PC Report 11-16-04
~
z
<
u
~
~
~
~
<
<
~
<
Q
~
~
~
00
PC DATE: 11/16/04
[!]
CC DATE: 12/13/04
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
REVIEW DEADLINE: December 14,2004
CASE #: 04-40
BY: RG, LH, ML, MA, JS, ST
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Request for Site Plan Approval for a 18,200 square-foot commercial building
(coop grocery) with Variance to the commercial design standards.
LOCA TION: Southeast comer of Lake Drive and Great Plains Boulevard
Outlot B, Village on the Ponds 8th Addition
APPLICANT: VOP I, LLC
c/o Lotus Realty Services
P. O. Box 235
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 934-4538
PRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development, POD, mixed use
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Mixed Use
ACREAGE: 1.35 acres
DENSITY: F.A.R. 0.31
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for Site Plan Approval for an 18,188 square-foot
commercial building with Variance to the commercial design standards to permit the use offaux
window treatments
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City's discretion in approving or denying a site plan is limited to whether or not the
proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets those standards, the
City must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the
proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a
relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation
from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision.
Location Map
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
\I'ð-~Ò
ßoù\e
þ..(bO(e\ù('(\
State HW)' 5
Ò0
Ò Prome,",3.
~o{\
SCANNED
Planning Commission
Village on the Ponds Building C-1
Planning Case No. 04-40
November 16,2004
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The developer is proposing a one story with a mezzanine level, 18,188 square-foot commercial
building for a coop grocery. The building materials consist of stucco, wood siding, brick and face
block. The applicant is requesting a variance from the commercial design standards to permit less
than fifty (50) percent of the first floor façade that is viewed by the public to include transparent
windows and/or doors. Instead of transparent windows, the developer is proposing the use of
faux windows with awnings to provide additional architectural details.
To the north of the site are Culvers Restaurant and the Silo Building (Village on the Ponds
Building 4). To the west of the site are Pond Promenade, Community Bank Chanhassen and the
proposed Village on the Ponds Building C (residential units over commercial). South of the site
is Lake Drive and the Foss Swim School. East of the site is Lake Drive and a residential
subdi vision, Hidden Valley.
The site is serviced with sewer and water which was installed as part of the Village on the Ponds
initial development. Storm water shall be treated within the Village on the Ponds storm water
system. The site was preliminary graded with the initial Village on the Ponds development and
then rough graded to approximately its final grade as part of Village on the Ponds 8th Addition
and the construction of the Community Bank Chanhassen Building. Access to the site will be
via two entrances off Lake Drive as well as access via Pond Promenade.
As part of the original Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) for the Villages on the
Ponds development, a traffic study was completed. A traffic study was also completed for the
nearby Park Nicollet Clinic. Each of these previous studies stated that, at some time in the
future, a 4-way stop would be required at the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard/Lake Drive
East. As part of the development review for the project, we took another look at this intersection
with the proposed food coop development. The new traffic study looked at traffic volume,
operational analysis, and the need for additional traffic control measure at the existing
intersection of Great Plains/Lake Drive.
Staff is recommending approval of the site plan with a variance to the fenestration standards
subject to the conditions of the staff report.
BACKGROUND
On October 28, 2002, the Chanhassen City Council approved the final plat for POD 95-2,
Villages on the Ponds 8th Addition, creating two lots and two outlots from Outlot A, Villages on
the Ponds 2nd Addition. The two lots are the site for the two-story bank office building and the
four-story commercial and apartment building. One of the outlots contains Pond Promenade.
The other outlot is the site for the proposed Coop.
On November 26,2001, the Chanhassen City Council approved an amendment to the Villages on
the Ponds Design Standards, Development Site Coverage and Building Height,
Planning Commission
Village on the Ponds Building C-1
Planning Case No. 04-40
November 16,2004
Page 3
3. The maximum building height shall be Sector I - four stories (residential with street level
commercial or office)/50 ft. (retail and office buildings without residences above shall be
limited to three stories/40 ft.) except for the lot on the comer of Promenade Pond and
Great Plains Boulevard shall be limited to two stories and 30 feet, Sector II - three
stories/40 ft., Sector III - three stories/40 ft., and Sector IV - four stories/50 feet.
Building height limitations are exclusive of steeples, towers, and other architectural and
roof accents.
On September 23, 1997, the city granted Final Plat approval for Outlot C into Lots 1 and 2,
Block 1, and Outlot A, Villages on the Ponds 2nd Addition.
On September 23, 1996, the City Council approved POD 95-2, Villages on the Ponds, including
a Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment from Office/industrial, Institutional, Residential
Medium Density, Residential Low Density to Mixed Use-Commercial, High Density Residential,
Institutional and Office; Preliminary planned unit development for up to 291,000 sq. ft. of
commerciaVoffice buildings, 100,000 sq. ft. of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units;
Rezoning from lOP and RSF to POD, Planned Unit Development (final reading); and final plat
dated "Received September 19, 1996" for two lots and ten outlots and public right-of-way.
On August 12, 1996, the City Council granted preliminary approval of POD #92-1 including a
Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment from Office/industrial, Institutional, Residential
Medium Density, Residential Low Density to Mixed Use-Commercial, High Density Residential,
Institutional and Office; Preliminary planned unit development for up to 291,000 sq. ft. of
commerciaVoffice buildings, 100,000 sq. ft. of institutional buildings, and 322 dwelling units;
Rezoning from lOP and RSF to POD, Planned Unit Development (first reading); Preliminary plat
for 13 lots and 3 outlots and public right-of-way; Wetland Alteration Permit to fill and excavate
wetlands on site; Vacation of right-of-way and easements; Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EA W) findings of Negative Declaration of the need for additional environmental investigation; and
Indirect Source Permit Review for the Village on the Ponds project.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 6, Site Plan Review
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office-
Institutional Developments
Village on the Ponds Development Design Standards
GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE
Planning Commission
Village on the Ponds Building C-1
Planning Case No. 04-40
November 16.2004
Page 4
ARCHITECTURAL COMPLIANCE
Size portion Placement
The proposed entry to the building is on the southwestern elevation of the building toward Pond
Promenade. The entry is covered by a circular teal green metal roof and a buttercup yellow
awning. Above the entry is a raised parapet three feet higher than the adjacent parapet walls.
The building has significant articulation including angled walls, projected and recessed wall
areas, transparent windows and doors, canopies, faux windows, planter boxes and variations in
materials and colors.
Planning Commission
Village on the Ponds Building C-1
Planning Case No. 04-40
November 16,2004
Page 5
Material, detail and color
Building materials are of high quality. The primary building material consists of stucco painted
in four different colors: Coconut Grove (off-white), Ligonier Tan, Western Reserve Beige and
Sombrero (pinkish clay). As accent, the developer is proposing the use of face block as a base
material in a random mix of oyster, toffee and saddle colors. Additionally, the building
incorporates the use of classic oak brick as a base and a column material. One wall is proposed
using wood siding with blue spruce paint. Roof material consists of teal green standing seam
metal and charcoal gray asphalt shingles. Awnings are proposed in Sea Spray green, Buttercup
yellow and Salmon.
Staff's one concern with the building material is the use of the wood siding with a spruce blue
paint finish on the eastern elevation of the building. We believe that this surface and finish is not
compatible or harmonious with the balance of the building architecture. Staff would recommend
that this wall be constructed of the brick material which will repeat, on a larger scale, the use of
brick for vertical elements on three of the other building elevations as well as more closely match
the color scheme of the building.
Height and Roof Design
The building height is 20 to 24 feet. Parapet walls of two to six feet with one area of nine foot
parapet walls above the entrance shall provide screening for all the rooftop equipment and help
to provide additional vertical articulation to the building. The proposed building height is within
the height limitation contained in the Village on the Ponds design standards. There are pitched
roof elements in the asphalt mansard roof treatment as well in the metal canopy and other fabric
canopIes.
Facade transparency
The applicant is requesting a variance from the requirement that 50 percent of the first floor
elevation that is viewed by the public include transparent windows and or doors. All other areas
include landscaping material and architectural detailing and articulation. The installation of
windows on some elevations is not possible due to the internal use of the building for storage and
refrigerators. In these instances, the developer is proposing the use of faux windows with
canopies and planter boxes to ådd architectural detailing. Following is a breakdown of the
openings within each elevation of the building including the faux windows:
Planning Commission
Village on the Ponds Building C-1
Planning Case No. 04-40
November 16, 2004
Page 6
ELEVATION CALCULATIONS FOR LAKEWINDS RETAIL
SURFACE AREA BELOW 12 FEET PER
ELEVATIONS OPAOUE OPENINGS FAKE
WINDOWS/ARTICULA TIONS
SOFT % SOFT % SOFT %
WEST 415 35% 774 65% 0 0%
EAST 1,388 66% 515 24% 216 10%
NORTH 951 44% 805 37% 419 19%
SOUTHWEST 744 38% 967 50% 228 12%
TOTALS 3,498 3,061 863
PERCENT TOTALS 47% 41% 12%
As can be seen by the table, the percentage of openings and full windows exceeds 50% of the
total building wall area.
Site Furnishing
The development will provide planter boxes on each side of the building. In addition, a small
patio type seating area will be included in the northwest comer of the building. The developer
shall install bicycle racks on site.
Loading areas, refuse area, etc.
The loading dock/service area is located in the southeast comer of the building. The building has
been extended in this comer to provide a recessed area to help screening of service yards, refuse
and waster removal, other unsightly areas and truck parking/loading areas. This area will be
approximately four feet lower than parking lot. A short wing wall screens the loading area from
the west.
Planning Commission
Village on the Ponds Building C-1
Planning Case No. 04-40
November 16, 2004
Page 7
Landscaping
The applicant has submitted a landscape plan. The proposed plantings as compared to the
requirements are shown in the following table.
Required Proposed
Trees/ parking lot 2 overstory o overstory
2 islands/peninsulas 2 islands/peninsulas
Boulevard trees - Great Plains 7 Bicolor oak 6 overstory trees
Blvd.
Proposed landscaping does not meet minimum ordinance requirements. Staff has the following
recommendations: All parking lot planting islands and peninsulas must have at least 10 foot
inside width, overstory trees are required in the parking lot island and peninsula planting areas,
one additional bicolor oak is required along Great Plains Boulevard. The applicant must submit
a revised landscape plan to the city for approval.
Lot Frontage and Parking location
The building has been pushed as far to the northeast comer of the site as permitted by the design
standards. This helps to create an urban feel along Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive.
Parking has be located to the west and south of the building.
The following setbacks shall apply:
VilIa~es Proposed
Lake Dri ve 0' 7.8'
Interior Side Lot Line 0' N 43.1', S 75', W 71'
Parking standards: 1 space per 200 square feet 91 85 *
of building area.
. 85 parking spaces will be provided within the development lot. The six additional spaces
required as part of the development are being provided through cross parking
arrangements with other properties within Village on the Ponds.
Based on information provided by the applicant, the peak day and time of operation of the
business is Saturday from 11 :00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. On other days, the peak hours of operation are
11 :00 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The peak hour for Culvers is Friday from
11:30 a.m. to 1:15 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. to 7:45 p.m. While there is some overlap in peak hours,
other users in the area should not have these same peak times, e.g. Starbucks, which would
normally have an earlier peak.
The following summary table tracks the building area and type of uses envisioned, developed
and proposed within Villages on the Ponds.
Planning Commission
Village on the Ponds Building C-1
Planning Case No. 04-40
November 16,2004
Page 8
Project Commercial Office/Service Residential Institutional Date Bldg Sq
Ft
(sq. ft.) (sq. ft.) (units) (sq. ft.) Approved C/O/Ins.
Perm itted 164,640 97,500 322 134,000 396,140
Lake Susan Apartments 162 6/28/1999
Bokoo Bikes 5,018 6,077 6/28/1999 11,095
Foss Swim School 9,800 6/14/1999 9,800
Houlihan's 7,362 81 5/11/1998 7,443
Culvers 4,768 9/24/2001 4,768
Building 4 (Silo Building) 7,425 7,425 9/22/1997 14,850
Building 17 (not built) 30,000 8/11/1997 30,000
Americlnn 44,013 1 ,492 2/24/1997 45,505
Americlnn (expansion) 6,870 6,870
St. Hubert's 92,4 78 12/9/1996 92,478
Presbyterian Homes 4,500 4,500 69 11/26/2001 9,000
Northcott Inn & Suites (not 24,980 50,914 12/09/02 75,894
built)
Community Bank 11,000 1 0/14/02 11 ,000
Chanhassen
Retail C (not built) 9,500 9,500 54 1 0/14/02 19,000
Retail C-1 (this project) 18,200 18,200
Retail G (future) 8,000 8,000 40 16,000
St. Hubert Expansion 41,522 4/8/2002 41 ,522
TOTALS 140,636 138,789 325 134,000 413,425
Balance 24,004 (41,289) (3)
Balance Equivalents
Conversion to Office 80,013 NA (1,080)
Conversion to Institutional 82,772 (43,462) (1,320) NA
Conversion to Commercial NA (12,387) (270)
Balances after conversion
for deficits 11,347
Negative balances represent building square footage in excess of those originally contemplated.
However, the development permits the conversion of excess square footage from one use to
another provided the total permitted square footage is not exceeded.
GRADING. DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL
There is an existing dirt stockpile within the proposed building pad which will need to be cut
down to prepare the site for a pad elevation of 950.25. While staff believes that the proposed site
plan layout will work on the property, the current grading plan does not work. Specifically, the
parking lot contours are incorrect and the location/elevation of an emergency overflow point for
the catch basins must be shown that is 1.5-feet lower than the proposed building elevation. As
such, the grading plan for the site must be revised.
Planning Commission
Village on the Ponds Building C-1
Planning Case No. 04-40
November 16,2004
Page 9
The building and parking lot drainage will be collected by proposed catch basins within the
parking lot. The site drainage for the property will be routed to an existing regional pond that
was recently constructed with the senior housing project south of the property. This pond has
been sized for development of this property. As such, no additional ponding improvements are
required with this development. Storm sewer sizing calculations will be required, however, at
the time of building permit application. The proposed storm sewer must be sized for a lO-year
storm event. It should be noted that the proposed storm sewer pipe is shown as IS-inch
diameter. The existing storm sewer pipe that the new system drains to is only 12-inch diameter
pipe. This will require the proposed pipe to be a maximum of 12-inch diameter storm sewer.
Additionally, an NPDES permit will be required from the MPCA.
Proposed erosion control includes silt fence around the site perimeter. Staff would also
recommend that a minimum 75-foot rock construction entrance be installed at the location that
will be utilized during construction.
Erosion Control
Silt fence should be installed as detailed in the preliminary grading and utility plan. The City's
standard detail plate for silt fence should be included in the construction plans. Construction site
access points should be minimized to controlled access points with rock entrance and exit pads
installed and maintained throughout construction. All exposed soil areas should have temporary
erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and
time frames:
Time
Type of Slope (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
when area is not actively being worked)
Steeper than 3: 1 7 Days
10:1 to 3:1 14 Days
Flatter than 10: 1 21 Days
These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance
system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage
ditch or other man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
Daily scraping and sweeping of public streets should be completed anytime construction site soil,
mud, silt or rock is tracked or washed onto paved surface or street that would allow tracked
materials or residuals of that material to enter the storm water conveyance system.
UTILITIES
The applicant is proposing to connect to the existing water and sanitary sewer stubs on the west
side of the site. From there, the services will be extended to the building. Installation of the
private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building
Department.
Planning Commission
Village on the Ponds Building C-1
Planning Case No. 04-40
November 16,2004
Page 10
Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for the new building. The 2004
trunk hookup charge is $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for watermain.
The 2004 SAC charge is $1,425 per unit. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC
units calculated by the Met Council. These charges will be collected at the time of building
permit issuance. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against
the parcel.
STREETS
Proposed full accesses to the site will come from existing private streets on the north and south
sides of the site. No public street improvements have been proposed with this project. The
proposed drive aisle width for the site must be a minimum of 26-feet.
