL WBT'-WBR ' - NBL ': r4BT-'-NBk -'-s6C'7.:-SBT 78BFI Total Delay (hr) 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.3 Delay/ Veh (s) 8.2 9.7 3.7 13.4 14.2 8.7 11.4 9.9 5.0 10.2 11.1 5.3 Vehicles Entered 163 17 7 238 41 100 7 364 102 109 258 174 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Performance ---- �1415;.'z_ EB _WB -F Total Delay (hr) 0.4 1.3 1.2 1.4 4.2 Delay/ Veh (s) 8.1 12.2 8.9 9.1 9.7 Vehicles Entered 187 379 473 541 1580 Total Network Performance Total Delay (hr) Y 5.2 Delay I Veh (s) 11.8 Vehicles Entered 1582 SimTraffic Report Page 1 kimleyvl7-ff51 PM AWSC 2010 Build • • RNS: 91 Baseline 11/8/2004 Intersection: 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Movement _.EB WB WB " NB'—`NB -- B5 -.__.S6_ .,SB'..' SB t Directions Served LTR LT R LT TR T L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 85 210 101 112 111 34 90 112 75 Average Queue (ft) 50 79 49 66 61 1 41 60 41 95th Queue (ft) 79 153 93 103 94 12 72 92 62 Link Distance (ft) 404 463 48 48 291 356 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0.15 0.13 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 175 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0.11 0.00 0.00 Queuing Penalty (veh) 11 1 0 Intersection: 5: Bend Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft)' Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist(ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Nework Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 12 SimTraffic Report Page 2 kimleylvl7-ff51 • • PM AWSC 2010 Build RNS: 4 Baseline 11/8/2004 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Performance by movement _. ,.,� `EBL _ EBT'' EBR WBL WBT `WBR'' NBL ' NBT- NBR _SBL^ SBT"SBR Total Delay (hr) 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.3 Delay/ Veh (s) 7.7 9.7 6.1 10.8 11.2 6.5 9.4 9.0 5.3 9.5 11.3 5.7 Vehicles Entered 179 16 6 231 30 101 4 379 101 112 270 189 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Performance a r -mss Total Delay (hr) Delay / Veh (s) Vehicles Entered Total Network Performance Total Delay (hr) Delay / Veh (s) Vehicles Entered kimleyiW-ff51 0.4 1.0 1.1 1.4 4.0 7.9 9.6 8.2 9.1 8.8 201 362 484 571 1618 4.9 10.9 1620 SirnTraffic Report Page 1 PM AWSC 2010 Build • • RNS: 4 Baseline 11/8/2004 Intersection: 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Movement EB WB N/B NB NB BS SB SB SB ...— . - . Directions Served LTR LT R LT TR T L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 105 111 109 92 109 45 87 131 75 Average Queue (ft) 50 66 44 56 59 2 41 67 47 95th Queue (ft) 85 98 80 79 97 15 68 104 68 Link Distance (ft) 404 463 48 48 291 356 Upstream Blk Time (%) ' 0.11 0.13 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 175 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0.04 0.00 000 Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 0 0 Intersection: 5: Bend Movemerit Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Nework Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 5 SimTraffic Report Page 2 kimleylv17-ff51 PM AWSC 2010 Build • • RNS: 53 Baseline 11/8/2004 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Performance by movement 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Performance EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT =WBR NBL ` NBT NBR'.-SBC`- SBT'` SBR Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.3 Delay/ Veh (s) 7.0 8.9 5.2 11.3 13.8 7.7 7.9 10.1 .6.6 10.1 11.9 5.4 Vehicles Entered 150 22 5 237 32 102 6 350 109 140 245 166 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Performance Total Network Performance Total Delay (hr) 5.0 Delay / Veh (s) 11.6 Vehicles Entered 1562 SinnTraffic Report Page 1 kinnleylvl7-ff51 "'813" ',". WB'•';•">NB�-"`TmS6"',-�'.T Total Delay (nr) 0.4 1.1 1.2 1.5 4.1 Delay / Veh (s) 7.2 10.5 9.2 9.5 9.4 Vehicles Entered 177 371 465 551 1564 Total Network Performance Total Delay (hr) 5.0 Delay / Veh (s) 11.6 Vehicles Entered 1562 SinnTraffic Report Page 1 kinnleylvl7-ff51 PM AWSC 2010 Build • • RNS: 53 Baseline 11/8/2004 Intersection: 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Movement '- EB "WB Directions Served LTR LT Maximum Queue (ft) 96 172 Average Queue (ft) 41 69 95th Queue (ft) 73 121 Link Distance (ft) 404 463 Upstream Blk Time (%) 61 Queuing Penalty (veh) 109 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 72 Storage Blk Time (%) 0.06 Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 Intersection: 5: Bend Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (% Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Nework Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 11 kimleylvl7-ff51 WI: R 101 48 89 75 0.00 1 LT 93 61 86 48 0.13 0 TR T L T R 120 91 90 142 72 69 3 45 61 42 109 31 72 100 65 48 291 356 0.16 0 175 125 0.01 3 SimTraffic Report Page 2 • • Delay / Veh (s) 10.0 PM AWSC 2010 Build 1559 RNS: 13 Baseline 11/8/2004 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Performance by movement - '` EBL' EBF"'EBRWBL"WBT''WBR : NBL"7NBT '`NBRl-SBL "SBT'SBR Total Delay (hr) 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.3 Delay/ Veh (s) 6.8 8.8 4.6 9.5 11.9 6.3 7.4 8.4 5.6 8.3 9.6 5.2 Vehicles Entered 167 17 6 223 28 102 5 365 123 110 233 181 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Performance Total Delay (hr) 0.4 0.9 1.0 1.1 3.4 Delay / Veh (s) 6.9 8.8 7.7 7.8 7.9 Vehicles Entered 190 353 493 524 1560 Total Network Performance Total Delay (hr) 4.3 Delay / Veh (s) 10.0 Vehicles Entered 1559 SimTraffic Report Page 1 kimleylvl7-ff51 Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Nework Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 3 SimTraffic Report Page 2 kimleylvl7-ff51 0 PM AWSC 2010 Build RNS: 13 Baseline 11/8/2004 Intersection: 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Movement.` "ER" B_.—WB_.-NB- WB-'—WB--NB — NB B5,. _SB'.-. SB--SB "'_ � ➢ Directions Served LTR LT R LT TR T L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 127 146 55 93 110 167 74 91 66 Average Queue (ft) 46 60 37 60 62 11 39 51 47 95th Queue (ft) 83 97 60 84 97 80 63 81 62 Link Distance (ft) 404 463 48 48 291 356 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0.10 0.14 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 175 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0.03 0.00 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 0 Intersection: 5: Bend Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Nework Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 3 SimTraffic Report Page 2 kimleylvl7-ff51 0 0 22. Traffic. Parking spaces added 21192. Existing spaces (if project involves expansion) 0. Estimated total Average Daily Traffic (ADT) generated 14.800. Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and its timing: approximately 1.500 for both the AM peak (7-9:00 AM) and the PM -peak -4-6:00 PM). For each affected road indicate the ADT and the directional distribution of traffic with and without the project. Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on the affected roads and describe any traffic improvements which will be necessary. Response: A traffic operations analysis of the proposed development was completed in order to document the following issues: • Identification of principal roads, highways, and intersections that will be used by motor vehicles moving to or from the proposed project. • Estimates of average daily traffic volumes and peak hour traffic volumes anticipated to occur one year after the proposed project will be substantially complete and operational. Identification of traffic impacts that would result given the capacity limitations of the roads, highways, and intersections and the forecast post -development traffic volumes. Identification of mitigation measures that can be implemented to address traffic impacts. ACCESS ROADWAYS AND INTERSECTIONS Access— Roadways LocalLocal access to the proposed site is to be provided directly by Great Plains Boulevard and Trunk Highway (TH) 101/Market Boulevard and indirectly by TH 5/Arboretum Boulevard. The project location and adjacent roadway system is shown in Figure 1. Great Plains Boulevard will act as one access to the development. In addition, five accesses are proposed off of TH 101, three accesses to the east and two accesses to the west. North of TH 5, Great Plains Boulevard is a north -south, two-lane roadway with no parking and a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour (mph). South of TH 5, Great Plains Boulevard is proposed to be designed as a two-lane roadway with parking bays on both sides of the street and a maximum posted speed limit of 30 mph. The purpose of this section of Great Plains Boulevard will be to provide a direct route for the heaviest movements into and out of the development. North of TH 5, Market Boulevard is a north -south, two-lane roadway with no parking and a posted speed limit of 30 mph. For approximately 1,000 feet south of TH 5, TH 101 is a north -south, four -lane divided highway with left- and right -tum lanes before tapering into a two-lane roadway. TH 101, from TH 5 south to County State Aide Highway (CSAR) 18/Lyman Boulevard, is planned to be upgraded to a four -lane divided roadway with left- and right -tum lanes. This section of TH 101 does not allow parking and the posted speed limit is 40 mph. TH 5 is an east -west, four -lane divided highway with left- and right -tum lanes at major intersections. Access onto TH 5 near the proposed development is excluded to major cross -streets with no driveway access. VJ555 20 0 0 TH 5 does not allow parking and the posted speed limit is 55 mph. The site plan is shown on Figure 3. Regional access to the proposed site is provided east and west by TH 5 and north and south by TH 101. TH 5 provides direct access from the southwest suburbs to I-494 and the rest of the regional road system. TH 101 provides access to TH 212 and TH 169 approximately 3 miles south of the proposed development. Access Intersection Six critical intersections were identified for analysis: • TH 5 and TH 101/Market Boulevard • TH 5 and Great Plains Boulevard • Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive East • TH 101 and Lake Drive West • TH 101 and Lake Drive (through development) • TH 101 and Main Street The two intersections on TH 5 are controlled by traffic signals. The remaining access intersections are proposed to be unsignalized with no control on TH 101 and Great Plains Boulevard and stop control on the minor roadways (Lake Drive and Main Street). The existing road geometrics and traffic control are shown in Figure 10 and Table 3. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Existing traffic data is collected because the information is a key component used in the analysis of existing conditions and in producing forecast volumes. The existing data gathered includes: The existing two-way Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes on TH 5, TH 101/ Market Boulevard and Great Plains Boulevard were recorded by BRW, Inc. on March 22-24, 1996. The existing peak hour turning movement volumes and geometrics were collected by BRW, Inc, on March 23, 1996 from 6:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM at the following locations: (1) The intersection of TH 5 and TH 101/Market Boulevard (2) The intersection of TH 5 and Great Plains Boulevard The existing traffic signal timing was obtained from Mn/DOT for the AM and PM peak hours of operation at the following locations: (1) The intersection of TH 5 and TH 101/Market Boulevard (2) The intersection of TH 5 and Great Plains Boulevard •''` 21 0 0 The resulting existing ADT volumes are documented in Figure 9 and the AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes are illustrated in Figure 11 and documented in Table 3. SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC Trip Generation The trip generation of the proposed land uses are based on national average trip generation rates from the Trip Generation Report Fifth Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in 1991. The number of daily, AM and PM peak hour trips expected to be generated by each of the proposed land uses are shown on Table 4. The proposed site includes nine areas of development and eight different land uses. The proposed plan contains 391,000 gross square feet (so of mixed use commercial development and 266 dwelling units. The proposed development includes: • 16,800 sf for three restaurants • 47,000 sf church • 53,000 sf elementary school • 104,500 sf of office space in six buildings • 122,500 sf of retail space in four locations • 106 -room motel • 154 apartment units in four buildings • 112 condominium units in two buildings. The proposed development also includes an alternative land use plan. This alternative plan involves adding 13,000 sf of office space in Area 6 and replacing the 32,000 sf of office space in Area 7 with 56 condominium units. For purposes of the trip generation analysis both the proposed land use and the alternative land use were analyzed and compared. The proposed land use generated greater AM and PM peak hour volumes; therefore, the volumes generated by the proposed land use were used for further analysis in this report. Because of the mixture of land use types proposed for this development, some of the trips generated are expected to be internal, multi-purpose trips. The Trip Generation Manual suggests developments with a