City of Littleton

Transcription

City of Littleton

City of Littleton
Littleton Center
2255 West Berry Avenue
Littleton, CO 80120
Staff Communication
File #: PB Resolution 12-201, Version: 1
Agenda Date: 09/22/2014
Subject:
Resolution recommending approval to rezone property known as Plum Valley Subdivision, Lots 7-16 from PDX to PD-C Planned Development Commercial and recommending approval of the Plum Valley Subdivision,
Lots 7-16 General Planned Development Plan
Presented By:
Jan Dickinson, Planning Manager
POLICY QUESTION:
Does the planning board support the proposed rezoning, which would allow development for the sales, parking
and storage of motor vehicles and recreation vehicles, and other automotive related uses on vacant property
adjacent to an existing automotive dealership?
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, MLATL, LLP, is requesting to rezone a 11.42-acre parcel located east Lucent Boulevard, south
of County Line Road and north of C-470. The Highline Canal borders the north, east and west sides of the site
and the Ralph Schomp BMW, and future Mini Cooper and Honda dealerships are adjacent and to the south of
the site. The Schomp dealership is also owned by the applicant. The proposal is to rezone the property from
PD-X to PD-C, which will allow the Schomp dealership to utilize the site for inventory storage, employee
parking and future expansion of the dealership, which may include sales and automobile repair and service.
The property was included in a larger annexation of Plum Valley Subdivision into the city in 1992. At that
time the property owners did not have any plans for development, so the city council adopted an ordinance
creating the PD-X zone district, which is a holding zone for newly annexed property. Pursuant to section 10-223(C)(4) of the city code, property zoned PD-X must be brought into compliance with the provisions of the PD
District, which includes rezoning to a designation of residential, commercial or industrial and filing a general
planned development plan.
The applicant initially submitted a petition to the city to annex their ownership in unincorporated Douglas
County which would have placed their existing (BMW) and proposed dealerships (Honda and Mini) in the
city’s jurisdiction for review and approval. However, after having received objections from the Highlands
Ranch Metro District, the applicant withdrew the annexation petition. Letters from both the Highlands Ranch
Metro District and the applicant are attached for reference.
City of Littleton
Page 1 of 5
Printed on 9/18/2014
powered by Legistar™
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Project Description:
The proposal is to initially develop and utilize the entire site for vehicle inventory storage and employee
parking for the adjacent dealership. However, there is potential for further redevelopment of the site for
additional sales buildings, service repair and car washes. By acquiring additional land adjacent to the existing
Schomp automotive dealership, the applicant will have more opportunity to expand the existing business. The
development standards include:
1.) A minimum requirement of 20% of the site as unobstructed open space;
2.) A 50-foot wide building setback and landscape buffer along the boundary of the site, which abuts the
Highline Canal;
3.) A 30-foot minimum building setback along the boundary of the property not adjacent to the Highline
Canal; and
4.) For future buildings on the site, a maximum floor area ratio of 5 to 1 and a maximum building height of
60 feet.
Vehicular access to the site will be provided by access through the existing adjacent dealership from Plum
Valley Lane, a public street which connects to Lucent Blvd. west of the site.
Traffic, Stormwater and Utilities:
The traffic study submitted for the proposal also included the proposed development of the Honda and Mini
dealerships on the parcel in unincorporated Douglas County just east of the existing BMW dealership. The
analysis focused mainly on the traffic impacts of the proposed active uses of the sales and service facilities,
which will not fall under the city’s jurisdiction nor directly impact city streets. All of the recommended
intersection and roadway improvements related to the development of the dealerships will be governed and
maintained by Douglas County.
The property slopes in a southerly to northerly direction at roughly a 10 percent slope and drains into the
Highline Canal. Development of the site will direct drainage to an onsite storm drain system and convey the
water to an existing detention/water quality pond on Lot 49, Plum Valley Subdivision, northwest of the site.
Minor modifications to the existing pond will be required to accommodate the drainage from the site.
The adjacent existing dealership receives water and sanitary sewer service Highlands Ranch Metro District.