As part of the original Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) for the Villages on the
Ponds development, a traffic study was completed. A traffic study was also completed for the
nearby Park Nicollet Clinic. Each of these previous studies stated that, at some time in the
future, a 4-way stop would be required at the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard/Lake Drive
East. Staff felt it was a good idea to now take another look at this intersection with the proposed
food coop development. The new traffic study looked at traffic volume, operational analysis,
and the need for additional traffic control measure at the existing intersection of Great
Plains/Lake Drive. The study rated the level of service (LOS) for the existing intersection. LOS
is a method used to grade the overall traffic flow and vehicle operation on roadways. LOS
grades range from a high grade of (A) to a low grade of (F). (Unlike education grade scales, an
(E) grade LOS does exist.) The new and original traffic studies are attached.
In summary, the traffic study found that the existing 2-way stop controlled intersection of Great
Plains/Lake Dri ve will operate at an acceptable LOS of D or higher with the development of the
food coop site. By 2010 and full buildout of the Villages development, however, the intersection
will drop to an unacceptable LOS under the 2-way stop condition. The intersection will have to
be monitored as additional development occurs to determine when the 4-way stop control is
warranted. In addition, the study recommends that the northbound lanes of Great Plains
Boulevard be striped and signed to better define the existing lane geometry. That is, a left-
through lane and a right-turn only lane will have to be striped along with appropriate signage.
WETLANDS
Existing Wetlands
No wetlands exist on site.
LIGHTING/SIGNAGE
The developer is proposing 25 foot light poles with one single head and two quad head shoe box
style luminaries 400 watt high pressure sodium lamps as well as wall mounted fixtures at the
loading dock. All lighting shall be shielded from off site views.
Planning Commission
Village on the Ponds Building C-1
Planning Case No. 04-40
November 16, 2004
Page 11
Wall signage is proposed on the west, north and east sides of the building within a three foot
wide sign band. Signage must comply with the Village on the Ponds sign standards. Separate
sign permits will be required for the installation of all wall signage.
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #04-40 for an 18,188 square
foot commercial building with a variance from the commercial design standards to permit less
than fifty (50) percent of the first floor façade that is viewed by the public to include transparent
windows and/or doors, plans prepared by Milo Architecture Group, Inc., dated October 15,2004,
subject to the folIowing conditions:
1. The applicant shalI enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2. Outlot A, VilIage on the Ponds 8th Addition must be replatted in to a Lot and Block
configuration prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. The sidewalk in the northeast comer of the site shall be connected to the sidewalk on Lake
Drive.
4. The developer shall install bicycle racks on site.
5. The easterly wall that is proposed for wood siding shall be constructed of the brick material.
6. All landscape islands and peninsulas in the parking lot requiring trees must have a minimum
inside width of ten feet.
7. Two overstory trees are required in the parking lot.
8. A total of seven bicolor oaks are required along Great Plains Boulevard.
9. A revised landscape plan shalI be submitted to the city prior to building permit approval.
10. The building must be protected with an automatic fire sprinkler system.
11. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State
of Minnesota.
12. An eight foot wide access aisle must be provided for one of the accessible parking locations.
Planning Commission
Village on the Ponds Building C-1
Planning Case No. 04-40
November 16,2004
Page 12
13. The building owner and or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division to
discuss plan review and permit procedures.
14. The City's standard detail plate for silt fence installation shall be included in the construction
plans.
15. Construction site access points shall be minimized to controlled access points with rock
entrance and exit pads installed and maintained throughout construction.
16. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Time
Type of Slope (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
when area is not actively being worked)
Steeper than 3: 1 7 Days
10:1 to 3:1 14 Days
Flatter than 10: 1 21 Days
Daily scraping and sweeping of streets shall be completed anytime construction site soil,
mud, silt or rock is tracked or washed onto paved surface or street that would allow tracked
materials or residuals of that material to enter the storm water conveyance system.
17. All plans must be signed by a registered Ci viI Engineer in the State of Minnesota.
18. Show the dimensions of the new parking stalls on the site plan. The new parking stalls are
required to be 9-feet wide by 18-feet long.
19. Add the latest City standard detail plate nos. 5203,5214,5215,5300,5301.
20. Provide a connection between the two sidewalk systems in the northeast comer of the site.
21. On the grading/utility plan:
a. City as-builts show the size of the existing sanitary service as 6-inch diameter; revise
the proposed pipe size shown on the plans to comply.
b. Show the proposed sanitary sewer service invert.
c. Show all proposed contours.
d. Show a minimum 75-foot rock construction entrance.
e. Revise the size of the proposed storm sewer to be a maximum of 12-inch diameter.
f. Revise the plan to show the correct elevation contours and spot elevations.
22. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the
City's Building Department.
Planning Commission
Village on the Ponds Building C-1
Planning Case No. 04-40
November 16,2004
Page 13
23. The applicant must show the location/elevation of an emergency overflow point for the
parking lot that is 1.5-feet lower than the proposed building elevation.
24. Storm sewer sizing calculations are required to be submitted at the time of building permit
application. The proposed storm sewer must be sized for a lO-year storm event.
25. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for the new building. The 2004
trunk hookup charge is $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for watermain.
The 2004 SAC charge is $1,425 per unit. All of these charges are based on the number of
SAC units calculated by the Met Council. These charges will be collected at the time of
building permit issuance. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially
assessed against the parcel.
26. The minimum drive aisle width required for the parking lot is 26-feet. Revise the plans to
comply.
27. An NPDES permit from the MPCA must be obtained for the site grading.
28. The northbound lanes of Great Plains Boulevard, south of Lake Drive, must be striped for a
left-through lane and a right-turn only lane along with appropriate signage.
A TT ACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
2. Development Review Application.
3. Memo from Mika Milo to Robert Generous dated 10/22/04.
4. Reduced Copy Site Plan.
5. Reduced Copy Coop Retail, Detail Site Plan.
6. Reduced Copy Coop Retail, Plan.
7. Reduced Copy Roof Plan.
8. Reduced Copy Landscape Plan.
9. Reduced Copy Building Elevations, West and North.
10. Reduced Copy Building Elevations, East and Southwest.
11. Food Coop traffic study dated November 2004.
12. Original Villages EA W traffic study dated 6/28/96.
13. Park Nicollet traffic study dated 11/13/03.
14. Affidavit of Mailing Notice, Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List.
g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-40 - village on the ponds building c-l food coop\staff report bldg cl.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDA TION
INRE:
Application of VOP I, LLC for Site Plan Review with a variance from the commercial
design standards to permit less than fifty (50) percent of the first floor façade that is
viewed by the public to include transparent windows and/or doors.
On November 16, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its
regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of VOP I, LLC for a site plan
review with a variance from the commercial design standards for the property located at
the southeast comer of Lake Drive and Great Plains Boulevard. The Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed site plan was preceded by
published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all
interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development, POD, Mixed Use.
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Mixed Use.
3. The legal description of the property is: Outlot A, Villages on the Ponds 8th
Addition to be platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Villages on the Ponds 9th Addition.
4. Site Plan Findings:
1
(1) The proposed development is consistent with the elements and objectives of
the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road
mapping, and other plans that may be adopted;
(2) The proposed development is consistent with the site plan review
requirements;
(3) The proposed development is designed to be in keeping with the general
appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas;
(4) The proposed development creates a harmonious relationship of building and
open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings
having a visual relationship to the development;
(5) The proposed development creates a functional and harmonious design for
structures and site features, with special attention to the following:
a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and
provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general
community;
b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of
the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and
d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives
and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public
streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior
circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement
and amount of parking.
(6) The proposed development protects adjacent and neighboring properties
through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight
buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not
adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on
neighboring land uses.
5. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council
shall not grant a variance to the design standards unless they find the following facts:
a. The literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue
hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its
size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. The use of the building
requires that some areas not have windows, e.g., storage and coolers. The
2
developer is proposing a reasonable alternative, which provides additional
building articulation and architectural detailing.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable,
generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. The city
design standards require that buildings have 50 percent windows. However, the
function of a commercial-retail building requires that some areas not have
opemngs.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land, but to facilitate the use of the site for a
grocery.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. The use of the
building for a coop grocery is permitted in the zoning district, but the standards
interfere with the operation of the store.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel
is located. Development of the site will enhance the neighborhood and
community.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or
increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish
or impair property values within the neighborhood.
6. The planning report #04-40 dated November 16,2004, prepared by Robert
Generous, et aI, is incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDA TION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
site plan review with a variance from the commercial design standards to permit less than
fifty (50) percent transparent windows and/or doors on the first floor façade that is
viewed by the public.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this _ day of
,2004.
3
CHANHASSEN PLANNING
COMMISSION
BY:
Its Chairman
4
LC{ - 4D
.
crrrOF
CHAR8Bf
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
CITY OF C
REc~tv~iisSEN
OCT 1 5 2004
CHANHASS£N PLANNING DEPT
APPLICANT.. ¡ /(.) If) / / i P
\/ ..-,/ ,- /" i_ ~ C..
OWNER:
LJ,:~/) f:) //-1 ~ L,~. C:
ADDRESS: ::'/ï Ä~):r (J So kg. /'~ ':- -n_)
:;:0 .r;;; I.. V /... .f- :: / <.I'"
p () :) 35, C-1I-1Jfi4f.SS/.J / II )IJ
TELEPHONE (Day time) c¡ .5,; .. I) .:{ '> . ~/5 :;;: ,k'
ADDRESS: _ .SA /1 r:
TELEPHONE:
_ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit
- Conditional Use Permit - Vacation of ROWÆasements
- Interim Use Permit ,/ Variance
_ Non-conforming Use Permit - Wetland Meration Permit
_ Planned Unit Development* _ Zoning Appeal
_ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
_ Sign Permits
_ Sign Plan Review __ Notification Sign
~ Site Plan Review* "\ -^
--2L Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** "...-' (
&,0 ($50 CUP/SPRNACNARlWAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
v/ Subdivision· 'Ý,¥-~\ ~\(Ä ) TOTAl FEE $ I ~'15' ø- J3IJ~
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samp!es 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.
SCANNED
PROJECT NAME
/~ ;1
(---- -
()¡
/)/¿:,4(';:
)'
"',':;'
-).:' It"~
~__,,_,..{ ,"¡I .,~.,"
LOCATION
<: ,/ I) /Aj/;~/
......./ ~p"",,,,,
;;',j
1'-:'
¡;~~J ,l~ L;' /)- _'.I, ,.l ,("",},4' f)f:.
" ]),/,"':::1 / /~) <,'":~',',,f
!.. ,_;:::~~ /:-~. :~: .(~ r' ~'
LEGAL DESCRIPTION ~~:L::.....:t f
p,
/J' ,l, /I ,C; .-
I (£.,.. ~ "'" < # ,..."
):.J 1"~4~~
j.<,,;,t''''''
,:' i'
t, .
'I;'¡¡."",Î_'
,
ï:é~ co, ..(;,:'1
{-.. /) , /."-r';r~,'
..., .,"-.. :¡ ¡ ,. /'.....
4S
)~_'" (1,~""
l~ ,,¡.;:.. ~j< ¿
,
/ .:.. ,'", ,~:,
,J,1--
"l'-I'~ l' h."
I /Tr..._ ¡ &'...tA"_".I _m,
q II¡ A/f';)
TOTAL
ACREAGE
4 """"'1,'
, µLit",:<
,
/, ~ ~~~,I>:,>:) :'¿; <1
WETLANDS PRESENT
YES
¡/ NO
j.
PRESENT ZONING
(ij T,
-'1.,L,
, i ,
i r ,,~,' ,,(
REQUESTED
ZONING
ILi /A
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
/),.)/':,r{,t
,.,/:~",
i '".~.
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST -/(J /,i/:i:" i;¡";.) j i [(~ ,'(:;;.,.-::,/r:: ,J:." J/"
:/ /" (' ,J ~_',i /1/ ,,;;. ii'i' ¿
1>"'1, Ii,: i'
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or dearly 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 name 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 Owner's 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 infonned 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 I have submitted are true and correct 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.
~~~h~
¿:1,#,t-/ __
Signature of ApPíicant ~ ~ ~ .
~1-
SigrÍ re of Fee Owner
/cJ ¡; c;- / cJ ~
. Date
Date
Application Received on ¡Of J5/0tf
Fee Paid I ~4S G~
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 applicanfs address.
SCANNED
M~-/·.····.····.. :.,.....
¡' . .' ,
:,,~ (~
m
I,',
~> -- ,- \]
, _!
:: .. ...'....
..--...........--- -"..--
URBAN PLANNING
ARCHITECTURE
INTERIOR DESIGN
CONSULTING
MILO ARClIlTFCTlJRF CìROlJP, INC
October 22,2004
To: Robert Generous, Planning
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
From: Mika Milo, AlA
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 corner 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 Desiqn 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 façade 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 A 144 San Diego, California 92123 Phone: (858) 565-8485 Fax: (858) 565-8203 E-mail: mag@magarch.com
~
c -
-
-- GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD
~ -~- ---j
.
?i. ~
. NEW PROPOSED
RETAIL BUILDING
C C
Y JTITTTIT
' ¡ Ii, i i
VICINITY MAP U ~
' ,
SCALE: 1" = 200'·0' 0 200' .00' J( :UP
II
I
I BASI'
\ _~n
LOT 'B', DEVELOPMENT DATA ~ -
REA 58656 SF 11 35 Acresì
NG AREA
FOOTPR!NT: 17 01\3 SF 1
S FLOOR AREA
GROUND FLOOR 16518 SF
MEZINEE LEVEL: 1 669 SF
TOTAL: 181R8SF
MOED: 87 S1 ALLS -
~ /"
WETLAND /
SITE PLAN NORTH 8)
-
- - -
Village on the Ponds . Chanhassen, Minnesota SCALE: 1" = 30'·0' 0 " "
.......... -
g~m
YILO iRCB1TECTUJ!! GROUP, INC.
OCT 25, 2004
,
,
,
M~~
MIl.Q ARCHITECTURE GROUP, lNC
SEPT 30, 2004
--- T- -- -- -- -- --- -- -- -r- -
I
RETAIL ~
I
~
I - -
~ -- -- --,-- ----
L---
-----¡
-."'-------------.- ,._-~-
I-==- - -- -- -- -- -- -".---
----:::J
,.-.
-
-
'.--
-
-~
~
--, -----//
~
-~ ~-~-~-,,-,"-r~
~ ~
COOP RETAIL, DETAIL SITE PLAN ---
----~- -"'--~'-~-'--~----' ---~_.__.-
,
NORTH
~_..---
Village on the Ponds . Chanhassen, Minnesota SCALE: 1/32" = 1'·0 ==
·
"/i~'ì
~
~
~,~
.,---- .
=/l~.~. ~
I ,~"" !
L.... I! coow '-
r-"~""
I . I:=JiLVGLvU::U/r
"µ' _,..~.",' I
uE== ' !
,I ~ -',-
~ ~'
m I!"
""' ' c;;:¡
", 'I ;oJ
__ '""" ,:;; I,' ,~."fh,' '
è-H K ;+t! ~ ¿
§ ~ ijSI~i Fr,,' .
~_ ,I' ' ~m
- - --' " ,': .
, . ~
I I ! I _®_f::.:.~
~.'~--Z I
~_,' " '" I ¡, '/ ' W'
I I I I / / /'f J
_ iEJJ ' ' 1(-
m ' (,_ " ' h
rll,"" " -I i!l '
,'----- -=-_ _ _ _ _ J /;,-:"
~ ~ ~ ~ n; F\ì~ ¡,¡¡;~)
,~ '.-e ~ E'3 E;' ull ~
d-~~
~ ~
I
17]:
I.~,!
I~I
~
I
g~~
MILO ARCHITECTURE GROUP. [NC
SEPT 30, 2004
'2C
/~
~)
- \J__j
NORTH
1" = 20'-0'
SCALE
COOP RETAil, PLAN
Village on the Ponds . Chanhassen, Minnesota
-......:
.... U/Tlv£ £4Sì
--..-
~.-------~ ------
///'
I
! _ ~ -
I
l,--
T
I
If
. I
~~
I~
I i ~
"". ~
(
~í-'".