mixture of residential and commercial land uses produce the highest multi-purpose trips. Based on this information, 10 percent of the trips generated were assumed to be internal, multi-purpose trips. In addition, number of the trips generated by the site are expected to be vehicles traveling on the adjacent roadways which utilize the convenience of the direct access to the development and make an intermediate stop even though the proposed site was not their primary destination. The Trip Generation Manual refers to these intermediate stops as "pass -by trips". The pass -by trips were not taken into consideration when developing the trip generation for the proposed development. Therefore, the site generated traffic will probably be lower than the trip generation indicates, and the analysis based on the higher trip generation will produce conservative results. TABLE 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AND GEOMETRICS (1) Notes: (1) The carrot symbols > or < identify where a right or left movement shares the same lane with the through movement. (2) All four unsignalized intersections are controlled with a stop condition on the east/West streets and through conditions on the north/south streets. (3) The movements to and from the west approach of this intersection do not include the volumes for the trips generated by the Rosemount, Inc. building which will share this access. Source: BRW, Inc. peak hour turning movement counts recorded on March 23, 1996. U:IINTVOL.WK4 (2) NO. 1 2 3 4 (3) 5 6 INTERSECTION TH 5 & TH 101Geometrics — — --- TH 5 & Great Plains Blvd. Lake Dr. East 8 Great Plains Blvd. Lake Dr. East & TH 101 Lake Dr. (Site) 8 TH 101 Main Street 8 TH 101 TRAFFIC CONTROL - Signalized --- Signalized Thru/Slop Thru/Stop Thru/Slop --- Thru/Slop PARAMETER - AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ... - - AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Geometrics AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Geometrics AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Geometrics AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Geometrics - --- AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Geometrics RT. 26 75 1 27 53 1 0 0 0 60 40 1 0 0 1 ------------ 0 0 0 NORTH APPROACH THLT „- 61 151 87 136 2 1 21 158 74 171 1 1 36 40 114 40 1 1 243 0 301 0 2 0 303 0 341 0 2 1 303 0 341 0 1 < 0 RT 104 267 1 63 174 1 65 65 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 - EAST APPROACH TH _..- 1,073 1,786 2 1,283 1,915 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- --- LT 165 204 2 31 45 1 40 40 0 0 0 0 0 �- RT SOUTHAPPROACH H THLT RT 77 50 1 24 35 0 0 60 40 1 0 0 1 0 0 WES_T_APPR_ OACH_ TH LT 1,550 54 1,080 96 2 1 1,777 49 1,544 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 1 -- 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 162 51 12 271 122 119 1 2 i 84 39 20 66 87 57 1 1 2 65 78 0 65 145 0 0 185 40 0 452 60 0 2 1 _ 0 185 0 0 452 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 165 0 0 452 0 1 1 0 J0 Notes: (1) The carrot symbols > or < identify where a right or left movement shares the same lane with the through movement. (2) All four unsignalized intersections are controlled with a stop condition on the east/West streets and through conditions on the north/south streets. (3) The movements to and from the west approach of this intersection do not include the volumes for the trips generated by the Rosemount, Inc. building which will share this access. Source: BRW, Inc. peak hour turning movement counts recorded on March 23, 1996. U:IINTVOL.WK4 0 0 oa �� gz sE�€ :GG�G u`��95f :£E ee EE i Us I x( yI� •tlf g■ _" � xx R R x SiMR.x'.RSS I I R x _ I R I i x h I R .. I! SRR IRRSS i R I i I R I SSS I S R ., i 3{ e 8 I 8888 88888 18 8$ x I ...� ..._.fix. IR .r c f R 8„A I xxxxxxx I x iE { 9 i I x i% rr„, i x x I S i S n n n I A R I_ R �r�.BeIII 888888888„° a$88� 8 I 8 »��a I I i I i I s I a Y a oa �� gz sE�€ :GG�G u`��95f :£E ee EE 0 0 The development is expected to generate 14,810 vehicle trips per day, 1,520 AM peak hour trips and 1,490 PM peak hour trips. Fifty percent of the total daily trips are expected to be inbound to the development and 50 percent are expected to be outbound from the development for a total of 7,405 vehicles per day (vpd) both entering and exiting the development. The distribution of vehicles in the AM peak hour is expected to be 56 percent inbound and 44 percent outbound or 855 vehicle trips entering and 665 vehicle trips exiting. The distribution of vehicles in the PM peak hour is expected to be 48 percent inbound and 52 percent outbound or 715 vehicles entering and 775 vehicles exiting. Directional Trip Distribution The directional orientation used to distribute the site -generated trips to/from the proposed development is based on two sets of information: the existing traffic demands and the regional traffic model for the twin cities metro area. The directional trip distribution assumed for the site is shown on Figure 15. TRAFFIC FORECASTS In order to analyze the potential traffic impacts that the expected future development will have on the adjacent roadwav system, traffic volumes were prepared for the forecast Year 2002 background (no -build) and post -development (build) conditions. The forecast no -build volumes consist of the existing volumes plus a background traffic growth. The forecast build volumes consist of the background volumes plus the site -generated trips for the proposed development distributed over the roadway network. Background Traffic Growth The background traffic growth was determined from two sets of information: by analysis of historical traffic counts for the roadways in the area and from historic land development patterns in the Chanhassen Central Business District (CBD) provided by the City staff. The ADT volumes reported on the Mn/DOT Traffic Flow Mates from 1978 to 1994 were used in combination with the 1996 ADT count conducted by BRW, Inc., to develop average annual growth rates along TH 5, TH 101/Market Boulevard, Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive. These growth rates were then adjusted based on the City of Chanhassen's assessment of growth in the area. An average annual growth rate of three percent was determined for TH 5, TH 101 south of TH 5, and Lake Drive west of TH 101. A growth rate of one-half percent was used for Market Boulevard and Great Plains Boulevard, both north of TH 5, due to lack of area remaining for new development in the downtown area. A one-half percent growth rate was also used for Lake Drive east of Great Plains Boulevard. Finally, a zero percent growth rate was used for Great Plains Boulevard south of TH 5. The residential