The district commented this property may be eligible for service consistent with their service agreement with
Centennial Water and Sanitation District. The applicant has sent a petition to the district requesting inclusion
into the district.
City of Littleton
Page 2 of 5
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan:
Section 10-12-1 of the city’s zoning ordinance requires that zoning amendments be consistent with the goals
and policies of the comprehensive plan and promote the general welfare of the community. It is staff’s opinion
that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the pertinent goals and policies of the city’s comprehensive plan
and promotes the general welfare :
City Wide Plan:
Goal 1: A Dynamic Littleton
Policy 1.2-Create the circumstances that will encourage dynamic, innovative employers to locate within the
city.
Policy 1.3-Draw retail that will provide the goods needed and desired by residents while capturing retail sales
from both residents and non-residents.
· While the property will be initially developed for employee parking and inventory storage accessory to
the adjacent existing dealership, the rezoning will allow for future development of a new automotive
dealership with services and repair or expansion of the existing business.
Policy 1.8-Require that new commercial development be appropriately buffered from adjacent uses.
· The proposed PD Plan requires a 50-foot wide landscaped buffer along the property boundary abutting
the Highline Canal.
Goal 2: An Outdoor Littleton
Policy 2.6- In addition to the river and its tributaries, identify, safeguard, and enrich the city’s other outdoor
resources, including the Highline Canal.
· The existing trees and shrub masses along the canal will be preserved. An additional 50-foot wide
landscaped buffer will be provided along the property boundary screening the canal trail from the
impacts of the development. Storm drainage that flows from the site into the Highline Canal will be
routed away from the canal and conveyed to an offsite detention and water quality pond.
Promotes the general welfare of the community:
The proposed rezoning will promote the general welfare of the community by adding commercially zoned
property within the city which will generate future employment, services and revenue.
Planned Development District:
Section 10-2-23(E) (4) (a) of the city code states that the planning board shall base its recommendation on the
City of Littleton
Page 3 of 5
conformance of the proposed plan with the stated intent of the Planned Development District:
10-2-23(A): Intent: The Planned Development (PD) District is hereby created to promote the public health,
safety, and general welfare by allowing more flexible development based upon a comprehensive, integrated
plan.
10-2-23(B): Application and Intent: Further, in the application of in applying this section it is the intent of the
city council to:
1. Encourage more creative and effective use of land and public or private services, and to accommodate
changes in land development technology so that the resulting economies benefit the community.
·
The community will benefit from additional commercially zoned property within the city which
will generate future employment, services and revenue.
2. Encourage innovation and efficiency in residential development to meet the growing demands for
housing of all types and designs for persons of any social or economic status.
·
Not applicable.
3. Encourage innovative development or redevelopment of all land uses to meet the contemporary needs of
the community by providing for a greater variety and mix of uses including those which may coexist on
the same parcel or within the same building as shown on an approved general PD Plan.
·
The planned development plan allows for additional commercial uses within the city providing
future employment, services and revenue. The proposed uses are consistent with other
commercial development in the immediate area.
4. Provide a process, which relates the design and development of a site to the particular characteristics of
the site.
·
City of Littleton
The site will be developed with a use consistent with the adjacent commercial property and other
commercial properties in the immediate area. A large landscaped buffer will be provided to
screen the commercial development from the Highline Canal. Storm drainage will be diverted
from the Highline Canal into an existing storm system, preserving the water quality of the canal.
Page 4 of 5
5. Require that the nature and intensity of development be supported by adequate utilities, transportation
network, drainage systems, and open space to serve the development, and to minimize impacts on
adjacent existing and future development.
·
The development can be served by nearby utilities through the Highlands Ranch Metro District.
The site is accessible to C-470 and County Line Road via Lucent Blvd. Onsite storm drainage will
be diverted from the Highline Canal and conveyed to a nearby existing regional detention pond.
Existing vegetation along the Highline Canal will be preserved and additional landscape buffering
will be provided to screen the commercial development from the canal.
6. Encourage development that is consistent with the policies and guidelines established in the adopted
comprehensive plan for the area and the city.
·
See justification under “Consistency with the comprehensive plan.”