( 0
\"'-"
''''~)O
r
r·
I
I
II:.. !".
=.J,
2J
~-----j I
_ n_~¡i
[-_J-_rL
_n -// /11 ,
=:=-,./ r
SJJcL.~Ar11111111 .//!
dJJlllim
/o-~rc ~-¡
I
\~t~
------"--/
ô
'\
\
\
,
(,~--~--
/
ROOF PLAN
M·IA'.;r,..·
InlU
'. '1-:' !1r!::'11U ':]'011', 1:-',
OCT 15, 2004
~-
1" = 10'-0'
SCALE
Minnesota
Chanhassen
.
the Ponds
Village on
~~c7- ~
¡=-
I
:í
I
SCHED LE
ëJLAf\li
1
S;'r"'b<J( Sç;eriyê:: Nc"'€' I:Or"Or'C)n "Jc-e ?1Q.'''d:i~ç ~ize
ra- 0 P¡.....~S "'''S'';o LN" '>1,,;"'r; S<çl
0 Tcx,"s x ~E'd;:' 7(h..r-:c~ Ye" 5-(;0'
0 _'';'''P''''''''::' ~hir'1er',SI5 '$""0 GreE'n $¿>:> Gre;>~ 5-[0.1
2':1 0 _unipervs ,-,o,,-;zc'-,tcl,s 'f-L'ghes -1"<""'::"''" 5-Gcl
(:::"','"12'"
L'
1
SCier-tit;:: No"'£'
Sjr'rgil re ~ICU
,,,"'ecl
+
<c) D
(11: p,j,sç:;;.,ythws F:o.
~
- (4) M;s'~
J-Gr.l
(9) S,;ç¡.rdcr
!-G~,
,IT,
I
I
I
I
So'en"';;-;c 1\'0.["'.'" ~.crw S:ZE'
,. "1e~E'rocc.l!is Hyper;c"1 '-Go
I" ;(-.Óoeckic GoldS"';ru", !RedbeC"'t. : Gc.
N. s:nE''''.SIS p"rpur:lscenS I N,.sc·:tr"th....s ;- c"'e G'-o.S5 ¡-Gc,
9 f-.'ostc $ t:l"(;j,::rd St;:.r_Clç.r;::o ,",cst:;. j-GI)
Cà
M~~
W1LO ARCB1T!mJRE GROUP. INC.
OCT 25, 2004
/
I
I
I
I
(5~
y
,$j2>
'~' ~"
,,~;Z~ /
~,~~ /
, 0,~ ./
51:6c~~gre,¡jcc,'p,c" /
IdD'd B "0'" ,/
I
/
;"
2
S"6 31"
"'yp<;>...,ç¡
Bus;'"
NORTH6)
=
(])
1'-0'
mJ
1/16'
SCALE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
r,
='-':1",-I;/,S¡-<ôC-. Sc:'e"1;;f;c ko."Oe 1::0'"1",8" NQ."1e PI:;.r\1:i"'9 SZE'
4 C Cor.-,,,:,; ::.lbo. 'Bo.i'.ho.lo' ¡',;o."y -01:;. C::'Ç"C:OCl ]-[;0.'
5 W HydrC"geǡ ::.rbores::"ers 'Anr'.lcelle Anno.bel:e hyd..-o.--,ge::. J-Gc.1
2' 0 Sp'..-::.ea. r1,ppon,cc. '$"-,OW",Qu",)' S"O",",Cu"O S;:;·rec. J-Gc.l
,0 ::ie"vilio. ',cn1Cer'Ç¡ Bus" !-o"eys-,:::'<,e 2-Gc.l
,0
s
A:,: 0:0"";'1
:: çhMoçeO 0
"'I::.","t;--; Sci she': be c. ' c
p',Ç."1;5 5hc~¡ i::e çl)c:....c:.n,ee:;. ;cçr o"e iec' êre ç¡c.te ::;:ç acc;e:::;":O-'-::e 'õ
oc ho.,1 '-120:0-::2 sJec') 0'" :;.o.ëHlçf?d :::.": no O-:;.ci;-I;;ç'-'Q; ::::st :::;
'co :Jençç¡
, ce stc.-<ed ::.nci wrcpped ::.S s oe:::.!,s
In sc:;. ::....E'?S rc '.Ie Cl ~. deep l¡:jed 0.0....'" ",j,cr "':1'r":<,"'O-'^'
oe ::-..I":u,'-el) ::."d
hcll wo.:er 0' S'".-fc:::<?
~pE'S ç...eote... t'lCr ,- src.l ce
the 1Ç¡"'Clsc:o.pe c:ortrcc:or
ir1c<,c:c1;ed c.s ..-ece b::.--;" r".V:::"- ,-e::e",,¡e 0. 4'
over fiter Çoor cove-- o...ecs s'^Ç¡1 ...ec:e;v'e 0 2
;;he--e sod and r""icr touc" shai v:ell p'Ol, eage... Ç¡S snowt1 de":O-
'9 :slClncis :)v!?... beds 5'10.11 "1ave G. ",;"ir"ur>1 of l' d.
;t1stG.I',ed "'esoo"s bdii;y of "'er"o\-E' Clny e
de!:;"";s o.nd so; ;... -:hese c...eos
c": s,,<::s'tit'.J-tions ",ust úe Q:J~"'oved by ,,",ner çenerç¡( CCr":r~H::":or 0'" ~0rDSCQpe
or 1;0 -"'stC1Uo.,ior'1
LANDSCAPE PLAN
Village on the Ponds . Chanhassen, Minnesota
---L~~--
--~I----~ -----
¡ TENANT
I'
I
WEST
,
"
!
M'AG
1:1,lf:r¡:!!rn¡i¡'. 1'. ]j,f
OCT 15, 2004
NORTH
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0
-'c--
.
---
ELEVATIONS
.
Village on the Ponds . Chanhassen, Minnesota
NOli .0:9 2004
.
Villages on the Ponds Food Coop
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Traffic Impact Analysis
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Ri~~r~G\J:~;ë! -
Prepared for:
City of Chanhassen
ENGINEERING DEPT
November 2004
~ - r1I Kimley-Horn
~-, , and Associates, Inc.
Traffic Impact Analysis
for
Villages on the Ponds Food Coop
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Prepared for:
City of Chanhassen
Prepared by:
Kimley-Hom 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
11/05/20001
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Project Background .
2.1 Related Traffic Studies
2.2 Study Area
2.3 Existing Conditions and Traffic.
3.0 Traffic Generation
4.0 Traffic Distribution .
5.0 Projected Traffic Volumes.
5.1 Historic Traffic Growth
5.2 Total Traffic .
6.0 Traffic Analysis.
7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations.
Appendix
1
3
3
3
3
5
7
9
9
9
12
15
Villages on the Ponds Food Coop
Il/OS/2IJ04
1.0 Introduction
Kimley-Hom and Associates was retained by the City of Chanhassen to perfonn a traffic analysis
at the intersection of Great Plains Boulevard/Lake 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 time line 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
build-out and 20 1 0 build-out. The 2007 build-out scenario evaluates traffic conditions when only
the Food Coop is completed. The 2010 build-out 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
..c:
-e
o
z
-
-:.-1
-
J
~ ;t
Legend
~ ·Proposed Development
o -Study Intersection
........--n
~_r ,
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Villages on the Ponds Food Coop
Chanhassen, MN
Study Area
FIGURE
1
Villages on the PonJs FooJ Coop
11/1J5/2lK14
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 EasUPond Promenade. The primary
purpose of this study is to detennine 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 EasUPond Promenade
Intersections
· Great Plains Boulevard/Lake Drive EasUPond Promenade
2.3 Existing Conditions and Traffic
The intersection of Great Plains Boulevard/Lake Drive East is currently two-way stop controlled,
with free-now conditions on the Great Plains Boulevard approaches to the intersection.
AM and PM peak hour weekday turning movement counts were perfonned by Kimley-Horn 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 Drive on
October 2S and 26, 2004. The daily traffic volume data was aggregated in IS-minute intervals.
Page 3
1:J
>
ã3
VI
c::
'iij
ã:
.....
I1J
E:!
l:J
Pond Promenade
JJl
-+
¡;;--OM
~~~
a> <X) '"
'" N '"
Pond Promenade
47 (37)
20 (10)
4 (7)
Legend
-+--- Traffic Volumes - Weekday AM (Weekday PM)
........-n
...... _ U
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
"-
r
1:J
>
ã3
VI
.£
I1J
ã:
.....
I1J
Q)
'--
l:J
"-- 29 (89)
-+--- 20 (24)
r- 56 (177)
ì i (
éD<O
õ;'~~
~ .".
Ii') Ii') .".
<D '"
Villages on the Ponds Food Coop
Chanhassen, MN
LaKe Drive East
Legend
Î
J::
t
o
z
-+--- Existing Lane Geometry
o Unsignalized Intersection
LaKe Drive East
Existing Lane Geometry
and Weekday AM and
PM Peak Hour Turning
Movement Volumes
Î
J::
t
o
z
FIGURE
2
Villages on the Ponds Fooo Coop
11/05/2004
3.0 Traffic Generation
Traffic generation potential for the proposed development was determined using traffic
generation rates published in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE], 7th
Edition, 2003).
Table I summarizes the estimated traffic generation potential for the proposed development.
Table I-Proposed Development Trip Generation
Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ITECode 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 Buildinq 30,000 sf 528 63 9 72 19 93 112
710 General Office Building 20,000 sf 386 46 6 52 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 42
230 Residential Condominium 40 units 295 4 21 25 19 9 28
Total New Trips 7178 366 258 624 446 625 1071
Specitìc 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 tàcilities
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
Villages on the Ponds 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
ViU"ge, on the PonJ, FooJ Coop
11/05/2004
4.0 Traffic Distribution
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 trom
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 ofTH 5
· 5% to/from east Lake Drive
· 5% to/from Market Boulevard north ofTH 5
Site traffic distribution is shown in Figure 3.
Page 7
Lake Drive East
-0
>
ã)
Vl
.s
rc
ã:
-::f?
o
o
9-f
....;
V1
c:
ïü
::E
N
o
-::f?
o
Î
..c
t
o
z
~=~
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Villages on the Ponds Food Coop
Chanhassen, MN
FIGURE
3
Site Traffic Distribution
Villages on the Ponds Food (oop
11 j05/2üO-!
5.0 Projected Traffic Volumes
5.1 Historic Traffic Growth
Historic traffic growth is the increase in the volume of traffic due to usage increases and non-
specitic 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 detennined 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 N icollet 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 Ai\1 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
_ã
~ r- ..,.
..,. ..,. ~
<0 --
:::::¡::,:--o
«1 ~-
--0
0> 0 ..,.
«1 cry ~
Pond Promenade
JJl
Site traffic includes only super market trips from
Table 1 that are distributed through the intersection
Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive East.
47 (4) [511~
20 (0) [20r---+
4(0)[4]~
__MN
«1 N ~
t::.~~
Oô)O
N «1-
--N
«1..,. ~
«1 <0 ~
Legend
Pond Promenade
37 (19) [56] ~
10 (0) [101--+
7(0)[7]~
'4-- PM Traffic Volumes - Background (Site) [Total]
-a
>
ã5
U'I
c:
ë~
ë:
"'-'
ro
( )
'-
19
"'-- 29 (0) [29]
'4-- 20 (0) [20J
r- 64 (2) [66]
ì ir
~~
..". <0
~.2?.~
t!?.c;:--
5'.::..-
~ <::>
<r) ..". <0
co '"
-a
>
ã5
U'I
.~
ro
ë:
"'-'
ro
( )
'-
19
"'-- 100 (0) [100]
'4-- 24 (0) [24]
r- 220 (6) [226]
ìir
;;:,
cry
~.::.ê)
~F:::'.2?.
ê'~@
co~;Z
~=~
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Villages on the Ponds Food Coop
Chanhassen, MN
Î
..r::
1:
o
z
Lake Ori\Je East
Legend
'4-- AM Traffic Volumes - Background (Site) [Total]
Lake Orive East
Site traffic includes only super market trips from
Table 1 that are distributed through the intersection
Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive East.
2007 Weekday AM
and PM Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
FIGURE
4
Site traffic includes all site generated tnps from
Table 1 that are distributed through the intersection
Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive East.
Legend
1-- PM Traffic Volumes· Background (Site) [Total]
,.....--n
~_'~J
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
..-.(;1_
'"" <:0 0
..,. ~ ..,.
::.::::~
..,. '" 0
<:0 ~ ~
~~o
cr> N..,.
'" '"" ~
Pond Promenade
JJl
>:J
>
ã5
VI
c:
ïti
ë:
...,
<U
Q)
'-
~
~
+--
r-
ìfr
¡:::¡
O'>~
':::'<0
li)N~
-0;::::-
o~-
~ <:>
~gæ
>:J
>
ã5
VI
c:
ï'ti
ë:
...,
<U
Q)
'-
~
~
+--
r-
ì f r
Ei;;o
~<:>
i:õ"Õ)~
:::::-æ~
2.-~
00 «> ..".
00 00
47 (77) [1241----"
20 (6) [26r-+
4(O)(4]~
:;;'õ=J_
r-- '" N
~ N ~
--~
ã)"õ)=:
:::~s.
~-N
'" 0 ~
'" r-- ~
Pond Promenade
37 (130) [167]----"
10 (10) [20]---+
7(0)[7]~
Villages on the Ponds Food Coop
Chanhassen, MN
Î
.s:::
"t:
o
z
LaKe Drive East
Legend
+-- AM Traffic Volumes· Background (Site) [Total]
LaKe Drive East
Site traffic includes all site generated trips from
Table 1 that are distnbuted through the intersection
Great Plains Boulevard and Lake Drive East.
2010 Weekday AM
and PM Peak Hour
Traffic Volumes
FIGURE
5
Vilbges on [he PonJs FooJ Coop
11/05/2004
6.0 Traffic Analysis
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
· 20IO no build
· 2010 with the proposed development
Analyses were completed to determine the operating characteristics of the study area intersection
and roadways using RCS 4.le, 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) I5-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-turn lane, one exclusive
through lane, and one exclusive right-turn 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-turn lane
· Lake Drive East (westbound)--one shared through and left-turn lane and one exclusive
right-turn lane
· Pond Promenade (eastbound)--{me shared through, right-turn, and left-turn lane
Page 12
Villages on the PonJ, pootl Coop
11/05/2004
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.fLake Drive East-Two-Way Stopped Control Approach LOS
Weekday AM Peak. Hour LOS Weekday PM Peak Hour LOS
Year, (delay) (delay)
Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound
2004
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 micro simulation 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
Villages on the Ponos Fooo Coop
11/05/2004
Table 3-Great Plains BoulevardlLake Drive East - All-Way Stop Approach LOS
I
Year
: Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
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 95th 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 mtersections ofTH 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 FooJ Coop
11/05/200+
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-turn lane.