neighborhoods in the area east of Great Plains Boulevard are mostly built -out and Great Plains Boulevard will be designed to provide direct access into the proposed development. Any growth in traffic along Great Plains Boulevard will be accounted for by the site -generated traffic. "W 23 • These growth rates were applied to the existing daily volumes along TH 5, TH 101 / Market Boulevard, Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive to develop background growth traffic volumes. These results are shown in Figure 11 and Table 5 for the intersection turning movement volumes as Year 2002 no -build volumes. Forecast Traffic Volumes In order to analyze the potential traffic impacts that the proposed development will have on the adjacent roadway system, post -development traffic volume forecasts were prepared for the Year 2002 conditions. The forecast volumes consist of the existing volumes plus background traffic growth plus the site -generated trips for the proposed land uses. The resulting forecast Year 2002 build AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes for the two intersections along TH 5 are illustrated in Figure 12. The existing peak hour turning movement counts were not available for the four unsignalized access intersection; therefore, the following assumptions were made in developing the AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes. • The AM and PM peak hour volumes were assumed to be 10 percent of the ADT on Lake Drive. The directional distribution along Lake Drive was assumed to be a 50/50 split for both the AM and PM peak hours. The directional distribution along TH 101 and Great Plains Boulevard was based on the peak hour tum movements at the two TH 5 signalized intersections. The directional distribution along TH 101 was assumed to be a 40/60, northbound/ southbound split in the AM peak hour and a 60/40, northbound/ southbound split in the PM peak hour. The directional distribution along Great Plains Boulevard was assumed to be a 60/40, northbound/southbound split for both the AM and PM peak hours. The geometry assumed at each access entrance included a left- and right -tum lane off of the major street (TH 101 or Great Plains Boulevard) and two lanes outbound from the development (either a left -turn lane and a right -tum lane or, where appropriate, a left -turn lane and a shared through/right-turn lane). For the forecast build conditions at the intersection of TH 101 and Lake Drive West, the east approach from the development was assumed to provide right -in and right -out movements only. • No site generation volumes were available for the Rosemount, Inc. building which will share the west approach to the intersection of TH 101 and Lake Drive through the site as one of its accesses. Therefore, only the trip generation from the proposed development was used for this west approach only. The Year 2002 forecast build AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes for all six intersections are documented in Table 6. VMk 26 0 0 TABLE 5 FORECAST YEAR 2002 NO -BUILD CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AND GEOMETRICS 0) Notes: (1) The carrot symbols > or < identify where a right or left movement shares the same lane with the through movement. (2) All four unsignalized intersections are controlled with a stop condition on the east/west streets and through conditions on the north/south streets. (3) The movements to and from the west approach of this intersection do not include the volumes for the trips generated by the Rosemount, Inc. building which will share (his access. OY!\M Source: BRW, Inc. peak hour turning movement counts recorded on March 23, 1998. U:IINTVOL.WK4 Ll (2) NO. 1 2 3 INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CONTROL Signalized Signalized Thru/Stop Thru/Slop Thru/Stop Thru/Slop 1 PARAMETER RT 30 80 1 30 50 1 0 0 0 75 50 1 _ NORTH APPROACII _ _ TH_ 60 90 2 20 80 1 45 125 1 275 340 _ - 2____ LT 160 140 1 160 180 1 45 45 1 0 0 0_ RT 120 320 1 80 210 1 65 65 1 0 0 0 EAST_ APPROACH TH 1,280 2,130 2 1,530 2,290 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 LT 200 240 2 40 50 1 45 45 1 0 0 0 SOUTH APPROACH TH _ LT_ RT 90 60 1__ 30 40 1 0 0 0 75 50 0 0 1 0 0 0 WESTAPPROACH TH 1,850 1,290 2,120 1,840 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LT 60 110 60 100 1 0 0 0 50 75 0 0 1 0 0 0 TH 5 & TH 101 TH 5 & Great Plains Blvd. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Geomelrics AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Geo metrics AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Geomelrics -RT _ 190 60 10 320 150 140 1 2 1 80 40 20 70 90 60 1 1 2 65 75 0 65 155 0 1 1 0 0 210 50 0 535 75 02 Lake Dr. East & Great Plains Blvd. Lake Dr. East & _TH 101 4 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour -Geometrics_ (3) 5 6 Lake Dr. (Site) & TH 101 Main Street & TH 101 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Geometrics AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Geomelrics 1 0 350 0 0 390 0 1 2 1 0 350 0 0 390 0 0 1 < 0 1 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - -- _1- __1 _(3) 0 210 0 0 535 0 2 -- ---- __ 1 0 210 0 0 535 0 1 1 0 1 ---. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Notes: (1) The carrot symbols > or < identify where a right or left movement shares the same lane with the through movement. (2) All four unsignalized intersections are controlled with a stop condition on the east/west streets and through conditions on the north/south streets. (3) The movements to and from the west approach of this intersection do not include the volumes for the trips generated by the Rosemount, Inc. building which will share (his access. OY!\M Source: BRW, Inc. peak hour turning movement counts recorded on March 23, 1998. U:IINTVOL.WK4 Ll TABLE 6 FORECAST YEAR 2002 BUILD CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AND GEOMETRICS (1) TRAFFIC TH 5 1 8 CONTROL TH 101 RT TH 5 2 & _ Great Plains Blvd. AM Peak Hour Lake Dr. East 3 8 SignalizedPM Great Plains Blvd_._ 80 Lake Dr. East 4 8 Geomelrics IPM TH 101 (3) Lake Dr. (Site) 5 & 40 TH 101 160 Main Street 8 & TRAFFIC EAST APPROACH NORTH APPROACH__ CONTROL PARAMETER RT TH _ _ LT _ _ 1,280 AM Peak Hour 30 60 160 SignalizedPM Peak Hour 80 90 140 250 Geomelrics IPM 1 2 _ 1 2 AM Peak Hour 40 90 160 Signalized Peak Hour 60 140 180 280 Geo metrics _ 140 60 1_ _2 AM Peak Hour 75 300 45 Thru/Stop PM Peak Hour 65 350 45 0 Geometrics 1 _ 1 65 370 AM Peak Hour 75 495 0 Thru/Stop PM Peak Hour 50 530 0 0 Geomelrics 1 2 0 0 AM Peak Hour 40 400 130 Thru/Slop PM Peak Hour 5 445 130 Geomelrics 1 2 __ 1 335 AM Peak Hour 5 490 35 Thru/Slop PM Peak Hour 35 535 15 Geomelrics 1 1 1 _ EAST APPROACH