The proposed development meets all of the applicable intent statements by rezoning vacant land for
commercial use, providing the city with more opportunity for future employment, services and revenue.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Capital facility impact fees will be collected at time of building permit issuance for any commercial buildings
to be constructed on the site.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff finds that the proposed rezoning complies with the pertinent goals and policies of the city’s
comprehensive plan and promotes the general welfare of the community. Staff finds that the proposed planned
development plan meets the criteria for the Planned Development District. Staff recommends approval of the
proposed resolution.
PROPOSED MOTION:
Motion to approve Planning Board Resolution No. 2014-12, which forwards a favorable recommendation to
city council.
City of Littleton
Page 5 of 5
RESOLUTION No. 2014-12
Series of 2014
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY
OF
LITTLETON,
COLORADO,
RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL TO REZONE PROPERTY KNOWN AS PLUM
VALLEY SUBDIVISION, LOTS 7-16 FROM PD-X TO PD-C
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PLUM
VALLEY SUBDIVISION, LOTS 7-16 GENERAL PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
WHEREAS, the planning board of the City of Littleton, Colorado, held a public
hearing at its regular meeting of September 22, 2014, to consider a proposal to rezone the
property known as Plum Valley Subdivision, Lots 7-16 from PD-X to PD-C, more specifically
described in Exhibit “A”, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference;
WHEREAS, the planning board considered the Plum Valley Subdivision, Lots 716 General Planned Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, the planning board considered evidence and testimony concerning
the proposed rezone and general planned development plan at said public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD OF
THE CITY OF LITTLETON, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1:
The planning board finds that the proposed rezoning of the
property known as Plum Valley Subdivision, Lots 7-16, described on the attached Exhibit “A”,
meets the criteria set forth in Section 10-12-1 of Littleton City Code in that the rezoning is
consistent with the goals and policies of the COMPLAN and promotes the general welfare of
the community.
Section 2:
The planning board finds that the proposed general planned
development plan conforms to the stated intent of the planned development district as specified
in sections 10-2-23(A) and (B) of the city code.
Section 3:
The planning board does hereby forward a recommendation of
approval to the city council on said proposed rezoning and general planned development plan for
Plum Valley Subdivision, Lots 7-16.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED at the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Board
of the City of Littleton, Colorado, held on the 22nd Day of September 2014, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Littleton Center, 2255 West Berry Avenue, Littleton, Colorado, by the following vote:
Resolution No. 2014-12
Littleton Planning Board
Page 2
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
BY: __________________________
_____________________________________
Glen Van Nimwegen, Secretary
Randy Duzan, Chair
Approved as to form:
______________________________
Kristin Schledorn, Deputy City Attorney
Page 3
PLUM VALLEY SUBDIVISION, LOTS 7‐16 GENERAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN REZONING FROM PD‐X TO PD‐C EXHIBIT A A PARCEL OF LAND BEING LOTS 7 THROUGH 16 AND VACATED PLUM DRIVE, PLUM VALLEY, A
SUBDIVISION PLAT RECORDED AT RECEPTION NO. 1956098341 IN THE RECORDS OF THE
DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO, CLERK AND RECORDER'S OFFICE, LOCATED IN THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE SIXTH
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, SAID COUNTY AND STATE, ADDITIONALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER SOUTH 89°42'05" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 326.31 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF SAID LOT 11 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE SOUTH 89°42'05 WEST, A DISTANCE OF
989.86 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST SIXTEENTH CORNER OF SAID SECTION 4;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINES OF SAID LOTS 7 AND 8 SOUTH 89°42'24" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 444.87 FEET;
THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 7 NORTH 00°17'36" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
20.07 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE HIGHLINE CANAL AND THE
BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF
598.69 FEET, THE RADIUS POINT OF SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 27°38'58" EAST;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING (9) COURSES:
1. SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00°47'07", AN
ARC LENGTH OF 8.21 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE CONCAVE
NORTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 112.07 FEET;
2. NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 100°03'57", AN
ARC LENGTH OF 195.73 FEET;
3. TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 16°47'53" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 274.93 FEET TO THE
BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF
167.88 FEET;
4. NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74°53'12", AN
5. TANGENT TO SAID CURVE SOUTH 88°18'55" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 438.99 FEET TO THE
BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF
1,121.28 FEET;
Page 4
6. EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13°00'08", AN ARC
LENGTH OF 254.45 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A COMPOUND CURVE CONCAVE
SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 174.70 FEET;
7. SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29°45'15", AN
8. TANGENT TO SAID CURVE SOUTH 45°33'32" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 439.03 FEET;
9. SOUTH 44°26'28" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 81.57 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING AN AREA OF 11.423 ACRES, (497,598 SQUARE FEET), MORE OR LESS.