· All-way stopped control is required under the 20 I 0 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
Villages on the Ponus FooU Coop
11/05/2004
Appendi-x
Page 16
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 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
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volumes and Adjustments
Northbound
2 3
T R
65
0.90
72
southbound
4 5 6
L T R
55 28 59
0.90 0.90 0.90
61 31 65
2
/
No
1 1 1
L T R
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
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
0.90
5
2
Undivided
244
0.90
271
o 1
LT
No
1
R
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
No
Westbound
789
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 ( %) 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 61 84 32 78
C (m) (vph) 1498 1216 607 990 501
v/c 0.00 0.05 0.14 0.03 0.16
95% queue length 0.01 0.16 0.48 0.10 0.55
Control Delay 7.4 8.1 11. 9 8.8 13.5
LOS A A B A B
Approach Delay 11. 0 13.5
Approach LOS B B
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 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
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volumes and Adjustments
Northbound
2 3
T R
8
0.90
8
2
Undivided
Southbound
4 5 6
L T R
73 60 55
0.90 0.90 0.90
81 66 61
2
/
No
1 1 1
L T R
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
L T R
37 10 7
0.90 0.90 0.90
41 11 7
2 2 2
0
/ No /
0 1 0
LTR
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type/Storage
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
66
0.90
73
76
0.90
84
o 1
LT
No
1
R
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
No
Westbound
7 8 9
L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent G~ade (%)
Flared Approach:
Lanes
Configuration
177
0.90
196
2
24
0.90
26
2
o
89
0.90
98
2
Exists?/Storage
o
LT
1 1
R
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 81 222 98 59
C(m) (vph) 1459 1423 551 989 490
v/c 0.01 0.06 0.40 0.10 0.12
95% queue length 0.02 0.18 1. 93 0.33 0.41
Control Delay 7.5 7.7 15.9 9.0 13.4
LOS A A C A B
Approach Delay 13.8 13.4
Approach LOS B B
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 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
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volumes and Adjustments
Northbound
2 3
T R
5
0.90
5
2
Undivided
260
0.90
288
Southbound
4 5 6
L T R
140 30 59
0.90 0.90 0.90
155 33 65
2
/
No
1 1 1
L T R
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
L T R
47 20 4
0.90 0.90 0.90
52 22 4
2 2 2
0
/ No /
0 1 0
LTR
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type/Storage
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
84
0.90
93
o 1
LT
No
1
R
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
No
Westbound
7 8 9
L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%)
Flared Approach:
Lanes
Configuration
64
0.90
71
2
20
0.90
22
2
o
29
0.90
32
2
Exists?/Storage
o
LT
1 1
R
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 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: Unsignalized Intersections Release 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
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volumes and Adjustments
Northbound
2 3
T R
78
0.90
86
Southbound
4 5 6
L T R
112 64 55
0.90 0.90 0.90
124 71 61
2
/
No
1 1 1
L T R
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
L T R
37 10 7
0.90 0.90 0.90
41 11 7
2 2 2
0
/ No /
0 1 0
LTR
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type/Storage
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
8
0.90
8
2
Undivided
84
0.90
93
o 1
LT
No
1
R
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
No
Westbound
789
L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
P~rc2nt Grade (%)
Flared Approach:
Lánes
Configuration
220
0.90
244
2
24
0.90
26
2
o
100
0.90
111
2
Exists?/Storage
o
LT
1 1
R
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) 1453 13 97 460 973 398
v/c 0.01 0.09 0.59 0.11 0.15
95% queue length 0.02 0.29 3.69 0.38 0.52
Control Delay 7.5 7.8 23.4 9.2 15.6
LOS A A C A C
Approach Delay 19.2 15.6
Approach LOS C C
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 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
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volumes and Adjustments
Northbound
2 3
T R
94
0.90
104
Southbound
4 5 6
L T R
140 47 64
0.90 0.90 0.90
155 52 71
2
/
No
1 1 1
L T R
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
L T R
51 20 4
0.90 0.90 0.90
56 22 4
2 2 2
0
/ No /
0 1 0
LTR
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type/Storage
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
5
0.90
5
2
Undivided
261
0.90
290
o 1
LT
No
1
R
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
No
Westbound
7 8 9
L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%)
Flared Approach:
Lanes
Configuration
66
0.90
73
2
20
0.90
22
2
o
29
0.90
32
2
Exists?/Storage
o
LT
1 1
R
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 95 32 82
C (m) (vph) 1464 1165 389 951 319
v/e 0.00 0.13 0.24 0.03 0.26
95% queue length 0.01 0.46 0.95 0.10 1. 00
Control Delay 7.5 8.6 17.2 8.9 20.1
LOS A A C A C
Approach Delay 15.1 20.1
Approach LOS C C
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 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
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volumes and Adjustments
Northbound
2 3
T R
8
0.90
8
2
Undivided
Southbound
4 5 6
L T R
112 123 75
0.90 0.90 0.90
124 136 83
2
/
No
1 1 1
L T R
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
L T R
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type/Storage
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
135
0.90
150
90
0.90
100
o 1
LT
No
1
R
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
No
Westbound
789
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 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) 8 124 277 111 80
C(m) (vph) 1350 1316 368 896 311
v/c 0.01 0.09 0.75 0.12 0.26
95% queue length 0.02 0.31 5.98 0.42 1. 00
Control Delay 7.7 8.0 39.2 9.6 20.5
LOS A A E A C
Approach Delay 30.7 20.5
Approach LOS D C
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 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 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
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volumes and Adjustments
Northbound
2 3
T R
5
0.90
5
2
Undivided
260
0.90
288
Southbound
4 5 6
L T R
140 32 59
0.90 0.90 0.90
155 35 65
2
/
No
1 1 1
L T R
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
L T R
47 20 4
0.90 0.90 0.90
52 22 4
2 2 2
0
/ No /
0 1 0
LTR
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type/Storage
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
90
0.90
100
o 1
LT
No
1
R
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
No
Westbound
789
L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%)
Flared Approach:
Lanes
Configuration
64
0.90
71
2
20
0.90
22
2
o
29
0.90
32
2
Exists?/Storage
o
LT
1 1
R
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 93 32 78
C(m) (vph) 1493 1170 404 956 331
v/c 0.00 0.13 0.23 0.03 0.24
95% queue length 0.01 0.46 0.88 0.10 0.90
Control Delay 7.4 8.5 16.6 8.9 19.2
LOS A A C A C
Approach Delay 14.6 19.2
Approach LOS B C
HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 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 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
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volumes and Adjustments
Northbound
2 3
T R
85
0.90
94
Southbound
4 5 6
L T R
112 70 55
0.90 0.90 0.90
124 77 61
2
/
No
1 1 1
L T R
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
L T R
37 10 7
0.90 0.90 0.90
41 11 7
2 2 2
0
/ No /
0 1 0
LTR
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type/Storage
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
8
0.90
8
2
Undivided
84
0.90
93
o 1
LT
No
1
R
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
No
Westbound
7 8 9
L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%)
Flared Approach:
Lanes
Configuration
220
0.90
244
2
24
0.90
26
2
o
100
0.90
III
2
Exists?/Storage
o
LT
1 1
R
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
95% 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: Unsignalized Intersections Release 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
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volumes and Adjustments
Northbound
2 3
T R
192
0.90
213
Southbound
4 5 6
L T R
140 183 143
0.90 0.90 0.90
155 203 158
2
/
No
1 1 1
L T R
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
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
0.90
5
2
Undivided
267
0.90
296
o 1
LT
No
1
R
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
No
westbound
7 8 9
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 2.48 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: unsignalized Intersections Release 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
Major Street:
Vehicle
Approach
Movement 1
L
Volumes and Adjustments
Northbound
2 3
T R
8
0.90
8
2
Undivided
Southbound
4 5 6
L T R
112 259 174
0.90 0.90 0.90
124 287 193
2
/
No
1 1 1
L T R
No
Eastbound
10 11 12
L T R
167 20 7
0.90 0.90 0.90
185 22 7
2 2 2
0
/ No /
0 1 0
LTR
Volume
Peak-Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Median Type/Storage
RT Channelized?
Lanes
Configuration
Upstream Signal?
354
0.90
393
105
0.90
116
o 1
LT
No
1
R
Minor Street: Approach
Movement
No
Westbound
789
L T R
Volume
Peak Hour Factor, PHF
Hourly Flow Rate, HFR
Percent Heavy Vehicles
Percent Grade (%)
Flared Approach:
Lanes
Configuration
234
0.90
260
2
33
0.90
36
2
o
100
0.90
111
2
Exists?/Storage
o
LT
1 1
R
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
Baseline
3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Performance by movement
RNS: 78
11/8/2004
EBL
0.2
5.7
109
"'EST·
0.1
7.6
31
EBR
0.0
2.7
4
WB[
0.1
7.3
67
'WST""WBR' 7NBL
0.1 0.0 0.0
10.5 3.7 4.5
29 36 4
"NBT
0.4
7.3
198
'ÑBR')\:'.SB[/''~'SBT:·,:SBR
0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2
5.1 7.2 7.8 4.5
283 128 190 164
Total Delay (hr)
Delay / Veh (s)
Vehicles Entered
3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Performance
.'tf'~....:~:.:, '::-,"x+\":- --:~""t:,::~"\¡~",,-,, "":"'~ :':;~~>""'~~~'1\~~~;:,":C;~~~:':"i'~?""::-:':~t:~:;-;::~' ;
'""~'EB""'"
0.2
6.0
144
,... WB·'P··~)·"·Ns'·,');·
0.3 0.8
7.0 6.0
132 485
SB -"···~"-:Tòtäl~'"1y7~171:~;Ã,~:'1!
0.9 2.2
6.6 6.3
482 1243
Total Delay (hr)
Delay / Veh (5)
Vehicles Entered
Total Network Performance
Total Delay (hr)
Delay / Veh (s)
Vehicles Entered
2.9
8.4
1244
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
kimleylvl7 -ff51
AM AWSC 2010 Build
Baseline
Intersection: 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd.
RNS: 78
11/8/2004
Môvemê'nt;- ~,':'"O\
Directions Served
Maximum Oueue (ft)
Average Oueue (ft)
95th Oueue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Oueuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Oueuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Bend
""";EB
LTR
82
38
68
404
""WB WS ,., NB -'ÑS<' \',' BS"7\'SB
LT R LT TR T L
88 51 112 120 32 73
39 20 45 65 1 42
66 47 79 92 10 62
463 48 48 291
0.05 0.13
0 0
75 175
0.00
0
·""/'$B··::~'t":'F<SB' ""'.~~:}0t:T';~~i"~~;,"~'--XC{i'!0,:\-7jfs;:~~:J
T R
95 69
44 41
75 60
356
125
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Oueue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Oueuing Penalty (veh)
Newark Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
kimleylvl7 -ff51
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
AM AWSC 2010 Build
Baseline
3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Performance by movement
RNS: 91
11/8/2004
c. ''fe¡' r:BL :EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL c. NBTFTNBR7:'TSBL~<SBT" "SBR
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 I 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
'}~~>:"~:<:':'-:;>Þ;""":;":~~'''''7''':>''::--''' " "'f^M'>:;"'~;~';~~;''t~ :!"":""""~~~7·:""'''''' ":'
':v ~~'::"",,' .~jh
'WB""
0.2
7.1
118
c '-"-NEf' "TO ::: SB"'cv·"~':7róta ';~;:';1Tr!';~~"'~T-:::::':-~1
0.8 0.9 2.1
5.8 6.9 6.3
482 450 1206
Total Delay (hr)
Delay / Veh (s)
Vehicles Entered
EB
0.2
5.1
156
Total Network Performance
Total Delay (hr)
Delay I Veh (s)
Vehicles Entered
2.8
8.3
1208
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
kimleylvl7 -ff51
AM AWSC 2010 Build
Baseline
RNS: 91
11/8/2004
Intersection: 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd.
Movemenf>"?;
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Oueue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Oueuing Penalty (veh)
""h~,^' EB'
LTR
68
38
61
404
Intersection: 5: Bend
"Ws
LT
87
41
68
463
0.01
o
>.WB"T\NB '. '.
R LT
50 74
19 46
47 71
48
0.05
o
75
Nä
TR
112
61
94
48
0.11
o
'"B5''''\¡'1' SB -. ...
T L
50 70
2 43
17 65
291
175
,SB
T
90
48
73
356
;. ~"SB ...
R
54
36
51
,.."~'~":: ·'!'~~·:!~~\'·::-:::'~'~~:~0{~li~~::t·~~;~01r?1
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Oueue (ft)
95th Oueue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Oueuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Oueuing Penalty (veh)
Nework Summary
Network wide Oueuing Penalty: 0
125
kimleylvl7 -ff51
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
AM AWSC 2010 Build
Baseline
3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Performance by movement
RNS: 4
11/8/2004
EBL
0.2
5.1
124
EBT
0.0
4.7
27
'EBR
0.0
4.7
2
WBL
0.2
7.0
78
WBT 'WBR
0.1 0.0
8.8 3.6
26 21
NBC7"NBT
0,0 0.4
6.4 7.0
3 185
"'NBR
0.4
5.0
279
'~'SBL
0.3
7.7
139
. "SBT,T' SBR
0.4 0.2
8.1 4.6
1 84 1 77
Total Delay (hr)
Delay / Veh (5)
Vehicles Entered
3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Performance
-;,r~:''''c~_'+'~'t~~f'~i~~-'~~<'''--'''': ~",'~: ~:,,,:'~-':'-'::"-':1-;'
.,..,.... .....,..:..,....,..:.,...,,". '. '0_'
,.-><.-.,.^,;'<.:_:.,.".,:."~",.- --."
·~·~-·EB ,-
0.2
5.0
153
.. WB '"":'~~~NEf"" "'·~'~~·SB~7~::::Tòtár;:-:-;~""'7·:~·-7':'~~-:"'r":-:;
0.2 0.8 0.9 2.1
6.8 5.8 6.7 6.2
125 467 500 1245
Total Delay (hr)
Delay I Veh (5)
Vehicles Entered
Total Network Performance
Total Delay (hr)
Delay / Veh (s)
Vehicles Entered
2.8
8.1
1245
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
kimleylvl7 -ff51
AM AWSC 2010 Build
Baseline
RNS: 4
11/8/2004
Intersection: 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd.
Movement'
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Oueue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Oueuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Bend
EB '
LTR
55
34
51
404
"WB
LT
71
38
61
463
0.00
o
WB '{;NB NB > ";':'B5 SB ',·,'SB "'SB
R LT TR T L T R
87 71 108 32 70 70 72
20 42 62 1 43 43 40
53 62 95 11 62 63 62
48 48 291 356
0.03 0.13
0 0
75 175 125
0.00
0
,"-?':~<\'\'i;,;L:>', _:'--'t-:<:ti;'':;;';'-:''t~~_~ --::~t~<~'-"'~;~J
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Oueue (ft)
95th Oueue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Oueuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Newark Summary
Network wide Oueuing Penalty: 0
kimleylvl7-ff51
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
AM AWSC 2010 Build
Baseline
3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Performance by movement
RNS: 53
11/8/2004
"EBC'"EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL . "NBT ("NBR''?'SBL .- SBT ~. SBR
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 I 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
~:<-'%t'<'1'~>:^ . -_r,*,,""~',,;,'r":</'~~':'->"'-:·'"
, .'^ 'r' ';'- ~ :::- ,".' .,....'.:' . EB' .. '.
0.2
5.3
149
.. 'wEf'7:ë';'G"'''NB''>~':
0.2 0.7
5.4 5.7
133 462
. . '~><: SB ':""""'-:Tötaf"~~'7::;fT:~':T:-'::":': ~
Total Delay (hr)
Delay / Veh (s)
Vehicles Entered
0.8 2.0
6.6 6.0
462 1206
Total Network Performance
(hr)
Delay / Veh (s)
Vehicles Entered
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
kimleylvl7-ff51
AM AWSC 2010 Build
Baseline
RNS: 53
11/8/2004
Intersection: 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd.
Movement" ~
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Oueuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Oueuing Penalty (veh)
EB
LTR
88
40
67
404
WB" WB NB
LT R LT
54 51 76
35 24 45
48 48 67
463 48
0.04
0
75
Newark Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
NB
TR
113
63
100
48
0.11
o
;nSB
L
72
42
66
175
>:,''"::~:S~T)Xf}~7:~2',t'j:'2~:' j}~:: /".'<j
." 'SB r2;>SB
T R
89 53
45 36
72 52
356
125
kimleylvl7 -ff51
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
AM AWSC 2010 Build
Baseline
3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Performance by movement
RNS: 13
11/8/2004
'ESL' . EST , EBR .c WBl WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR'''''SBt'::\''SBT''f'SBR
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
~:'·'7:",:,::,~,:",~(,Y"~t=' ': ..,':'t;;í·~::~~~~'-t""'~';.'-rc~~; ,,<,
,. -,' ···_'...····N". -', ........,...._,..,... """',--'
~:' «>:',"',,",./~:,T'~n~;yy"~~;'·;"""
EB;"'>";' Ws
0.2 0.2
5.1 6.2
1 59 132
~"ë:'1"'-:NB
0.7
5.5
485
"';-""0"-'" ,-
"'·'·-Tõtãr·".7~~~::-":~~'·~~
Total Delay (hr)
Delay / Veh (s)
Vehicles Entered
'SB
0.8
6.4
446
2.0
5.9
1222
Total Network Performance
Delay (hr)
Delay / Veh (s)
Vehicles Entered
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
kimleylvl7 -ff51
AM AWSC 2010 Build
Baseline
Intersection: 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd.