APPROACH R7. _TH —LTLT- 1,290 _SOUTH_ _ 120 1,280 300 280 60 100 320 2,130 330 430 150 250 1 2 2 1 2 1 80 1,620 300 280 90 20 210 2,370 280 300 140 60 1_ _2 1 1 1 2-- 65 0 45 65 285 0 65 0 45 65 370 0 0_> 100 0 0 25 290 50 95 0 0 25 660 75 1----- 0---0 _ 1 25 0 125 115 335 20 40 0 120 100 680 5 0 > 15 0 40 65 420 5 20 0 65 50 750 15 (1 > 1 1 1 , WESTAPPROACH RT-_ __ _ THLT 210 1,850 60 _ 160 1,290 110 1 2 I 30 2,200 80 40 1,930 120 U O 60 0 0 65 0 > 1 1 75 0 50 50 0 75 1 0' 1 5 0 $ 20 0 40 > 1- 1 -35 15 0 5 0 15 n > 1 , Notes: (1) The carrot symbols > or < identify where a right or left movement shares the same lane with the through movement. (2) All four unsignalized intersections are controlled with a stop condition on the east/west streets and through conditions on the north/south streets. (3) The movements to and from the west approach of this intersection do not include the volumes for the trips generated by the Rosemount, Inc. building which will share this access. Source: BRW, Inc. using ITE Trip Generation Manual, Fifth Edition (1991). .11. U:IINTVOL.WK4 Site -generated trips were assigned to the roadway system for the forecast Year 2002 build condition based on two assumptions. • Vehicles using TH 5 will use the road closest to their land use, either TH 101 or Great Plains Boulevard, to gain access to TH 5. • When the east approach left -tum movement off of TH 5 at the Great Plains Boulevard intersection exceeds 300 vehicles in the peak hour, vehicles are expected to by-pass this intersection and tum left at the TH 101 intersection to access the development. FORECAST TRAFFIC ANALYSES Capacity Analysis A capacity analysis is a qualitative measure of traffic flow through an intersection or along a roadway segment. The basic output from a capacity analysis is a level of service (LOS) letter grade (A through F) with LOS A representing minimal delays and no congestion, and LOS F representing substantial delays and congestion. LOS E is considered to be the actual capacity of an intersection or movement. Level of service D is generally considered to be an acceptable level of traffic operations in urbanized areas during the peak traffic hours. Level of service E and F are common during peak hour conditions in urbanized areas for left -tum movements at unsignalized intersections. Capacity analyses were conducted using the traffic volumes and geometrics illustrated previously in Figures 10, 11 and 12 and documented in Tables 3, 4 and 5, at the following six locations: (1) The intersection of TH 5 and TH 101/Market Boulevard (2) The intersection of TH 5 and Great Plains Boulevard (3) Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive East (4) TH 101 and Lake Drive West (5) TH 101 and Lake Drive (through development) (6) TH 101 and Main Street The capacity analysis of the signalized intersections used the SIGNAL94 software and the procedures documented in "Chapter 9: Signalized Intersections" of the 1994 Update to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).The unsignalized intersections were analyzed using the procedures of "Chapter 10: Unsignalized Intersections" of the HCM. The existing traffic signal timings were used for the existing conditions and forecast no -build analysis and optimized timings were used in analyzing the forecast build conditions. The existing cycle length during the peak hours is 145 seconds. This cycle length was maintained for the future conditions analysis. The existing timing is set to provide as much green time as possible to the heavy east and west through movements on TH 5. By providing extra time for the major movements, the cross -street movements and the major street left -turn movements will experience more delay. A similar timing plan was used for the build conditions where extra green time was provided for the TH 5 through volumes. •nem 29 The results of the capacity analysis for the existing, Year 2002 no -build, and Year 2002 build conditions are shown in Tables 7 and 8 for the two signalized intersections and for the four unsignalized intersections, respectively. The signalized intersections level of service table provides the intersection level of service and intersection delay results for the AM and PM peak hours. The unsignalized intersection level of service table provides the major and minor street level of service and delay by movements and the intersection delay results for the AM and PM peak hours. All four of the right -tum movements at the intersection of TH 5 and TH 101 /Market Boulevard have their own lane and a channelization island. There are also right -tum lanes and channelization islands for the east and vest approach right -tum movements on TH 5 at the Great Plains Boulevard intersection. Therefore, these right -turn movements were analyzed as free right conditions which means they do not effect the signal timing operations at the intersections. The remaining two right -tum movements for the north and south approaches on Great Plains Boulevard have their own lane but do not have a channelization island. The analvsis assumed that for every two vehicles turning left during the protected left -tum phase on TH 5, one vehicle would tum right -on -red from the north and south approaches on Great Plains Boulevard. The capacity analysis is an indication of how conditions are likely to be during weekday peak hours only and not at other times of the day or on weekends. The results of the signalized intersection analysis are as follows: • For the existing conditions, both intersections along TH 5 are reported to operate at LOS C in the AM and PM peak hours. For the forecast no -build conditions, both intersections along TH 5 are expected to operate at LOS C and D in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. • For the forecast build conditions, the intersection of TH 5 and TH 101 is expected to operate at LOS D for both the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of TH 5 and Great Plains Boulevard is expected to operate at LOS F for both the AM and PM peak hours. When the volume approaches or exceeds the capacity for a movement the delay grows at an increased rate. Rather than report an approximation of this increased delay, the analysis reports the movement(s) which are above capacity and does not report delay for the intersection. In order to compare the no -build and build conditions where the intersection level of service is F and no intersection delav is reported, the planning analysis from the 1985 HCM was used to supplement the results of the 1994 Update to the HCM analysis. The planning analysis is a method which provides a basic assessment relative to whether the capacity of an intersection is expected to be exceeded. The analysis sums the volume for the critical movements at an intersection. If the sum of the critical volumes is below 1,200 vehicles in the peak hour, the intersection is expected to be under capacity. If the sum of the critical volumes is from 1,200 to 1,400 vehicles in the peak hour the intersection is expected to be near capacity. If the sum of the critical volumes is greater than 1,400 vehicles in the peak hour, then the volume is expected to exceed the capacity of the intersection. •3"' 30 TABLE 7 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE INTER. TRAFFIC NO. _-_INTERSECTION _ _ CONTROL 1 I TH 5/Arboretum Blvd. and TH 101/Markel Blvd. 2 I TH 5/Arboretum Blvd. and Great Plains Blvd. Signalized -_ CONDITION___. TIME OF _ DAY -_. CYCLE LENGTHS _ MSEC).