Plum Valley Subdivision, Lots 7-16
Rezoning Traffic Study
County Line Rd
.
Plum Valley
Subdivision, Lots 7-16
Lucent
Blvd.
Plum Valley Ln.
C-470
Prepared for:
MLATL, LLP (Ralph Schomp)
Prepared by:
June, 2014
June 2014
Schomp Expansion Traffic Study
1.0 Introduction
This traffic study documents traffic genera on and associated traffic opera ons with the proposed
expansion of the Ralph Schomp Automo ve Complex in Highlands Ranch. The loca on of the exis ng
Schomp BMW as well as proposed future expansions specifically addressed in this study are shown in
Figure 1-1 below.
The proposed expansion of the Schomp dealership includes the addi on of two separate car dealerships
adjacent to the exis ng Schomp BMW loca on on Plum Valley Lane in Highlands Ranch. The first, to
the east of the exis ng loca on, includes a planned Honda dealership as well as a MINI dealership.
The second, to the north of the exis ng loca on, would provide addi onal employee parking and
inventory/vehicle storage for the BMW, Honda, and MINI dealerships to the south.
This traffic study focuses on the addi onal trips generated by the proposed expansion to the Schomp
dealership and how the addi onal traffic will impact the intersec ons at Plum Valley Lane/Lucent
Boulevard and Lucent Boulevard/County Line Road in the near-term future. The primary purpose of
this traffic study was to es mate the poten al ming of when a signal might be warranted at the Plum
Valley Ln./Lucent Blvd. intersec on.
Figure 1-1 Project Location
Mike
Ward
InfiniƟ
County Line
Rd.
Proposed
Parking/
Vehicle
Storage
Proposed
MINI and
Honda Site
Lucent Blvd..
Plum Valley
leyy Ln.
Larry
Miller
Nissan
C-470
Schomp
BMW
Aerial Base from Google-Earth
1
June 2014
2.0 Existing Conditions
2.1
Existing Land Uses
The area surrounding the proposed Schomp expansion includes mainly exis ng car dealerships and
vacant land. Schomp BMW and Larry Miller Nissan are located along Plum Valley Lane while Mike
Ward Infini is located directly across Lucent Boulevard from Plum Valley Lane.
2.2
Existing Roadway Conditions
The exis ng roads in the study area were shown in Figure 1-1. Intersec on turn lanes and traffic
control are shown in Figure 2-1. The primary roadways are described further below.
Plum Valley Lane
Plum Valley Lane is a 3-lane local street that provides the exis ng car dealerships access to Lucent
Boulevard and the surrounding roadway network. The third lane serves le turns into businesses. The
Plum Valley Lane speed limit is 25 mph.
Lucent Boulevard
Lucent Boulevard is a 4-lane collector roadway with limited direct access to proper es. There is a
raised median with striped turn lanes at all major intersec ons. There is a sidewalk along both sides
of Lucent Boulevard in the vicinity of the Project. The speed limit is 40 mph.
County Line Road
County Line Road is a two-lane arterial roadway in the vicinity of the project that connects Santa Fe
Drive (US 85) to I-25. Major intersec ons have striped turn lanes however there are no turn lanes for
property access driveways, simply a double-yellow line down the center of the road. The speed limit
in the vicinity of the project is 50 mph.