RNS: 13
11/8/2004
Movement ",.' i',h'
Directions Served
Maximum Oueue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Oueue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Bend
EB
LTR
68
38
62
404
,WB
LT
54
38
55
463
WB
R
50
21
46
NB
LT
117
43
74
48
0.04
o
75
NB
TR
92
62
89
48
0.12
o
. B5
T
44
2
18
291
'··~-SB.\~,,'\;.~~'SB ,<"y:
L T
70 90
40 43
58 68
356
175
SB""
R
55
41
62
125
""":"':::~:'<"':7-'!'''' ".",
"''':z_:~!r::;z''~'1:~
Maximum Oueue (ft)
Average Oueue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Newark Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
kimleylvl7 -ff51
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
PM AWSC 2010 Build
Baseline
RNS: 78
11/8/2004
Total Delay (hr)
Delay / Veh (s)
Vehicles Entered
3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Performance by movement
':=-EBL '''EBT "EBR':WBL":WBT' WBR'·NBC":NBT'NÏ3R"?'SE3t.7~SBT";SE3R
OA 0,1 0.0 0.8 0,1 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.3
8.7 9,2 7.0 12.0 12.4 7.0 7.8 9,7 6.7 9.6 11.7 5.7
183 21 11 225 29 107 4 365 100 112 271 204
3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Performance
""t:t':·~'~7 -'~;::t~F1~'~n£n~T?'''';'~r='::~
';V".":?~"'_'>;-1'*-'~.(""':'.'~'''''''.'-"-,,
."~"W':":" EB"
0.5
8.7
215
····.':~'Y';'·[WB.· '."" ..'(:;·'::T'N B/')'7";~i77'SB"1'1;F7iYTofâ(~i7:\~\~ØT"'¡-$:m~7""?:':q
1.1 1.2 1.5 4.3
10.5 9.1 9.2 9.4
361 469 587 1632
Total Delay (hr)
Delay / Veh (s)
Vehicles Entered
Total Network Performance
Delay / Veh (s)
Vehicles Entered
11.6
1632
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
kimleylvl7 -ff51
PM AWSC 2010 Build
Baseline
Intersection: 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd.
RNS: 78
11/8/2004
M()vémeñf~"T,,':'; .
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Oueue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Oueuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Bend
EB})WB -~~WB
L TR L T R
120 205 101
56 71 45
94 125 92
404 463
75
0.06 0.00
7 1
NB
LT
112
65
97
48
0.14
o
NB':'
TR
118
67
101
48
0.14
o
'BS'''P'SB'>X''SB '7S~ SB-":""Z\:r!i:"'Y;'i-;;'iš'·T?: :7'~;I1
T L T R
187 55 131 147
7 41 61 50
64 58 98 86
291 356
175 125
0.00 0,00
1 0
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Oueue (ft)
95th Oueue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream BlkTime (%) .
Oueuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Nework Summary
Network wide Oueuing Penalty: 9
kimleylvl7 ·ff51
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
PM AWSC 2010 Build
Baseline
3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Performance by movement
RNS: 91
11/8/2004
Total Delay (hr)
Delay / Veh (s)
Vehicles Entered
, EBC
0.4
8.2
163
EBT'
0.0
9.7
17
EBR
0.0
3.7
7
WBL
0.9
13.4
238
WBT ·"WBR·;
0.2 0.2
14.2 8.7
41 100
NBL"
0.0
11.4
7
; NBT""'NBR
1.0 0.1
9.9 5.0
364 102
3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Performance
····SBtY·"S8T·;-S·SBR
0.3 0.8 0.3
10.2 11.1 5.3
109 258 174
Total Delay (hr)
Delay / Veh (s)
Vehicles Entered
Total Network Performance
0.4
8.1
187
1.3
12.2
379
1.2
8.9
473
1.4
9.1
541
4.2
9.7
1580
Total Delay (hr)
Delay / Veh (s)
Vehicles Entered
5.2
11.8
1582
kimleylvl7 -ff51
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
PM AWSC 2010 Build
Baseline
Intersection: 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd.
RNS: 91
11/8/2004
MôvêrilE~nt .~-:7i;{': '
Directions Served
Maximum Oueue (ft)
Average Oueue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Oueuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Bend
~",';- 'EB
LTR
85
50
79
404
"WB
LT
210
79
153
463
0.11
11
75
0.00
1
WB
R
101
49
93
. .... ,~: N B ·"-·N B:,,'
LT TR
112 111
66 61
103 94
48 48
0.15 0.13
o 0
B5"
T
34
1
12
291
,',. ~<_:,·~-::;-~\:r;.t7¡t:!!Y:::~~~
'SB
L
90
41
72
. . SB;...··SB -':: ".",,7"
T R
112 75
60 41
92 62
356
175
125
0.00
o
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Oueue (ft)
95th Oueue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Oueuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Nework Summary
Network wide Oueuing Penalty: 12
kimleylvl7 -ff51
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
PM AWSC 2010 Build
Baseline
RNS: 4
11/8/2004
3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Performance by movement
'.,.,' EBL
0.4
7.7
179
EBT
0.0
9.7
16
EBR
0.0
6.1
6
WBC'WBT
0.7 0.1
10.8 11.2
231 30
"WBR~'NB[
0.2 0.0
6.5 9.4
101 4
"NBT
0.9
9.0
379
.. ·NBR.'·SBL14~"SBr'."SBR.
0.1 0.3 0.8 0.3
5.3 9.5 11.3 5.7
101 112 270 189
Total Delay (hr)
Delay I Veh (s)
Vehicles Entered
3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Performance
ff'?0~:-f;~-·~--'-'7'''''~¿,*:TIt?·~, "~::f"'¡":"":-
. ,'~ -'~:':-'~."'.~':'-"'~ ~::.~..' "EB " ,.
0.4
7.9
201
. ,,-.: WB ."";.~;
1.0
9.6
362
·;NB·;~t~·
1 .1
8.2
484
.'. : SB .", '::·~TõtaÎ '~;~::':~':":"";'''''~:.:}rt'".:,",~ .:q
1.4 4.0
9.1 8.8
571 1618
Total Delay (hr)
Delay / Veh (s)
Vehicles Entered
Total Network Performance
Delay I Veh (s)
Vehicles Entered
10.9
1620
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
kimleylvl7 -ff51
PM AWSC 2010 Build
Baseline
Intersection: 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd.
RNS: 4
11/8/2004
Movemeñr'\· ,'.. '<,<~"'::
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Oueue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Oueuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
c" EB"¿-;'WB.'
L TR L T
105 111
50 66
85 98
404 463
, 'VilB
R
109
44
80
NB "
LT
92
56
79
48
0.11
o
, NB':"fS5' .
TR T
109 45
59 2
97 15
48 291
0.13
o
'SB
L
87
41
68
·~,'.sB':;:'¥ :7~';:i!"I:!:2%:;7i'?î~';7:~~')~;" ~::òTV]
'SB;7
T
131
67
104
356
R
75
47
68
0.04
5
75
0.00
o
175
125
0.00
o
Intersection: 5: Bend
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Oueue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Oueuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Newark Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 5
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
kimleylvl7 -ff51
PM AWSC 2010 Build
Baseline
3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Performance by movement
RNS: 53
11/8/2004
Total Delay (hr)
Delay / Veh (5)
Vehicles Entered
EBl
0.3
7.0
150
'EBT'
0.1
8.9
22
EBR
0.0
5.2
5
'WBL
0.7
11.3
237
"WBT
0.1
13.8
32
WBR
0.2
7.7
102
,.... NBC'
0.0
7.9
6
NBT' NBR'w SB['>'7SBT"'SBR
1.0 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.3
10.1 6.6 10.1 11.9 5.4
350 109 140 245 166
3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Performance
Total Delay (hr)
Delay / Veh (5)
Vehicles Entered
0.4
7.2
177
.~ '-"W B "~'",:",:~w",'NB~ '''::''';~' 5g-" ;:""··~·Totãr:::'~;;;~(·'::".?~::;~"""'i:C:~:~~-·l
1.1 1.2 1.5 4.1
10.5 9.2 9.5 9.4
371 465 551 1564
~Z'0!?~<"¡t"~10~:Yi_-:::"!:'J"t~:;!"-·~·- ·~"':'.-"<;~;r}??~~/"-;1g'f;tj':,r;<;!;::t~;:ft2:,:~-l:B';
Total Network Performance
Total Delay (hr)
Delay / Veh (5)
Vehicles Entered
5.0
11.6
1562
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
kim leylvl7 -ff51
PM AWSC 2010 Build
Baseline
Intersection: 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd.
RNS: 53
11/8/2004
Movernenf";YC ." .
Directions Served
Maximum Oueue (ft)
Average Oueue (ft)
95th Oueue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Oueuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Bend
""'EB
LTR
96
41
73
404
'WB'
LT
172
69
121
463
0.06
7
';WS
R
101
48
89
75
0.00
1
'NS'
LT
93
61
86
48
0.13
o
-~ B5,?>'''SS-~' I'SS ;' ..~ SS 7':::::):;".^"'·""~:·;';'·~'·'o:t~-:':':':ì
NB,
TR
120
69
109
48
0.16
o
T
91
3
31
291
L T
90 142
45 61
72 100
356
175 125
0,01
3
R
72
42
65
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Oueue (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
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
PM AWSC 2010 Build
Baseline
3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Performance by movement
""'::··',:,·,'··:·''-~··:''·:~'·''_''i·':·:'··'''-'-·.:·'''···',·c_."'·'· '''C',
ESe
0.3
6.8
167
Total Delay (hr)
Delay I Veh (s)
Vehicles Entered
'EST
0.0
8.8
17
ESR
0.0
4.6
6
WBL'
0.6
9.5
223
WBT"'WSR
0.1 0.2
11.9 6.3
28 102
'iNBC'~NBT
0.0 0.8
7.4 8.4
5 365
;'NBR"~
0.2
5.6
123
3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd. Intersection Performance
RNS: 13
11/8/2004
,SSLY'SBT';"'SBR
0.3 0.6 0.3
8.3 9.6 5.2
110 233 181
~T7~":?:2~"!:>~~t,.7?::S\~Š?!~"'<~:~71~·/";)\0žt?'~':~:'~'P7~·1~T~~,!~:~7".·"-ËB~-
Total Delay (hr)
Delay I Veh (5)
Vehicles Entered
Total Network Performance
0.4
6.9
190
.':<;" WB
0.9
8.8
353
'~:'"':~:'::'NB ":7 ".:',' 'SB :''''':';'~:Totãr''::~;;'7:;:::0'3':~'t~:;;:¡;¡:ç'S1
1.0 1.1 3.4
7.7 7.8 7.9
493 524 1560
10.0
1559
kimleylvl7-ff51
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
PM AWSC 2010 Build
Baseline
Intersection: 3: Pond Promenade & Great Plains Blvd.
RNS: 13
11/8/2004
Movèrnêrif-'7~.¡J"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 Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Bend
.. EB
LTR
127
46
83
404
WB";TWB"
LT R
146 55
60 37
97 60
463
75
0.03 0.00
3 0
NB
LT
93
60
84
48
0.10
o
NB
TR
110
62
97
48
0.14
o
B5;";r·"'SB'··
T L
167 74
11 39
80 63
291
.)'Y$Brt~·$B'
T R
91 66
51 47
81 62
356
125
';':~"~~;,r:;/:'~~:rr\~r' ~¡<;~--:n1
, '~',. n',' .. . _..' ..' ,
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)
175
Newark Summary
Network wide Oueuing Penalty: 3
kimleylvl7 -ff51
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
22. Traffic. Parking spaces added 2,192. Existing spaces (if project involves expansion) n·
Estimated total Average Daily Traffic (:<\DT) g~nerated 14.800. Estimated maximum
peak hour traffic generåted (if known) and its timing: approximatelv 1,500 for both tht'
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. Pro\"ide 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 \A;as 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 Roadwavs
Local 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 roadwav 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-turn lanes before
tapering into a two-lane roadway. TH 101, from TH 5 south to County State Aide
Highway (CSAH) 18/Lyman Boulevard, is planned to be upgraded to a four-lane
divided roadway with left- and right-turn 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-turn lanes at major mtersections. Access onto TH 5 near
the proposed development is excluded to major cross-streets with no driveway access.
-::3555
20
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 bv TH 101. TH 5 provides direct access from the southwest suburbs to 1-194: 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 Intersections
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 geometries 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 geometries 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
.:J5Só 21
-:3585
The resulting existing ADT volumes are documented in Figure 9and the AM and PM
peak hour turning movement volume? are ill~strated 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 (sf) 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, a
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.
22
(
TABLE 3
EXISTING CONDITIONS
PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AND GEOMETRICS
WEST APPROACH
--. -- _.~._- ~ --- - --
~!~-~~___J~='c=~,ll._
77 1.550 54
50 1 96
1
49
81
1
. -
LT
12
119
,080
2
o
o
o
40
60
,777
,544
2
o
o
1
1
o
o
o
1
24
35
1
o
o
o
60
40
1
20
57
2
o
o
o
SOUTH APPROACH
.- _.- ------.._- ---
~J.:=~-IH ___=__
162 51
271 122
1
84
66
1
65
65
1
EAST APPROACH
. - .-- - - .--- _. -~-- .-- - - --- - .~
~.=",.=~II:!_==~T=
1 165
1 204
,073
.786
2
39
40
60
87
1
78
145
1
185
452
o
o
1
o
o
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
o
o
1
o
o
o
1
o
o
1
o
o
o
2
185
452
2
185
452
1
o
o
o
1
o
o
1
2
31
45
1
40
40
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
2
1,283
1,915
2
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
-
RT
104
267
1
63
174
1
65
65
1
151
136
1
158
171
1
40
40
1
NORTH APPROACH
-- - - --
TI-1.~____~~LT
61
87
2
21
74
1
36
114
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
o
o
1
o
o
o
._-
243
301
2
303
341
2
303
341
1
RT
26
75
1
27
53
1
o
o
o
60
40
1
o
o
1
o
o
o
_P~Mr.1EU~1!
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
(2
TRAFFIC
EP~m«:?!-
INT~~~~~I()!L.
TH 5
&
-.
_~9· c
Signalized
1
Geometries
_._---_._~- .-.-----.
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
TH 101
-----------
TH 5
&
Geometries
~-'---
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Signalized
Great Plains Blvd
---~---
Lake Dr. East
&
2
Thru/Stop
Geometries
------------.---
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Geometries
-~-~.'-
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Thru/Stop
Geometries
---'---
AM Peak Hour
Thru/Stop
PM Peak Hour
Geometries
Thru/Stop
Great Plains Blvd.
----------
Lake Dr. East
&
TH 101
lake Dr. (Site)
&
TH 101
Main Street
&
TH 101
3
4
-
(3)
5
6
<
The carrot symbols> or < identify where a right or left movement shares the same lane with the through movement.
All four unsignalized intersections are controlled with a stop condition on the easUwest streets and through conditions on the north/south streets
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.
Notes:
(1)
(2)
(3)
OIIU'"
U:IINTVOl.WK4
Source: BRW, Inc. peak hour turning movement counts recorded on March 23,1996.
TABLE 4
WARD PROPERTIES
TRIP GENERATION
.vtuOl WU"GA'I'
--.- ,.I~~«:~!.A~~ iõm - 1M ~n.Pf~'!A!'fONt ,ôíÃl
_--..- ~ ~~~ _ n- ~~ ~_. ,- ___
SO"A SO% 100% S20 520 I ~O
-- --- -~-- - - ---- ---
.
.... "fA" HOUIt ~
"I."C(K'''O£$ '"III' O(NI.....notII ''"'' IIAW
~~~~= I ~;~- ~~-~l~~-I~::~-~:~~
"
!'!