__ LEVEL OF SERVICE._ INTERSECTION DELAY PLANNING ANALYSIS LEVEL OF CAPACITY- SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES_ Existing - Year 2002 No -Build Year 2002 Build AM Peak Hour PM Peak- Hour --. . AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 145 145 145 145 145 145 C C. C D D 17.6 20.0 21.1 27;7 ------ 30.1 34.9 Under Under _ Near Near _ Near Over 1,034 1,188_ 1,215 _ 1,390_ 1,285 1,470 Signalized Existing AM Peak Hour 145 C 16.3 Under 1,147 PMPeak Hour _ _ _ _ 19.4_ _Near 1,297 _ _ 145 C Year 2002 AM Peak Hour 145 C 22.6 Near 1,300 No -Build PM Peak Hour 145 D — 31.2 Over 1,515 Year 2002 AM Peak Hour 145 F NA Over 1,650 Build PM Peak Hour -_145 _ F NA Over 1,825 --------------------- - Year2002 AM Peak Hour 145 D 27.6 Over 1,500 Mitigated Build PM Peak Hour 145 F NA Over 1,625 (3) NOTES: (1) The same cycle length was used (145 seconds) for all conditions. (2) No intersection delay is reported when a movement volume to capacity ratio exceeds one over the peak hour factor. (3) The mitigated build condition included an additional left -turn lane for the east approach and a free right turn for the south approach. SOURCE: BRW, Inc. using SIGNAL94, HCS Signalized Intersection Analysis and the Highway Capacity Manual. HCS ANALYSIS LOS — - DELAY (SEC) _... A «5 0 >5 and <=15 C > 15 and <=25 D 125 and <=40 E >40 and <=60 F 1 >60 PLANNING ANALYSIS CRITICAL VOLUME RELATIONSHIP FOR INT. TO PROBABLE (VPH). CAPACITY O to 1,200 Under Capacity 1,201 to 1,400 Near Capacity — 1,401 Over Ca acit 06/20/96 U:ILOSNE W. Wx4 TABLE 8 • 0 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE NOTES: (1) A11 four rntersectons ate controlled with stop condthons on the east/west steeb an, has 8owmg through conditions on the nOnNsouth steel. (2) The deet hon and movement ,s reported. For esampe. WB LT hdentd s the Westoound left -tum movement. (1) The mterseCLOn delay represents the Overall delay in seconds per vehicte entering Ne intersection. (4) The movements to and fmm me west approach Of thus mtersectlon do not include Ne Vdiumes for the tops generated by the Rosemount. Inc. budding whrJh wsl he, this access. (5) The results with -NA- identity the movements which arc M Present in the existing and no-oudd conditions. 111 TRAFFIC F MINOR STREET MAJOR STREET INTERSECTION LEVELDELAY RV` (3) LEVEL OF DELAY ET CONTROL CONDITIONMOVEMENT DELAY S MOV9MENT SERVICE SECNEM SECNEH t. ThrWStop Esistmp Hour WB LT A 4.6 SB LT A WB RT A 3.0 2.6 1.5 Hour VVB LT B 5.8 SB LT A 2 B WB RT A 3.3 12 Year 2002 Hour VVB LT A 4.7 SB LT N"uddVVB jPeSkHo,f RT A 3 0 2.6 1.5 our WB LT I B B.6 S8 LT A WB RT A 3.4Year 1.B 2002 our EB LT C t 12,2 NB LT A3 BuddEB TH/RT I A ! 2 3.8 SB LT A 3.29.4WBTHMT! WE LT i B I A 3.9our EB LT C ! 16.T EB THMT i NB LT 'A3 4 -2p A 4.0 SB LT i A 3.7 WB LT C 12.2 WB TH/RT I A 4.5 ThnuStcp Existing AMP" Hour EB LT I 88 l NB LT iA . EB RT A 3.25 I 3.2 f 1.1 PM Peak Hour EB LT C 17.6 NB LT A 3.5 EB RT A 33 I I 1 5 Year 2002 AM Peak Mour EB LT h C 10.1 NB LT A No -Budd T A ES R 7 I .3 3.5 ! I 1.7 PM Peak Hour EB LT D 28.2 NB LT A 3.8 EB RT I A I 74 I 2. 7 Year 2002 AM Peak Hour EB LT D j 21.0 NB LT A Buda EB RT I A 3. 4.7 1.7 WB RT i A 34 4 PM Peak Hour EB LT F 123.3 NS LT 5.0 ES RT I A 3.8 6.6 WB RT I A 4.4 Thr Stop Esrsting AM Ped, k Hour EB LT NA INA ISI 151 T ! NA ES RT I NA NA NA I SSNB LTLNA NA 0.0 PM Peak Mour EB LT NA NA I NB LT NA NA Year 2002 AM Peak Hour ES RT NA NA EB LT NA SB LT I NA NA 0.0 No-Bugd I NA EB RT ! NA NA Ng LT NA NA ( I 0.0 PM Peak Hour EB LT NA NA SB LT NA NA NB LT Year 2002 AM Peak Hour EB RT NA I NA EB LT NA I NA SB LT NA I 0.0 Build C EB 7 I 1fi HIRT A 3.3 NB LT A 3.8 .8 5.0 3 I SB LT i A 4.5 WB LT E I N.4 WB TH(RT A 3.3 PM Peak Hour EB LTF h 51.8 NB LT A EB TH/RT I A 3.5 SB LT B 3.8 7.7 78.1 B LT F W 475.6 WE THrtdT I A 4.2 4.2 Thru/Slop Esrsvng AM Peak Hour WB LT ! NA h NA (5) II 151 SB LT WB RT 1 NA NA I NA NA i 0.0 PM Peak Hour VVB LT NA NA SB LT NA VVB R7 I RA I NA NA I 0.0 Year 2002 AM Peak Hour VVB LT NA SB LT NA No-Buad I WE RT NA NA NA 0.0 PM Peak Hour WB LT NA NA S LT I NA RT 1 NA NA00 NAWB Year 2002 AM Peak Mour EB LT 16.5 NB LT Build EBTHMT A 4.9 SB LT LT C 16.8 3.8tWB :4A3 WB TH/RT A 4.4PM Peak Mour EB LT 27.5 NB LT EB TM/ 'T B 5.1 412.3 SB LT 54 WB LT E 42.4 I I WB THIRT B 6.8 SOURCE: BRW, Ind. u" NCS UnslgnUHe4 knrrssptkm Analysia aM me Highway CaP4CI1y MsmML UM]Ma U:WNSIGLOS.Wk4 0 0 Table 7 shows the AM and PM peak hour results of the planning analvsis for the signalized intersections along TH 5. The results indicate: • For the existing conditions, the intersections of TH 5 and TH 101 is reported to operate under capacity in both the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of TH 5 and Great Plains Boulevard is reported to operate under capacity in the A.M peak hour and near capacity in the PM peak hour. • For the no -build conditions, the intersection of TH 5 and TH 101 is expected to operate near capacity in both the AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of TH 5 and Great Plains Boulevard is expected to operate near capacity in the AM peak hour and over capacity in the PM peak hour. • For the build conditions, the intersection of TH 5 and TH 101 is expected to operate near capacity in the AM peak hour and over capacity in the PM peak hour. The intersection of TH 5 and Great Plains Boulevard is expected to operate over capacity in both the AM and PM peak hours. • The analysis indicates that in comparing the sum of the critical volumes for the AM and PM peak hours from the existing conditions to the forecast Year 2002 no - build conditions there is an increase of 13 to 17 percent. • The analysis indicates that in comparing the critical volumes for the AM and PM peak hours from the no -build to the forecast Year 2002 build conditions there is an increase of 4 to 27 percent. The planning analysis helps demonstrate that the change in operations at the intersections