2.3
Existing Traffic Volumes
Exis ng weekday AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were collected at the County Line
Rd./Lucent Blvd. and Lucent Blvd./Plum Valley Ln. by TSH in June 2014. The AM and PM peak hour
turning movements at the intersec ons under study are shown in Figure 2-2. Addi onally, weekend
traffic volumes on Plum Valley Ln. were observed to be in the 150-200 vehicle per hour range. While
these volumes are higher than the volumes experienced during the peak hours during the week,
addi onal traffic on the roadway network is significantly less resul ng in less delay at intersec ons in
the vicinity.
2.4
Existing Traffic Operations
The traffic opera ons as defined by intersec on level of service (LOS) were tested for the exis ng
counts at the intersec ons of County Line Rd./Lucent Blvd. and Lucent Blvd./Plum Valley Ln. Exis ng
LOS is shown in Table 5-3, included with the future LOS analysis in Sec on 5 of this study, along with
a detailed descrip on of LOS criteria. Details of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) outputs of the
analysis are contained in the appendix.
2
June 2014
Figure 2-1 Existing Intersection Turn Lanes and Traffic Control
County Line
Rd.
Lucent B
lvd.
Plum Valley Lane
C-470
Aerial Base from Google-Earth
Figure 2-2 Existing Weekday AM and PM Peak Hour Turning Volumes
AMExisting
PMExisting
COUNTY LINE RD
L
U
C
E
N
T
333 >>>>>
49 V
10
<<<<<
127
V
V
29
>>>>>
LUCENT CT
5
0
5
/\
>>>>>
V
L
U
C
E
N
T
<<<<< 118
V 117
COUNTY LINE RD
<<<<<
185
/\
<<<<<
V
COUNTY LINE RD
>>>>>
477
251 >>>>>
67 V
13
0
17
6
<<<<<
PLUM VALLEY LN
<<<<<
14
/\
/\
580
L
U
C
E
N
T
658
V
V
23
>>>>>
LUCENT CT
>>>>>
68
11
0
13
/\
>>>>>
V
L
U
C
E
N
T
<<<<< 452
V 620
COUNTY LINE RD
<<<<<
440
/\
<<<<<
V
>>>>>
279
63
0
58
PLUM VALLEY LN
<<<<<
12
/\
/\
645
>>>>>
15
The exis ng LOS results are summarized below:
•
With exis ng levels of development, the intersec on of County Line Rd./Lucent Blvd. currently
operates at Level of Service (LOS) D. However, due to the high turning volumes and unusual split
phasing configura on of this par cular intersec on, some addi onal delay is experienced at this
intersec on.
3
June 2014
•
At the Lucent Blvd./Plum Valley Ln. intersec on, the stop controlled exis ng outbound le turn
movement operates at LOS E. This increased delay is expected for unsignalized le turns and does
not nega vely impact the overall opera on of the intersec on.
3.0 Schomp Automotive Expansion - Traffic Generation and Trip Distribution
This sec on of the study provides the background and calcula on of traffic associated with the
proposed expansion of the Schomp dealership complex.
3.1
Schomp Automotive Expansion - Land Use Description
The exis ng development located off of Plum Valley Lane includes two exis ng auto dealerships,
Schomp BMW and Larry Miller Nissan. All other parcels of land in the vicinity are currently vacant.
The proposed expansion of the Schomp dealership includes the development of two of these vacant
parcels.
The parcel to be rezoned, Plum Valley Subdivision Lots 7-16, is located directly to the north of the
exis ng Schomp BMW dealership and is located within the city of Li leton. The exis ng site plan is
shown in Figure 3-1 and includes a 979 space parking lot that will be u lized for vehicle storage for the
exis ng and planned Ralph Schomp auto dealerships to the south. By itself the expanded parking area
for the auto dealerships does not add substan al vehicle trips to the network. ITE trip genera on for
auto dealerships is based on building size of the dealership.
Planned expansion to the east of the exis ng Schomp BMW, located on Highland Ranch Filing 152,
Lot 2, includes the addi on of two auto dealerships, a MINI dealership (53,699 sq. . building) and a
Honda dealership (95,498 sq. . building). The addi on of two separate dealerships on a lot this size
is feasible with the proposed vehicle storage lot on the parcel to the north.