56~1.
,............
~!'Of. s
06
,
..!.OIA,L
10
AM ..E......HtMJI'
I'(lIIeUflA-OES I tltlf' OEHfIll....'1OH
~:= ¡:-6:~~-1 ~~:~-):~- J ou!._
~- ---
~s~
0'
..
1.]4D
110
..0
)00
]20
"0
]10
,]0
5to
S.O
'211
"0
]S5
470
150
160
1S5
115
115
215
270
360
"0
US
<70
ISO
160
IS5
liS
165
215
210
360
100%
100%
IOO'A
100%
100%
100...
100%
100%
100'"
too%
tOO'1t
SO...
50%
50%
SO%
50%
SO%
.
1
100
So
10
---I ____
50....
50....
50%
50....
50%
50%
SO"
50%
50"10
SO"lo
50%
SO%
50%
50%
--I-~
2]
2]
2)
22
22
\I
\I
'0
'0
'0
SO
SO
10
10
'0
20
)0
)0
)0
)0
'0
'0
10
60
60
)0
'0
10
10
10
10
10
10
to
U% 100%
-U·", \00';'
"4"" 100%
-I-~
13'% too%
8)% 100%
U% 100%
U% 100%
83% 100%
13% tOO%
U% 100%
56'/.
S6%
S6%
,
I)
2S
J2
10
60
10
'0
so
)0
'0
60
)0
'0
IOO~1"
laDy.
100"10
49%
49%
'"%
5'''10
51%
51%
"
50
5 '
~.lf ~__.
'06 Rooms.
.~~~~~!
I,SIIO SO f
4,000 sa F
S."'" SO F
-=..~~~L
t
~..~l"~~!_~
Motel
t
2
]
Down)
tfigh-'Uf'no...~r (Sit
1%
1"/.
,...
1%
1%
'%
1%
'"
)1
29
]0
29
»
25
25
'0
'0
.0
so
.0
60
10
o
o
o
10
o
10
10
'0
'0
.0
'0
'0
10
60
100%
100%
lOO'!.
100%
100%
100%
100%
1%
1%
,%
1%
,%
1%
1%
1
,
I
1
I
I
I
----
6'%
119%
89%
89%
U%
89%
""It
1%
'"
"
29
)0
29
2 ,
25
25
F1
FI
F1
F1
FI
FI
FI
___. ~._ 1---
R~.I~nÎaI Condominium . 2 DU
so
SO
so
SO
SO
SO
SO
'1.000
'.,000
IJSIIO
11,000
15.000
)2.000
21.000
-
2
)
·
5
"'I 1
.., 7
fSI M~.lvf
.00
"0
570
I~
1.100
2.'00
'-'00
600
2.0
lto
]10
120
200
2211
215
200
220
--
SO%
SO% 50"
50% 50% tOO%
-·-·-·-1 ---
SO% 50% 100%
100%
-~--.---I---.-'-'-~'- ._~
66'"1. 34% 100% 50 20 10 . 50%
I
·
56'"
S."
S6%
-----
06
o
O.
H
~---~-
60
)0
)0
-----
50
10 20
20 10
---- -~._.-
90 60
---
10
---
100"10.
'00%
100%
100%
--
U%
11%
'""
'0%
1%
......
5O%
---
OS
06
21
__....__ 1--'
os
S6 OU
I~~ ~~D
.',000 SO F1
51.000 SO ft
-
·
·
c....'"
----
ElerMnl.ry Schoof
100
1.200
5SO
)00
1211
15
215
900
'.-
550
)00
100%
100%
100%
100%
SO"
SO%
50%
50%
soy.
50''''
50%
500"4
..
..
..
..
so
10
2'0
110
60
to
120
SS
)0
to
120
SS
)0
100%
100%
100%
100%
SO%
SO%
50%
50%
50%
SO%
50%
50%
..
..
..
..
F
F
F
F
so
SO
SO
SO
31,000
50.000
23.000
12.500
2
)
·
5
lto
10
-----
120
IS
'.0
60
-I-I~--I~-'~~
OS 24% 16% 100% 0
24% 16"'" 100%
24%
2'%
20
----.--1 __~
64% 36% 100%
~.-~~ 1---
20 20 0&
100%
100%
3."4 100% 30 '0 40
-- --- -- -- ~---
46% tOO% 10 10 20
----_.~- -~ --- ~---
44% 100% 10 50 no "
--- -~.- -~ -~- ~-- -- -~ ~ _.---
~
go '0 1'0 41 50% SO% lDO%
120 110 240 .1 50% 50% 100%
55 SS 110 41 50% 50% 100%
~ ~ 50 « ~ ~ 100%
--~ ~ --- --- -' +---
10 30 I $0% 50% 100%
50% SO...
50%
50%
SO%
SO%
·
·
·
20
'0
10
10
10
)0
100%
'00%
100%
36%
36%
36%
6'%
..%
06
06
20
)0
211
20
o
10
100%
16%
16""
06
os
os
ou
sa FT
ou
so f
OU
SO f
ou
sa F1
..
40.000
]2
21.000
62
10.000
20
20,000
-
2
]
·
S
1.73
Aptf1menl. Po
'00%
10
o
10
64-4
os
10
'0
o
100%
'.110
...
no
'05
1.40S
.'"0
---- -
..,
.410
5
5
S
.520
-.--
",
1,500
66
-~-
615
5
--'--~-
5
so F
OU
91.000
266
Tolal,
.u
1.4'5
5
",
72.000 so FI
)22 OU
Not..·
CI, Trip Gener.'on MW1U". 51h Ecllion Updale ,.Ie used
m Pu" høur 6f ..cent Ihel..lle, one hour bdwf'tn . .nd 5 pm. used
Øt Pu" hCØ' b Ie.. "en 100,000 SF. .",umed
1'1 Aur.g, wukdq In'oun"on not provhkd in l1e Trip Geneldon ManuM PM pu" h~ assumed to be 10 percenl 01 It'll' Average wed:dllY lJip geoenlÌon
ØJ The .Iem"", k\ducfeol .dclng 13.000 SF to It" orlce building in Þuu IS IInd replacing Ihe 12.000 Sf GMt" bulhing in Ivn 7 wi" a 56 unit condominium building
fit tNt. tGt.lIn~...l\e .nerndve.-;p geJ1H8lion lor" IoJUI 6 .nd 1
ToIaI. WIh Aftemafve
.
hurC'll· w... ~..,........ ..... _'WI. ),oC. _... nw '" ____ .-.... '"' I.~ ('"II.... Upd".""
·~58:
The development is expected to generate 14,810 vehicle trips per day, 1,520 AM peak
hour trips and 1,490 PM peak hour tr!ps. Fi~' 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 (\'pd) 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 h\,in 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 roadway 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.
Back~ound Traffic GrO\vth
The background traffic growth was determined from hNO 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 Maps 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 10l/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.
25
'233S5
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 volumès. These resultš are shòwn 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 tvvo 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 turn movements at the tvvo 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-turn lane
off of the major street (TH 101 or Great Plains Boulevard) and tvvo lanes
outbound from the development (either a left-turn lane and a right-turn 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.
26
TABLE 5
FORECAST YEAR 2002 NO-BUILD CONDITIONS
PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AND GEOMETRICS (1)
LT
60
110
1
60
100
WEST APPROACH
-- . -~ -- -
TH
1,850
1,290
2
2
1
120
840
--
RT
90
60
1
30
40
1
1
o
o
o
50
75
1
o
o
1
o
o
o
2
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
.
o
o
o
75
50
1
o
o
1
o
o
o
SOUTH APPROACH
- ----- - -- - ----- ------- ~-
-,!!~_____=J~~=~=~hI
190 60 10
320 150 40
1 2
_~ n _._____
80 40
70 90
1
75
155
1
210
535
2
210
535
2
210
535
1
1
1
20
60
2
o
o
o
50
75
1
o
o
1
LT
-~-,._._-
1
65
65
1
o
o
o
o
o
1
o
o
1
200
240
2
40
50
1
45
45
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
EAST APPROACH
---- ..--.-- ._--_._-~_.-
TH
-- --. .--.
1,280
2.130
2
530
o
o
o
1
2,290
2
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
- --
~I
120
320
1
80
210
1
65
65
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
He
160
140
1
160
180
1
45
45
1
o
o
o
o
o
1
o
o
o
NORTH APPROACH
-- - . - --
RI==-"c __,~= I!;!===~~
30 60
80 90
1 2
20
80
1
45
125
1
275
340
2
350
390
2
350
390
1
30
50
1
o
o
o
75
50
1
o
o
1
o
o
o
_~~~~~Hf:~_
Hour
Hour
AM Peak
PM Peak
Geometries
------- ------"---
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
(2)
TRAFFIC
£9~!~~~
Signalized
_=d~TERS~~~~_
TH 1 01
-- --- ---------
TH5
&
TH5
&
NO.
1
Signalized
2
Geometries
_._---~-- ._-
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Geometries
--~-_._--_.
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Geometries
----
AM Peak
PM Peak
Hour
Hour
Thru/Stop
Thru/Stop
Great Plains Blvd
---------~
lake Dr. East
&
Great Plains Blvd.
---. -_.
lake Dr. East
&
T _J 101
)r. (Site)
&
3
_.__ .1,
(3)
5
4
Geometries
-----..-----.
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Geometries
Thru/Stop
Thru/Stop
_.~J:U-º1--
Main Street
&
101
6
<
The carrot symbols> or < identify where a right or left movement shares the same lane with the through movement.
All four unsignalized intersections are controlled with a stop condition on the east/west streets and through conditions on the north/south streets
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.
TH
Notes:
(1)
(2)
(3)
01/11'"
U:I/NTVOL.WK4
recorded on March 23, 1996.
Source: BRW, Inc. peak hour turning movement counts
(
TABLE 6
FORECAST YEAR 2002 BUILD CONDITIONS
PEAK HOUR VOLUMES AND GEOMETRICS
- -70'"" "LI~
60
110
WEST APPROACH
-----~._-_.- .~-
~.!,H.=.
1
1
,850
290
2
1
80
120
1
60
65
1
50
75
1
---- ---
5
40
2,20Q
1,930
2
o
o
1
_~r
210
160
1
SOUTH APPROACH
--_. -----..---
TH~~_
30
40
100
250
1
20
60
60
150
2
90
140
RT
280
430
1
280
300
1
1
o
o
2
o
o
1
1
265
370
65
65
300
330
2
300
280
1
45
45
EAST APPROACH
------~
TH LT
- -~~-_.
--~----.. ~-~-------
1 21
2
,: 30
130
1,620
2.370
2
o
o
--
RT
120
320
1
80
210
1
65
.
o
o
>
o
75
50
1
35
15
1
o
o
o
1
o
o
1
>
5
20
o
15
5
o
1
50
75
1
20
5
1
5
15
1
1
290
660
2
335
680
2
420
750
1
1
25
25
1
115
100
1
65
50
1
1
o
o
o
125
120
1
40
65
1
1
o
o
o
o
o
1
160
140
1
160
180
1
45
45
1
NORTH APPROACH
-------_.------------~-~ -
~~!__ .~___J:H___=~T
30
80
1
60
90
2
90
140
1
300
350
1
65
o
>
o
o
1
>
100
95
1
25
o
o
o
-
495
530
40
o
15
20
o
130
130
1
35
15
1
2
400
445
2
490
535
1
_!~~~~T~ß-
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Geometries
-_..-_.> -_.- ~~ .--
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Geometries
---_.~._--- ---
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
(2)
TRAFFIC
CONTROL
---
Signalized
NO~ : . INTE~SECTION
TH 5
&
TH 101
TH 5
1
40
60
1
75
65
1
75
50
1
40
5
Signalized
&
Plains Blvd.
lake Dr. East
&
2
Great
Thru/Stop
3
Geometries
~ -, -~ -. -.----
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
1
5
35
1
Geometries
-----.-----.-
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Geometries
-~--
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Geometries
Thru/Stop
Thru/Stop
Thru/Stop
____. Great PI~..i!!~ Blv~.
lake Dr. East
&
TH 101
-1------
(3) lake Dr. (Site)
5 &
TH 101
Main Street
&
TH 101
4
6
>
>
The carrot symbols> or < identify where a right or left movement shares the same lane with the through movement.
All four un signalized intersections are controlled with a stop condition on the easVwest streets and through conditions on the north/south streets
The movements to and from the west approach of this intersection do not include the volumes for the trips generated by the Rosemount, tnc_
building which will share this access.
Notes:
(1 )
(2)
(3)
"'111M
U:\INTVOL. WK4
1991
Source: BRW, Inc. using ITE Trip Generation Manual, Fifth Edition
'~5SS
Site-generated trips were assigned to the roadway system for the forecast Year 100.2
build condition based on two assumptions.
. .,
. Vehicles using TH 5 wil1 use the road closest to their land use, either TH 101 or
Great Plains Boule\'ard, to gain access to TH 5.
. When the east approach left-turn 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 turn left at the TH 101 intersection to
access the development.
FORECAST TRAFFIC ANALYSES
Capacity Analvsis
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-turn movements at unsignalized
intersections.
Capacity analyses were conducted using the traffic volumes and geometrics illustrated
pre\'iously 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 Hi~hwav 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.
29
-:3555
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 intersectionš, respeètively. The signalized intersections le\'el
of service table provides the intersection level of service and intersection delay results
for the AM and PM peak hours. The un signalized intersection level of seITice 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-turn movements at the intersection of TH 5 and TH 101/Market
Boulevard have their own lane and a channelization island. There are also righHurn
lanes and channelization islands for the east and west approach right-turn 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-turn
movements for the north and south approaches on Great Plains Boulevard have their
own lane but do not have a channelization island. The analysis assumed that for
every mo vehicles turning left during the protected left-turn phase on TH 5/ one
vehicle would turn 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.
30
TABLE 7
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
(1) (2)
PLANNING SUM
CYCLE LEVEL INTERSECTION ANALYSIS OF
INTER. TRAFFIC TIME OF LENGTHS OF DELAY LEVEL OF CRITICAL
:~_~q·=-cc ~ --c ~=!-rH~~~~C~TIQ~ ~c ~ ~9~I~Q!- .- _:_ç()N~ºm()~·.. DAY c=.J~!;SI=,c ___~~~!oç~= c,=J~~~I~ ~s~e~ç!!X --- ~~YOL~f!I~~
--- --.-...,. --~-
1 TH 5/Arboretum Blvd. Signalized Existing AM Peak Hour 145 C 17,6 Under 1,034
and PM Peak Hour 145 C 20,0 Under 1,166
-- -._- .----- - .- - --- . - . -- -- -- -.. ---_. ,- - --
TH 101lMarket Blvd, Year 2002 AM Peak Hour 145 C 21,1 Near 1,215
No-Build PM Peak Hour 145 0 27.7 Near '_ 1,390
_ _u._. _ ____.___~. ----.---------.- . ._- . .~~--- -_._-_.~.- -~--- ---~.__. -- ...--- -- '.-. - - - - - - -
Year 2002 AM Peak Hour 145 0 30,1 Near 1,265
Build PM Peak Hour 145 0 34,9 Over 1,470
2 TH 5/Arboretum Blvd. Signalized Existing AM Peak Hour 145 C 16.3 Under , 1,147
and PM Peak Hour 145 C 19,4 Near 1,297
._----.._-~-- ----- . -.--..-. -- -.----- '- -~---~ ----- -------- ----~--- h_ _~_ -.. - --
Great Plains Blvd, Year 2002 AM Peak Hour 145 C 22_6 Near 1,300
No-Build PM Peak Hour 145 0 31.2 Over 1 ,~J ~____
~-_.,.._------ .' .------ -- -. ~------ -'- -.- ~---~-- -------- -----~- -_.. ---- --- ---
Year 2002 AM Peak Hour 145 F NA Over 1,650
Build PM Peak Hour 145 F NA Over 1 ,f3~5 __
--_.- "._~..,--- _____...________._u____ _ --------"--~-- ------- ---- --'-- - -----._- -- -
Year 2002 AM Peak Hour 145 0 27,6 Over 1,500
Mitigated Build PM Peak Hour 145 F NA Over 1,625
(3)
PLANNING ANALYSIS
CRITICAL
RELA TIONSHIP
TO PROBABLE
06128196
U:\lOSNEW.WKoC
CAPACITY
Under Capacity
Near Capacity
Over Capacity
VOLUME
FOR INT.