along TH 5 from the existing conditions are not solely due to the additional traffic generated by the development. The background traffic growth in the area accounts for 45 to 65 percent of the traffic forecast at the two intersections along TH 5, varving by intersection during the peak hours. Even without the additional site -generated traffic in the forecast year, the volumes are expected to be near or over capacity due to the background traffic growth. Table 8 shows the results of the unsignalized intersection analysis. The analysis indicates that all of the unsignalized intersection movements currently operate at LOS C or better in both the AM and PM peak hours. For the forecast Year 2002 no -build condition, the analysis indicates that all of the intersection movements are expected to operate at LOS D or better in both the AM and PM peak hours. For the forecast Year 2002 build conditions, the analysis indicates all of the intersection movements are expected to operate at LOS D or better, with the following exceptions: • The TH 101/1-ake Drive West intersection eastbound left -tum movement is expected to operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour. • The TH 101/1-ake Drive (Site) intersection westbound left -turn movement is expected to operate at LOS E and F in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. • The TH 101/Lake Drive (Site) intersection eastbound left -turn movement is expected to operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour. •'W' 33 0 0 • The TH 101 /Main Street intersection westbound left -tum movement is expected to operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour. The traffic for the minor street left -tum movements at the unsignalized intersections are expected to experience some delay during the peak hour conditions. However,the intersection operations for the majority of the volume entering the unsignalized intersections are expected to operate at LOS A. This volume includes the through movement and right -tum movement volumes along the major street which are not required to stop. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION The following traffic mitigation measures are recommended based on the results of the preceding traffic capacity analysis and planning analysis. Mitigation is recommended for intersections where the volume approaches or exceeds the capacity for the current geometrics. The signalized intersections of TH 5 and TH 101/Market Boulevard is expected to operate at LOS D or better which is a satisfactory condition for the peak hours of operation. The intersection of TH 5 and Great Plains Boulevard is expected to have movements which approach or exceed the capacity; therefore, different fomes of mitigation including adding double left -tum lanes, channelizing free right -turn lanes or a combination of both were considered. Table 7 shows the results of the most effective and reasonable mitigation at this intersection. When the volume for a left -turn lane exceeds 300 vehicles, an additional left -turn lane should be considered. The volume for the east approach left -tum movement into the development is expected to be near or over 300 vehicles in the peak hour. The addition of a second left -tum lane for the east approach on TH 5 is recommended at the intersection of TH 5 and Great Plains Boulevard. Adding a second left -turn lane is expected to improve the conditions at the Great Plains Boulevard intersection. Another form of mitigation which should be considered at the TH 5 and Great Plains Boulevard intersection is either providing a free right for the south approach or extending the right -tum lane. This right -tum movement is expected to be heavily used by vehicles traveling east on TH 5 or north on TH 101. Although the through and left -tum movements for this south approach are low .compared to the right -tum movement, extending the right -tum lane could help prevent the right -tum queue from blocking access to the through and left -turn lanes. Although these mitigations are expected to improve the intersection operations, they do not improve the overall intersection level of service. The intersection is expected to operate near capacity due to the heavy through movement on TH 5. No mitigation was identified to deal with the high volumes of traffic traveling in the through movements on TH 5. The through movements on TH 5 already receive the majority of the green time at the signalized intersections and are expected to continue to do so in the future. Therefore, the mitigation discussed above is aimed at improving the conditions for the other movements at the intersections. A common form of mitigation for unsignalized intersections is to install a traffic signal. Volumes at the unsignalized intersections were compared to the Peak Hour Volume Warrant as discussed in the Minnesota Manua] on Uniform Traffic Control •23SS. 34 35,600 x F4 Lake Drive West 1,950 \J 45,800 Villages on the Ponds The T-- The Cinmemsl Assessmem Worksheet Env City of ial As. sscn M 44,400 2,100 r - Fiaun 9 Valomes E 0 L7, - — — — f i i pienalnog 1"JEW . Ai -�� — F i I I I I 1 1 I I i IOI'H'S x® P f' b > Traffic Signal XXX/XXX Existing Conditions AM/PM Peak l lour b ; Turning Movement Volumes XXX/XXX Year 211t12 No -Build AM/PM Peak l lour v Suurce: ORIN, Inc. Counted un Mardi 23, 1996. v 0 o N NCD \ �� fns �00 O 00 1 C) N� r0 rD N� NM NN N� *J 4 54/96 L 104/267 49/81 j 63/174 60/110 120/320 60/100 80/210 1,550/1,080 1,850/1,290 t 1,073/1,786 1,777/1,544 1,283/1,915 1,280/2,130 2,120/1,840 1,530/2,290 77/50 165/204 24/35 31/45 90/60 200/240 30/40 40/50 Legend: Traffic Signal XXX/XXX Existing Conditions AM/PM Peak l lour Turning Movement Volumes XXX/XXX Year 211t12 No -Build AM/PM Peak l lour Turning Movement Vnlllme5 Suurce: ORIN, Inc. Counted un Mardi 23, 1996. Environwnlul Assessment Worksheet Figure 11 Existing and Year 21X12 No-Iiulld AMand PAI I'euk flourlimning Movement Volumes l g -rrng a b b > > v 0 as O x,09 O 12I � � .05. � O t) (0 10O 120 (0) 80 (15) 80 (0) 320 (0) 120 (20) 210 (0) 1,850 (0) 1,290(0) 1,280 (0) 2,200 (75) t 2,130 (0) i 1620(85) F 1,930 (85) 2,370 (75) 210 (115) 160 (100) 300 (95) 30 (0) 330 300 (255) (85) 40 (0) 280 (225) r► I Legend: t a r BCD p o LO �,).rw. N Traffic Signal v� o tOr�r� �N O s0� 00 XXCD X (XXX) Year 2(X)2 Build AM Peak Hour oo Turning Movement Volumes (Site Generated Volumes) rr1 F XXX (XXX) Year 21X12 Build I'M Peak I lour Turning Movement Volumes (Site Generated Volumes) Source: HIM,, hs. Using ITE Trip C aerated Manual, Fifth Edition, 1991. Flaare 12 Year 2002 Build and Site Generated AM and Ph1 onds Peak flour Turning Movement Volumes sessment Workshem ._ vlotnb 46 11/5/04 