Auto dealerships generally have different peak traffic pa erns than surrounding roadway network.
While the exis ng roadway network has dis nct AM and PM peak hours, auto dealerships peak traffic
genera on occurs on weekends, when more consumers are likely to shop for a new vehicle. This higher
weekend traffic is spread throughout the day so there is no dis nct weekend peak period. Traffic
generated by auto dealerships during the week is focused on vehicle maintenance or other services.
While the daily AM and PM peak periods are not the peak periods for the proposed expansion, these
mes will have the greatest impact on the surrounding roadway network.
Based on the traffic counts conducted at the Lucent Blvd./Plum Valley Lane intersec on, the exis ng
peak hour traffic is approximately half of what ITE trip genera on methodologies would forecast for
the exis ng land uses based on building size during the weekday AM and PM peak hours.
3.2
Forecasted Site Traffic
The traffic genera on from the site was calculated using standard Ins tute of Transporta on Engineers
4
June 2014
Figure 3-1 : Proposed Site Plan
Plum Valley Subdivision, Lots 7-16
Employee Parking/Vehicle Storage
Proposed Schomp Dealership Expansion
Honda and MINI dealerships
Proposed
MINI Site
53,699 sq. Ō.
ExisƟng
BMW Site
91,017 sq. Ō.
Proposed
Honda Site
95,498 sq. Ō.
5
June 2014
Table 3-1 : Forecasted Site Traffic
Trip Generation Base Calculations
ITE
Code
Description
Area
Unit
Daily Rate
& Traffic
841 New Car Sales (Honda)
96
1000 ft2
33.34
3184
841 New Car Sales (MINI)
54
1000 ft2
33.34
1790
Daily
4974
Total - Buildout of Project
AM Peak Rate, trips, PM Peak Rate,
in/out distrib.
trips, in/out distrib.
IN
2.03
178
74%
IN
2.03
100
74%
OUT
2.03
50
26%
OUT
2.03
28
26%
IN
2.59
96
39%
IN
2.59
54
39%
OUT
2.59
151
61%
OUT
2.59
85
61%
AM in
279
AM out
79
PM in
151
PM out
236
Internal
Capture
Reduction
0%
0%
(ITE) trip genera ng methodology. The proposed MINI and Honda dealerships are approximately the
same size as the exis ng Nissan and BMW dealerships that exist today. While the peak hour turning
movement counts conducted for this study showed significantly less traffic during the AM and PM
peaks than ITE trip genera on methodology, the ITE trip rates were used for the new dealerships in
this study to evaluate a conserva ve trip genera on for this site. Table 3-1 provides the calcula ons
of trip genera on for this site.
3.3
Site Traffic Distribution and Assignment
Due to the exis ng auto dealership facili es located in the same area as the proposed project, the
traffic distribu on is an cipated to be the same as the exis ng condi ons. Based on this exis ng
distribu on, the following trip assignment is assumed:
During the AM peak hours:
• 10% inbound and 15% outbound via County Line Road west
• 20% inbound and 30% outbound via County Line Road east
• 70% inbound and 55% outbound via Lucent Boulevard south
During the PM peak hour:
• 10% inbound and 35% outbound via County Line Road west
• 55% inbound and 20% outbound via County Line Road east
• 35% inbound and 45% outbound via Lucent Boulevard south
3.4
Forecasted Site Traffic Volumes
The distribu on assump ons above were combined with the trip genera on shown in Table 3-1 to
es mate the number of Project trips added to the intersec ons of Lucent Blvd./Plum Valley Lane and
County Line Rd./Lucent Blvd. Forecasted site traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3-2.