(V~I1) ,
o to 1,200
1,201 to 1,400
>= 1,40
HCS ANA~
~f~H~EÇ)
<=5
>5 and <=15
>15 and <=25
>25 and <=40
>40 and <=60
>60
LÇS
A
B
C
o
E
F
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
TABLE 8
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL. OF SERVICE
INTERSECTION (1) I:: ~
NORTH/SOUTH STREE'I MINOR S1"IŒET MAJOR STREET INTERSECTION
~ TRAFFIC TIME OF - (3); I.EVEL OF: DELAY (3) I.EVEL OF DELA Y DELAY
NO. EASTIWEST STREET CONTROL CONDmON DAV MOVEMENT SERVICE ; 'SEClVEIf\ MOVEMENT' SERVICE . fSEClVEH) fSECNElf1
Great Plains Blvd. ThrulStop Existing AM Peak Hour V\n3LT : A ¡ 4.6 SB LT A 2.6 1.5
3
& V\n3RT , A 3.0
Lake Dnve East PM Peak Hour V\n3LT B 5.8 SB LT A 2.8 1.2
V\n3 RT ; A 3.3
Vear 2002 AM Peak Hour V\n3LT : A 4.7 SB LT A 2.6 1.5
No-Build V\n3 RT A I 3.0
PM Peak Hour V\n3LT i B 6.6 SB LT A 3.0 1.8
V\n3 RT A I 3.4
I
Year 2002 AM Peak Hour EB LT C I 12.2 NB LT A 3.2 17
Build EB THIRT ! A ! 3.8 SB LT A 3.2
V\n3lT B I 9.4 i
V\n3 THIRT i A I 3.9
PM Peak Hour EB LT I C 16.7 NB LT A 3.4 2.0
EB TH/RT I A 4.0 SB LT A I 3.7
V\n3LT i C 12.2
V\n3 TH/RT! A 4.5 I
I I ,
4 TH 101 ThrulStop existing AM Peak Hour EB IT i B 8.5 NBLT i A I 3.2 1.1
& EB RT , A 3.2 ~
Lake Dnve West PM Peak Hour EB IT I C r 11.6 NB LT A 3.5 1.5
I
EB RT I A 3.3
Year 2002 AM Peak Hour EB LT i C I 10.1 NB LT A i 3.5 1.3
No-Build EB RT I A 3.3 , I
PM Peak Hour EB LT I D I 28.2 NB LT i A i 3.8 2.3
EB RT A 3.4 i
Year 2002 AM Peak Hour EB LT I 0 I 21.0 NB LT I A i 47 1.7
Build EB RT I A I 3.9 i
V\n3 RT i A 3.4
PM Peak Hour EB LT ! F I 123.3 NB IT I B I 5.0 6.6
EB RT A 3.8
V\n3 RT i A I 4.4 I I
(A) i I (5) i (5)
5 TH 101 Thru/Stop existing AM Peak Hour EB LT NA NA NB LT i NA NA 0.0
I
ES RT , NA NA SB LT NA NA
& PM Peak Hour ES LT i NA ! NA NB LT I NA I NA 0.0
EB RT NA NA SB IT ! NA NA
Lake Dnve (Site) Year 2002 AM Peak Hour EB LT : NA I NA NB LT I NA I NA 0.0
No-Build EB RT NA NA SB IT NA NA
PM Peak Hour EB LT NA I NA NB LT i NA I NA 0.0
EB RT : NA NA SB LT NA NA
Year 2002 AM Peak Hour EB IT . C I 16.9 NB LT i A I 3.8 5.0
Build E8 TH/RT I A 3.3 S8LT A I 4.5
V\n3LT ! E I I
i 41.4 I
V\n3 TH/RT i A 3.3 i
PM Peak Hour EB LT F 51.8 NB LT A 3.8 38.1
EB THIRT A 3.5 SB LT B 1.7
V\n3LT F 475.6
V\n3 TH/RT A 4.2
i (5) I I 15)
6 TH 101 Thru/Stop EXisting AM Peak Hour V\n3LT NA I NA SB LT NA I NA 0.0
V\n3 ~ T j NA NA I
& PM Peak Hour V\n3LT I NA I NA 58 LT NA NA 0.0
V\n3 RT NA NA I
MaIn Street Year 2002 AM Peak Hour VVSLT \ NA I NA SB LT \ NA NA 0.0
No-Build weRT NA I NA
PM Peak Hour VVSLT ¡ NA i NA SB LT I NA I NA 0.0
VVS RT NA NA
Year 2002 AM Peak Hour EB LT C 16.5 N8 LT A 3.7 1.4
Build EB THIRT I A 4.9 SB LT A 3.8
weLT C 16.8
we TH/RT A 4.4
PM Peak Hour EB LT D 21.5 NB LT A 4.1 2.3
EB TH/RT B 5.1 SBLT B 5.4
V\n3LT E 42.4
V\n3 TH/RT B I 6.8
NOTES:
11) All four intersections are controlled with SlOP conditions on the easllwest streets and tree lIowing through conditions on the north/south street
(21 The direction and movement is reported. For example. V\n3 L T identifies the Westbound left-turn movement.
(3) The inlerseCtlOn delay represents Ihe overall delay In seconds per vehide entenng the Inlersectlon.
(4) The movemenls 10 and from the west approach of Ihis inlersection do not Include the lIOIumes tor the lOps generaled by the Rosemount, Inc.
building whiCh will share this access.
(5) The results with "NA - identity the movemenl$ which are not present in the existing and no-build conditions.
SOURCE: BRW, Inc. ualng HCS UnalgnaUzed Imersectlon Analyals and lIIe lfigh_V Capacity aHnuel.
CKlZIIIC
U:\UNSIGLOS.WlC4
'~5S~
Table 7 shows the AM and PM peak hour results of the planning analysis 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 .-\..\1
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, varying 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 a11 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 a11 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 a11 of the intersection movements are
expected to operate at LOS D or better, with the following exceptions:
· The TH 101/Lake Drive West intersection eastbound left-turn movement is
expected to operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour.
· The TH 101/Lake 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 lOI/Lake Drive (Site) intersection eastbound left-turn movement is
expected to operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour.
33
'~56:'
. The TH lOl/Main Street intersection westbound left-turn movement is expected
to operate at LOSE in the PM pe~k hour:
The traffic for the minor street left-turn 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-turn 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 forms of mitigation induding adding double left-turn 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-turn movement into the
development is expected to be near or over 300 vehicles in the peak hour. The
addition of a second left-turn 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-turn lane. This right-turn movement is expected to be heavily
used by vehicles traveling east on TH 5 or north on TH 101. Although the through
and left-turn movements for this south approach are low compared to the right-turn
movement, extending the right-turn lane could help prevent the right-turn 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 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
34
o
o
\0
t--'
~;j
....
,~
:>
'1)
~3
o
ça
or¡
t::
.~
,~
o"t
'11
13
J
44,400
Lake Drive East
2,100
(
~
o
o
\0
..¡
'\
T.l-f. 5
-
45,800
-
Legend:
~ Traffic Signal
xxx X EXisti'W Average
Daily f,,(fie Coun
Source: ßRW, Ine. Counled
011 May 22-24, 1996
all" MuIX)T 1994
now /,>1,,1"
o
o
IX)
Ò
.-4
"E
IU
~
g
ÇQ
.....
( J
.Joo:
....
IU
::E
~
o
o
IX)
'"
......
o
......
i
r-<
35,600
Lake Drive West
1,950
Flgur. 9
Existing Average I>ai/y Trllmc Volumes
- ~
~
t60e·00I1
'illages on the Ponds
_nvironmenlal Assessmenl Worksheel
"he Cily of Chanhasscn
~
<I) ,....
.S "E )0
n:s n:s
- ::-
1l..Q)
.....- \
n:s ::s
Q) 0 +
15¡:Q
~
../ ~ I tl~~
./
-+- -+-
. - - - ------
-+- ~ -+-
~ r
J (
.... ....
- - ------
.... ....
~ ~~ +
,.(
~
t
"
IIw!l
pudS
-
Figure 10
Existing Traffic Control and (;eometrie Conditions
- ~
~
""" ""',
üB
n-t 5
~d
'ImIt
)0
+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
"0
..... M
Q) n:s
~ >
M Q)
n:s-
~ g
¡:Q
-+-
--------
-+-
T
~
'-.....I'
t
t
-+-
---------
-+-
....
----------------
....
~
I~JII
Legend:
~ Traffic Signal
Source: BRW. Ine.
v
+
t
~
~
j
....
----- ....
~:
:T I
I
,.( I
~ tit
I
I
I
I
I
I
Villages on Ihe "onds
Environmenlal Assessmenl Worksheet
The City of Chanhassen
"U
....
to
>
Q)
"3
0
¡:¡:¡
IJ)
ç:
';;j .....0
~ «')0 ~O t--,oo
...........
lOll) t--,oo ..............
..... '(::::........ ;:¡--.... 000
to
Q) Ng N~ lO\.()
.... ...........
o I ..J i- t...
T.H.5 /
-
-L 104/267 49/81 J L 63/174
120/320 60/100 80/210
.- 1,073/1,786 1,777/1,544 ~ .- 1,283/1,915
1,280/2,130 2,120/1,840 ..... 1,530/2,290
165/204 24/35 31/45
r 200/240 30/40 .. r 40/50
~ ~ ,-
~ t ~
Legend: t--,O t--,O \CO
\..1')\.0 000'> \Ct'-.
.............. ......--.... -;;¡¡........
~ Traffic Signal °0 0'10
NN tf')~ 00&5
XXXlXXX Existing Condilions AM/PM Peak I lour
Turning Movement Volumes
XXX/XXX Year 2002 No-Build AM/I'M Peak Ilour
Turning Movement Volumes
Source: IIRW, Inc. Counled
on fl.1i.Ht.:h 23, 1996
figur. II
Rxisling and Year 2002 No-Jluild AJ\I and PM
I'eak lIour l\lrning Movement Volumcs
- ~
~
it6IJ6·0081
\CO
\..1')0 t--,o «')~
...........
~~ 000'> ;:¡........
;:¡........ lOO
Ng \C~ .....~
..J i- t...
~
~ t ~
0'10 ~¡fi .....0
.....~ t--,N
........... .......... Ne<)
t::¡........ ;:¡........ t::¡........
.....~ lO~ \Do
.....~
"E
to
>
Q)
g
¡:¡:¡
.....
Q)
~
....
to
~
,/
54/96 J
60/110
1,550/1,080 .....
1,850/1,290
77/50
90/60 ..
"-
.....
0
......
i
r-:
Villages on the PURds
Environmental A~se~~menl Worksheet
The Cily or Chanhassen
'U
1-0
ra
:>
Q
'3
0
p::¡
¡g
.....
ra CO ........ 88
~ ..-.. Lt)
1OLt) --........
..... ~...... ~........ 00
...............
ra 00 o~ \0 00
~ 1""1......
~ \0 17\......
C) I ~ t ~
T.H.5 /
-
-L 120 (0) 80 (IS) J. L 80 (0)
320 (0) 120 (20) 210 (0)
~ 1,280 (0) 2,200 (75) + ~ ~ 1,620 (85)
2,130 (0) 1,930 (85) 2,370 (75)
300 (95) 30 (0) 300 (255)
T 330 (85) 40 (0) ,. r 280 (225)
- - ,,-
Legend: \\ ~ t ,.
as ........ 80
"-"0
~ Traffic Signal ............... 1OLt) ~~
00 ~........
N\O 00 .............
XXX (XXX) Year 2002 Build AM Peak Hour 17\~ 00
...... 000
Turning Movement Volumes Nrt')
(Site Generated Volumes)
XXX (XXX) Year 2002 Built! I'M PCilk I lour
Turning Movement Volumes
(Site Cenerated Volumes)
Source; ß({W, tne. Using ITE Trip
Generated Manual, Firth
Edition, 1991.
Figure 12
Year 2002 nuild and Sile Generated AM and rM
"cak !lour Turning Movcmcnt Volumcs
- ~
~
V60fj·OO8t
..-.......... êê: 00
0.0 ...............
-........ 00
00 00 \O<:t<
rf') 00 \0 0\ ~......
~ t ~
~
~ t ,.
........ ........ ........
"-"ll) "-"0 "-"ll)
00 0........ 00
~..... ;0 ~~
0;;- \Oll) 00
Oll) ...... 00«)
~N N~
'U
1-0
ra
:>
Q
-
;::
0
p::¡
....
~
1-0
ra
:E
,/
60 (0) J.
110 (0)
1,850 (0) +
1,290 (0)
210 (115)
160 (100) t
"
......
0
......
i
¡-;
Worksheet
Villages on the "onds
Environmental Assessme.
The City of Chanhassen
I ,J\; .I...... ,~t: .,; J.,;)' .1.1:1
!; t:J'lSHOOF & RSSOC.
952 238 1671 P.02/14
111...~
~
BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS
10417 EXCELSIOR BOUU5VARD. surre 1WO I HOPKINS, MN 55343/ (962) 238-1887/ FAX (952) 2~1671
November 13, 2003
Refer to File: 02-77
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Dean Williamson, Frauenshuh Companies
Duane Spiegle, Park Nicollet Health Services
Edward F. Terhaar Gp~.·
FROM:
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 made 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 BoulevardlLake Drive intersection.
The proposed site is located to the south ofT.H. 5, north of Lake Drive, east of Great
Plains Boulevard and west of Dakota Avenue. Figure 1 shows the project location.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Prooosed Development Characteristics
The proposed clinic will be developed as described below:
. Cmrent proposaI- 56,000 square feet of building space
. Long term expansion - the addition of24,OOO square feet of building area for
a total of80,OOO square feet
NUV-~~-¿~~~ ~5:1~
BENSHOOF & ¡::e;oC.
952 238 1671 P.03/14
TUlfTlE PT.
W,-.
N
t
~ IMtF1EI..O C'I'.
Its. MUsIaN HII.U 1&
. APPROXIMATE SCAlE
IO~
~
o
I
2000'
FRAUENSHUH COMPANIES
(Z BENHXJF. ASSOCIATES, INC.
V TIA!IIPaRmlDIIllMllmMAIID'WlNERI
TRAFFIC STUDY FOR
CHANHASSEN CUNIC
FIGURE 1
PROJECT LOCA110N
l'1U\,; ',L..;¡-,IQIQ";¡ J.:::>; l:¡
BENSHOOF 8. ASSOC.
952 238 1671 P.04/14
Mr. Dean Wmiamso.
Mr. Duane Spiegle
..3..
November 13,2003
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 remaining phase
occurring later in the future. For purpose of our study. we have assumed that the long
tenn phase would occur in 2010.
A full access intersection for both the clinic and the American Legion is provided on
Lake Drive cast of Marsh Drive. A right inlout 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 BoulevardlLake Drive is unsignalìzed with stop
signs on east and west approaches. The geometries at the Great Plains BoulevardJLake
Drive intersection are as follows:
· East approach - Shared lane for left and through movements and a right-turn lane.
· West approach - One lane shared by left turn, through, and right turn movements.
· North approach - One left turn lane, one through lane, and one right turn lane
· South approach - One lane shared by left turn, through, and right turn
movements.
Traffic Volwnes
As part of this current study, new turn movement data~ÇQllected at the Great Plains
Boulevard/Lake Street intersection. Data was coIiected during th~ekday a.m. and
p.m. peak periods on TUeß~I..D~ (002.Jbis data is presented later in this
report. ~
l'IUV-J..,)-,t:lt:I..;¡ 1:;': 19
BENSHOOF & ÆiSOC.
952 238 1671 P.0S/14
Mr. Dean Williamscu..