SUBJECT: Peak Traffic Location: Culvers Source: Carrie Matthias (Co-owner) Ranking by Day: (#1 = highest traffic count) #1 Friday #2 Saturday #3 Thursday #4 Sunday #5 Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday Busiest times per day: Weekdays 11:30 - 1:15 35% 5:15 - 7:45 65% Saturday: Spread throughout the day and evening. Sunday: Afternoon and evening i vlotnb 4 11/5/04 SUBJECT: Peak Traffic Location Lakewinds - Minnetonka Source: Manager Ranking by Day: (#1 = highest traffic count) Busiest Hours #1 Saturday 11:00 - 6:00 #2 Tuesday 11:00 - 1:00 and 3:00 - 6:00 #3 Sunday Ditto #4 All others Ditto URBAN PLANNING M ARCHITECTURE►'7l1�fr7 INTERIOR DESIGN MILOCONSULTING October 22, 2004 To: Robert Generous, Planning City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 From: Mika Milo, AIA Project: Village on the Ponds Retail Building C-1, Lot "B" Re: Project Description Narrative 1) General Disposition and Use: The proposed development consists of a 16,518sf, single story, commercial, retail building, with a small 1,669sf mezzanine level next to the main entry. Even though the proposed building footprint is somewhat different than originally envisioned in P.U.D., overall it is within the area assigned for the type of use, and of similar size, mass, bulk, and character, thus fully conforming to P.U.D. Master Plan. With its proposed initial use for a quality health -food store, it is an excellent, highly welcome addition to the Village, complementing adjacent developments, and contributing to retail "critical mass" and services offered for the Chanhassen community at large. 2) Circulation: The proposed building is located on Lake Drive East, facing Highway 5 and the Promenade, and is surrounded with surface parking on the North, West and South. An arrangement of driveways and parking allows for circulation flexibilities and good access or exiting. There are comfortable, wide sidewalks on all building sides that are well connected with street sidewalks as well as the Promenade and adjacent existing buildings. Main entry to the buildings is clearly emphasized and oriented towards the Promenade in a sweeping, circular motion. This is facing a small Entry Plaza that will be used for outdoor exhibits, display of products, and promotional activities of a festival nature. A small outdoor seating and eating area at the North-West comer will further enhance the "active" street image and a lively village atmosphere. Next to the main entry, there is a customer loading/pick-up area. Accessible parking stalls are located right in front of the Main Entry. Also, there is a diagonally positioned pathway connecting the Main Entry to the Promenade sidewalks, leading to the main street. The needed service/loading area is placed in the least visible corner and is further screened by a 6' high masonry wall as well as street trees and landscaping along Lake Drive. Additionally, this area is recessed within the building, thus further reducing its visibility and view exposure. 3) Mass. Bulk. and Design Features: Even though the building will contain a single user, it has been intentionally designed to project the character of a "multi building" composition, with ever changing faces, views, materials, colors, and varied roof forms. As a result, the building wall and bulk is "reduced" to a human scale, and a harmonious integration with the rest of the Village has been achieved. A number of various articulations, colorful awnings, planters, sloped mansard roofs and parapets, signs and banners, windows, contrasting forms and materials, all together contribute to a lively and active facade treatment and add interest and identity to this village place. (All rooftop HVAC equipment is well screened behind 5-7 foot high parapets/sloped roofs.) The building materials are of high quality and include brick, block, clapboard siding, and stucco in a variety of colors and textures. All building colors are a complementary and harmonious "earth -tones" palette with accents in paint, awnings, cornices, site finishing's, etc. In conclusion, the proposed building will provide a welcome and complementary addition to the Village, both in terms of its intended use as well as its architectural character and overall flavor. 3914 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite A144 San Diego, California 92123 Phone: (858) 565-8485 Fax: (858) 565-8203 E-mail: mag@magamh.com CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD aff OF CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 pgtyg�pply (952)227-1100 �I1811D9k)IYI DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: UQI L, L/^ Le ADDRESS: CA 1,OTUS /PSAL7'� EEVEC'FS. /NC P.O. a 3S, CWA94"V , N/V TELEPHONE (Day time) ?. a - %.3 `/- 41 f 3 X oLi-4c) CITY OF RECEIVED SSEry OCT 15 2004 CHANHASSEN PANNING DEPT OWNER: VO P L L L Z ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Terry Sales Perm Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit ✓Variance _ Non -conforming Use Permit _ Wetland Alteration Pernit Planned Unit Development' _ Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Pemwfs Sign Plan Review Notification S Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filling Fees/Attorney Cost" <0 (iso CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) P/ Subdivision" �� Q Q� c TOTAL FEE $ / 9 q Y I �j L A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. 'Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. 0 0 PROJECT NAW L 64 011-1-469S Oti -t-Ile f aND 5 LOCATION S CEJ IV*£t,eCG7"/CW (94 A,&-0 T�eUF/f1/4AE (L G, 4r PlAIMS LEGAL DESCRIPTION iriurL-O-r 8 UircLA6f ay LEE 750.OS cgs d&lk 4 6e �.vc q>7�o As___ X07 �, BLOCK j%i�LAES od nth ,4dd,- I[.�7n ACREAGE 4Q# eel 11 A 34669 4. WETLANDS PRESENT YES Al NO PRESENT ZONING PUD Hl)eeo ISE REQUESTED ZONING /l/�4 PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION NVQ REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION NIA - REASON FOR THIS REQUEST 3 /UAct Y LE@U/AeEY&A,TS �Of /NP�oU,NG 7NE This appliication must be completed in full and be typewritten or Beady printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my nam and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information 1 have submitted are true and cored to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. VO /, Z -A. C Signature of Applicant � i% >at -e, , Dale Sigria(ure of Fee Owner Date Application Received on _ Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. SCANNED 0 Location Map 0 Village on the Ponds Building C-1 (Food Coop) Outlot B, Village on the Ponds 8th Addition City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-40 to e o�teJa State Hwy 5 AtboCetum Pond Promenad' Subject Site