6
June 2014
Figure 3-2 Future Site Traffic AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes
AMProjectDistribution
<<<<<
V
V
>>>>>
COUNTY LINE RD
28
<<<<<
V
V
/\
>>>>>
V
84
>>>>>
LUCENT CT
/\
>>>>>
V
PMProjectTraffic
L
U
C
E
N
T
/\
<<<<<
V
56
COUNTY LINE RD
<<<<<
12
/\
/\
COUNTY LINE RD
>>>>>
24
15
L
U
C
E
N
T
/\
<<<<<
V
>>>>>
V
35
78
43
<<<<<
PLUM VALLEY LN
<<<<<
L
U
C
E
N
T
/\
/\
>>>>>
195
V
V
98
>>>>>
LUCENT CT
279
/\
>>>>>
V
L
U
C
E
N
T
V
83
COUNTY LINE RD
<<<<<
83
>>>>>
47
/\ 130
<<<<<
V 106
236
PLUM VALLEY LN
<<<<<
/\
/\
>>>>>
53
151
4.0 Future Background Traffic
4.1
Future Background Peak Hour Traffic Assumptions
The future background traffic is the growth in traffic that is assumed to occur on the adjacent roadway
and on adjacent vacant parcels. For this study, the following assump ons were made for future growth,
and addi onal assump ons are described below:
•
Exis ng traffic on Lucent Boulevard and County Line Road was forecast to grow at a rate of 2% per
year in the vicinity of the Project.
•
There are addi onal vacant parcels located along Plum Valley Lane. For analysis of this traffic
study, these parcels were assumed to be developed by the horizon year of this study. In an effort
to quan fy the future traffic associated with these parcels, land uses were projected to be an
veterinary/animal clinic, and an addi onal auto dealership. For this reason these volumes have
not been included in the intersec on analysis at for the Future Condi on (2020). Their poten al
impact to the Plum Valley Ln./Lucent Blvd. intersec on is addressed later in this analysis.
7
June 2014
5.0 Forecasted Traffic & Operations Analysis
The previous sec ons in this traffic study describe the steps to determine the future peak hour
intersec on turning movements for use in traffic analysis on public intersec ons. This sec on
describes the traffic numbers used for traffic opera ons and level of service (LOS) analysis for public
road intersec ons and for the site access intersec ons, and the results of the analysis. The “future”
me period for the purposes of this study is 2020 when the addi onal auto dealerships are assumed
to be opera ng.
5.1
Traffic Volumes for Analysis
The traffic opera ons analysis focuses on the peak hour intersec on turning movements for AM peak
and PM peak hours. The following figures show the forecasted intersec on Total turning movements:
•
Figure 5-1 Total future AM & PM peak hour traffic
These traffic volumes include the site traffic from the Project within the total number. Traffic volumes
including the addi onal background traffic from the animal clinic and other future auto dealership are
not included in these future traffic volumes.
5.2
Traffic Operations and Capacity Analysis
Traffic analysis for the project area was performed with the Highway Capacity Manual’s so ware
package as incorporated into the Synchro so ware. The roadway network surrounding the site is
assumed to be the same in the future as it is today. The intersec on laneage used for the analysis is
shown in Figure 2-1. Discussion of the traffic capacity analysis methodologies and results follow.
5.2.1 Level of Service Criteria
Level of Service (LOS) calcula ons were performed at the key intersec ons in the study area. LOS “is
a quality measure describing opera onal condi ons within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such
service measures as speed and travel me, freedom to maneuver, traffic interrup ons, and comfort
and convenience.” There are six LOS ra ngs outlined for each facility type considered, ranging from
LOS A (the best) to LOS F (the worst). The goal with the LOS grading is to be able to convey traffic
opera ons to the general popula on in a simplified way that makes sense to them.
The HCM defines LOS for interrupted flow facili es (such as signalized arterials) using the concept of
control delay. Control delay is expressed in seconds per vehicle, and is delay encountered by motorists
that can be a ributed to the traffic control device (usually a signal). Methodologies are provided to
quan fy the delay induced by traffic control devices and addi onal procedures account for factors
such as grades, heavy vehicles, and lane widths. When the methodologies in the HCM are applied, a
control delay can be calculated and related to the LOS criteria.