Mr. Duane Spicglc
-4-
November 13» 2003
TRAFFIC FORECASTS
Trip Generation
The a.m. peak hour, p.rn. peak hour and daily development trips have been estimated
using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, ~ Edition. Table
1 shows the results of the trip generation estimates.
Table 1
Tri Generation Estimates for the Clinic
A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hoar
Land Use Size In Out In Out
S
56,000 82 20 42 112
80,000 155 39 79 214
Trio 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.B. 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 BoulevardlLake Drive intersection.
Traffic Volumes
Weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volwnes 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, 200S, and 2010.
NUV-l~-,~ 1~:19
BENSHOOF & FISSOC.
952 238 1671 P.06/14
Mr. Dean Wi))jam!tQ.h
Mr. Duane SpiegIe
-5-
November 13.2003
SCENARIO A.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBr WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Existin2 51 24 10 71 18 36 8 77 206 44 39 57
2005 without Clinic 53 25 10 78 19 43 8 227 217 59 169 59
2004 with Clinic 53 2S 10 83 19 43 8 238 228 114 169 S9
2010 without Clinic S5 26 11 82 19 45 9 277 227 62 214 62
2010 with Clinic S5 26 11 90 19 4S 9 292 243 147 214 62
SCENARIO P..M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Existin2 46 12 8 148 27 57 7 35 77 86 58 49
2005 without Clinic 47 12 8 157 28 70 7 208 86 105 238 50
2004 with Clinic 47 12 8 187 28 70 7 213 92 133 238 50
20 I 0 without Clinic SO 13 9 165 29 73 8 260 90 109 298 53
2010 with Clinic SO 13 9 208 29 84 8 268 98 148 298 S3
Table 2
Weekday A.M. aDd P.M. Peak Hour Volumes at the
Great PlaiDs BoulevardlLa.ke Drive Intersection
I, Uv.l...;)-'::::~:Jla.j l~: 20
BENSHOOF & F1SSOC.
952 238 1671 P.Ø7/14
Mr. Dean Williams01..
Mr. Duane Spiegle
-6-
~ovetnber13,2003
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Level of Serviee
Capacity analyses were perfonned 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 oflevel 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 BoulevardlLake Drive
In ti . hE" G tri d T W St C J
tersec on WIt XlltiDI! eome c:s an wo- a, op ontro
SCENARIO A.M. PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE
EBL EaT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBr SBR
Existin¡z B B A B B A A A A A A A
2005 without Clinic C C A C C A A A A A A A
200S with Clinic D D A D D A A A A A A A
2010 without Clinic C C A C C A A A A A A A
2010 with Clinic E E A E E A A A A A A A
SCENARIO PM. PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
ExistiDlz B B A B B A A A A A A A
200S without Clinic C C A D D A A A A A A A
2005 with Clinic C C A D D D A A A A A A
2010 without Clinic D D A F F A A A A A A A
2010 with Clinic D D 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 1..tt18.CCCptable 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 seIVÍce. 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 interscctions with moderate overal1 traffic vOIiimes.
This fonn of control was analyzed assuming no changes to the existing roadway
geometries for the 2010 scenarios. The results are shown in Table 4.
_\J'W...... J..J.c::::.o
~CN~HUUr & ASSOC.
952 238 1671 P.Ø8/14
Mr. Dean Williamso~
Mr. Duane Spiegle
-7-
November 13,2003
Table 4
Weekday Peak Hour Levels of Service at Great PlaiDs BoulevardlLake Drive
E .. Ceo . d AD W Sto C trol
Intenection with mtinl! metrics an - av ~D on
SCENARIO A.M. PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE
EBL EaT EBR WBL WBr WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBr SBR
2010 without Clinic B B B B B B B B B B B B
2010 with Clinic B B B B B B C B B B B B
SCENARIO PM. PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBr SBR
2010 without Clinic B B B C B B C B B B C B
2010 with Clinic B B B C B B C B B B C B
___ As shown in Table 4, all movements wilLoperate at-acceptable-levelsoíserv.ice:witiull-
.;-, way stop_control. Therefore, we '~mmend that intersection operations be monitored as
ilië -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.
MnlDOT 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 ÍI1Iout access.
ÛÐerations at the Ri$t InIRight 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 oflevel 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 in/right out access points ooerate at JP.VP.t
Qf s~c.e B..ar_¥-tW' .durt'UILw:i:ô'me lDœrseêtion, it is not the sole reason for the
changes in level of sernce. In this case, the considerable through traffic added on Great
Plans Boulevard by the Villages on the Pond r1"",.-ln",.,,'u-,+ ...1..._ _1____ - .
Ànother factor that was considered in the analysis of these access points was the impact
of northbolUtd vehicles queued on Great Plans Boulevard at T.H. S. 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.
I oJ ""'-' _Vc.J-' ..L.J. ,ét:]
tll:N::;¡MUUI- IS. R~50C.
952 238 1671 P.09/14
Mr. Dean Williamsm..
Mr. Duane Spiegle
-8-
November 13, 2003
The spacing between the two access points was also reviewed. Measurements at the site
indicate the two access points are approximately 75 feet apart. This spacing exceeds the
minimum spacing recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Based 011 the points described above, we expect that both right Wright out access points
will be able to adequately accommodate the forecasted traffic volumes.
Need for Traffic Signal Control at the Great Plains BoulevardlLalœ 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 ü 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 descn'bed 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.
(-Jì
,;f _~
. ~ jl ,.'
nr(C'>'
I~V .~ ~~~~ ~~.~~
~~~nuu~ ~ H~~.
952 238 1671 P.10/14
Mr. Dean WiHi"mSOL
Mr. Duane Spiegle
..9-
November 13,2003
PARKING 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 NicoUet 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
AmericaD L . on
Time
11 :00 am
11:15 am
11 :30 am
11 :45 am
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
1:00 m
1:15 m
1:30
1:45
2:00
Number of vehicles
arked
23
25
28
29
35
44
50 -'
47
45
36
31
25
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 SO 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 Bumsville and Minnetonka in December, 2002. The
Minnetonka clinic surveyed is known as the Carlson clinic. Data at the Bumsville 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 snmt1'}~rized in the following two tables.
~
l
I
t
t
t
l-
I.
"
...
Tabla 5
Parking Survey Information for BumsvllJa Park Nlcollet Clinic
Bum.vlne TUGsday 1213102 Tota1 space. avalJable 398 Building slz.e 93.629 sq. ft.
Number of
vehicles % spaces
Time of day parked used
tI:
~
u
:r
c
c
,.
po
D
~
o
()
U)
IJ1
1\.1
1\.1
W
CD
~
(J'I
..,J
~
\)
....
......
"-
......
~
400
350
300
'0
CD
~ 250
"
D.
.. 200
<I
~ 150
~ 100
50
0
~() ~() ~ # ~() ~ ~() ~ ~ ~() ~ œ> ~() .)c() ~ ~
Cij ~ ~ ~ ........ ~ ~ .... tç IV ~ ~ ':) Cij
Time of day
46.0%
61.6%
10.4%
15.4%
80.1%
81.9%
85.7%
84.2%
82.9%
84.2%
77.4%
10.9%
61.8%
55.0%
52.5%
62.6%
67.3%
73.9%
75.4%
74.6%
73.4%
73.6%
72.4%
10.9%
68.6%
61.3%
46.2%
36.4%
22.9%
15.8%
12.6%
183
245
280
300
321
326
341
335
330
335
308
282
210
219
209
249
268
294
300
297
292
293
288
282
273
244
184
153
91
63
50
BOO
820
840
900
920
940
1000
1020
1040
1100
1120
1140
1200
1220
1240
100
120
140
200
220
240
300
320
340
400
420
440
500
520
540
600
2
C
("
l-
t.
1\
cr
~
p
U
I\.:
p
Table 6
Parking Survey Information for Carlson (Mtnnetonka) Park N'collet Clinic
213
Total spaces available
1215/02
% spaoes
used
Thursday
Number of
vehldes
parted
Carlson
~
J:
~
10
~
~
()
400
300
350
'0
.
~ 250
c.s
a.
(I 200
.
~ 150
t
100
50
o
S)<) _b? ~ ~<) _b.~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ .,.f::) !.\,~ ~~ .~ ~ ~()
(ij 't1 Ç) ,,~ ,,~- ,,"- ~ ~'V ~ . ~ 'V ~ b( ¡C. ':) (ij
U)
U1
\J
\J
~
.......
(J\
-,J
.......
ìJ
.......
I\J
'-
.......
~
Time of day
39.9%
47.9%
64.8%
69.0%
77.0%
75.6%
75.1%
74.2%
76.5%
75.6%
74.2%
70.0%
61.5%
54.9%
53.1 %
55.4%
70.0%
70.4%
78.8%
n.5%
77.0%
74.6%
68.5%
72.8%
68.1%
59.6%
47.4%
35.7%
27.2%
23.9%
20.2%
55
102
138
147
164
161
160
158
183
161
158
149
131
117
113
118
149
150
168
165
164
159
146
155
145
127
101
76
58
51
43
lime of day
800
820
840
900
920
940
1000
1020
1040
1100
1120
1140
1200
1220
1240
100
120
140
200
220
240
300'
320
340
400
420
440
500
520
540
600
"'w '-1("oo..J....J .1..,;}-¿,..L
~CN~HUU~ & RSSOC.
952 238 1671 P.13/14
Mr. Dean 'WilliamSOI~
Mr. Duane Spiegle
-12-
November 13,2003
As shown in the tables, the Burnsville clinic parking dem9'1d 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 Parkiul¡ Demand
Parking demand calculations were performed for the 11 a.m. 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 Bumsville clinic is 93,629 square feet in size. The peak parking demand of 341
spaces, which occurred at 10 a.m., equates to a parking demand of3.64 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 dfmlßnd for the proposed clinic. The estimated peak
parking demand for each phase of the clinic development is shown in Table 7.
Table 7
Weekda Peak Parkin Demand for the Pro osed Clinic
Phase Size (sq. ft) Peak Parking Demand
" ~ -, I
~..... y ',1'- .........
56,000 '
80,000.
.... 208 spaces
297 spaces
, ~r>>, ~,:.-I ...../
Future Par1dn~ Demand Verses Future Parkin~ SuPply
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 supplyjsredu:ëedby 5 percent,)
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
paricing ~and 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 win
exceed both the on-site supply and the 50 shared parking spaces. When this expansion
occurs, approximately SO 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.
,.-, .I.... ...~,......) .I...;>'¿'¿
~CN~HUUr & ASSOC.
952 238 1671 P.14/14
Mr. Dean Williamson.
Mr. Duane Spiegle
-13-
November 13,2003
The clinic win 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 infonnation 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 inlright 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 volwnes.
· The parking demand for the CUlTent 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 SO 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
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDA VIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
November 5, 2004, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public
Hearing - CORRECTION for Village on the Ponds Building C-1- Planning Case No. 04-
40 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an
envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in
the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such
owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County,
Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
.------
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this Y.J.Ä day of? lout YVI.. ¡'t -1..-/ , 2004.
. 1" r..t!.AMM¡'J~A~"A
^^"¡Ü\{h\tvUVl'
KIM T MEUWISSEN
. Notary pUQHe - Minnesota
~"'< . CARVER COUNW
-," My commis:ion Expires 1131/2005
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
~,'¡~T )1~LèV.L.
Notary P lic
Notice of Public Hearing - CORRECTION
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Notice of Public Hearing - CORRECTION
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
TUESDAY , November 16, 2004 at 7:00 p.m
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for Site Plan Approval for a 17,400 square-foot
commercial building with Variance to the commercial design
standards on 1.35 acres zoned Planned Unit Development -
Village on the Ponds Building C-1.
04-40
VOP I, LLC
Located at the southeast corner of Lake Drive and Great
Plains Boulevard.
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
Date & Time
Location:
I
Proposa
TUESDAY , November 16, 2004 at 7:00 p.m
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for Site Plan Approval for a 17,400 square-foot
commercial building with Variance to the commercial design
standards on 1.35 acres zoned Planned Unit Development -
Village on the Ponds Building C-1
04-40
VOP I
Date & Time
Location:
Proposa
Planning File
Applicant
Property
Location
LLC
Located at the southeast corner
Plains Boulevard.
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
of Lake Drive and Great
Planning File
Applicant
Property
Location
1 Staff will give an overview of the proposed project
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop
by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about
this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or
e-mail bqenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the
department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide
copies to the Commission
What Happens
at the Meeting:
Staff will give an overview of the proposed project
The applicant will present plans on the project.
Comments are received from the public.
Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project
1
2.
3.
4.
What Happens
at the Meeting:
Questions &
Comments:
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop
by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about
this project, please contact Bob Generous at 952-227-1131 or
e-mail bqenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the
department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide
copies to the Commission
Questions &
Comments:
City Review Procedure:
· Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
· Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.
· Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
· A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
· Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, please contact the Plannino Staff person named on the notification
City Review Procedure:
· Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the sUbject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
· Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.
· Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
· A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
· Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
somethinq to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification
Disclaimer
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.
This map is a compílation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and
federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference
purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used
to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used
for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or
direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found
please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not
be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and
hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third
parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Disclaimer
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.
This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and
federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference
purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used
to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used
for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or
direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found
please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to M,nnesota
Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not
be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and
hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agenfs, or third
parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
BISRAT & DENISE ALEMAYEHU AMOCO AMERICAN OIL CO AUSMAR DEVELOPMENT CO LLC
C/O BP AMERICA INC-TAX DEPT C/O LOTUS REALTY
380 HIDDEN LN PO BOX 1548 PO BOX 235
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WARRENVILLE IL 60555 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BLUE CIRCLE INVESTMENT CO MICHAEL M & PRUDENCE L BUSCH CHANHASSENINN
1304 MEDICINE LAKE DR 8113 MARSH DR 531 79TH ST W
STE 301 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PO BOX 473
PL YMOUTH MN 55441 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
CHANHASSEN NH PARTNERSHIP CHCR LLC
C/O NEW HORIZON CHILD CARE C/O CUL VERS CHURCH OF ST HUBERT
16355 36TH AVE N 450 POND PROMENADE 8201 MAIN ST
SUITE 700 PO BOX 307 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PL YMOUTH MN 55446 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
COMMUNITY BANK CORP DRF CHANHASSEN MEDICAL BLDG
THOMAS CLOUTIER ATTN: PRESIDENT C/O FRAUENSHUH COMPANIES
421 LAKE DR 706 WALNUT ST 7101 78TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHASKA MN 55318 SUITE #100
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55439
MARTIN J & TIMAREE FAJDETICH CHADWICK L GATZ & RANDY G & KIMBRA J GREEN
PEl-SHAN S YEN
8100 MARSH DR 8140 MARSH DR 8103 MARSH DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
HOLIDAY STATION STORES INC PAUL F & RITA A KLAUDA GREGORY D & MARY A LARSEN
ATTN: TAX DEPT #199
PO BOX 1224 8130 MARSH DR 8151 GRANDVIEW RD
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JASON K & LAURA J LEHMAN CHRISTOPH J LESER & NORTHCOTT COMPANY
COLLEEN A CANNON
8090 MARSH DR 8110 MARSH DR 250 EAST LAKE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PHM/CHANHASSEN INC
2845 HAMLIN AVE N
ROSEVILLE MN 55113
WILLIAM R & DEBRA E PRIGGE
390 HIDDEN LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL E RAMSEY
6362 OXBOW BND
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT J & LOIS A SAVARD
8080 MARSH DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MICHAEL R SCHNABEL &
SANDRA J STAI
370 HIDDEN LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BRIAN E SEMKE &
DEBORAH C SENKE
331 HIDDEN LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
SILO I LLC
C/O LOTUS REALTY SERVICES INC
PO BOX 235
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ALBERT & JEAN SINNEN
8150 GRANDVIEW RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DEAN V SKALLMAN &
JOYCE L BISH
8155 GRANDVIEW RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
VOP I LLC
250 LAKE ST E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DAVID E & KARLI D WANDLING
8120 MARSH DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
WHEATSTONE RESTAURANT
GROUP
250 EAST LAKE DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICH SLAGLE
7411 FAWN HILL ROAD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317