8
June 2014
Figure 5-1 - 2020 Total AM & PM Peak Hour Turning Movements
AMFutureͲ2020
COUNTY LINE RD
PMFutureͲ2020
L
U
C
E
N
T
375 >>>>>
83 V
11
<<<<<
143
V
V
116
>>>>>
LUCENT CT
6
0
6
/\
>>>>>
V
L
U
C
E
N
T
<<<<< 133
V 187
COUNTY LINE RD
<<<<<
220
/\
<<<<<
V
COUNTY LINE RD
>>>>>
561
283 >>>>>
91 V
50
0
62
7
<<<<<
PLUM VALLEY LN
<<<<<
16
/\
/\
653
741
V
V
124
>>>>>
LUCENT CT
>>>>>
272
12
0
15
/\
>>>>>
V
The basic LOS criteria for signalized intersec ons are shown in Table 5-1.
Table 5 -1:
Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria
LOS
A
B
C
D
E
F
ControlDelay(sec)
ч10
>10andч20
>20andч35
>35andч55
>55andч80
>80
Similarly, the unsignalized LOS criteria are shown in Table 5 2:
Table 5-2
Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria
LOS
A
B
C
D
E
F
L
U
C
E
N
T
ControlDelay(sec)
ч10
>10andч15
>15andч25
>25andч35
>35andч50
>50
9
L
U
C
E
N
T
<<<<< 509
V 781
COUNTY LINE RD
<<<<<
578
>>>>>
361
/\ 201
<<<<< 0
V 171
PLUM VALLEY LN
<<<<<
14
/\
/\
726
>>>>>
70
June 2014
5.2.2 Level of Service Results
The results of the LOS analysis for showing a comparison of exis ng LOS and 2020 LOS with the Project
are shown in Table 5-3. For this traffic study, only the two intersec ons of County Line Rd./Lucent
Blvd. and Lucent Blvd./Plum Valley Lane were evaluated in detail.
Future LOS Results
•
Similar to the results for exis ng LOS, there are no exis ng intersec on LOS issues in the project
area at the Lucent Blvd./Plum Valley Lane except for delay for drivers making unsignalized le turns
onto Lucent Boulevard from Plum Valley Lane. This delay for le turns from Plum Valley Lane onto
Lucent Boulevard is to be expected at the minor street approach to a stop controlled intersec on.
•
Based on the ITE trip genera on methodologies the addi on of Project traffic to the intersec on of
County Line Road/Lucent Boulevard will be at its capacity under its exis ng configura on. It should
be noted that based on the exis ng traffic counts on Plum Valley Lane, the trips forecasted for the
addi onal development are quite aggressive based on the exis ng auto dealerships in the vicinity
and represent a conserva ve scenario for this development.
Table 5-3 : Existing and Future Level of Service Results
Existing(2014)
FutureͲwithDevelopment
AMPeak
v/c
delay LOS
PMPeak
v/c
delay LOS
v/c
AMPeak
delay LOS
NBLeft
SBLeft
EBLeft
WBLeft
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.07
7.5
9.2
14.3
20.6
A
A
B
C
0.01
0.03
0.09
0.44
9.2
9.2
34.6
48.6
A
A
D
E
0.01
0.18
0.03
0.6
7.6
11.4
22.8
75.4
A
B
C
F
0.02
0.17
0.3
2.88
9.5
10.6
>100
>100
A
B
F
F
CountyLineRoadand
LucentBlvd
NBLeft
NBRight
WBLeft
EBThru
0.31
0.43
0.26
0.74
26.9
10.2
34.6
48
C
B
C
D
0.83
0.22
0.87
0.8
50.6
4.9
48.4
64.6
D
A
D
E
0.43
0.57
0.51
0.65
24.3
14
33.9
25.9
C
B
C
C
1
0.3
1.01
1.01
76
4.6
74.6
>100
E
A
E
F
v/c
PMPeak
delay LOS
LucentDrandPlumValley
Delayreportedinsecondspervehicle
10
June 2014
6.0 Summary and Findings
The exis ng Schomp BMW located on Plum Valley Lane is interested in planning expansion to include a
MINI dealership and Honda dealership. These dealerships would be added to the east of the exis ng
BMW dealership along with a parking lot to the north to house vehicle inventory and employee parking.
The addi on of these auto dealerships would effec vely double the amount of auto dealership space
on Plum Valley Lane resul ng in addi onal traffic in the vicinity.
Using ITE trip genera on rates to forecast future traffic genera on, the addi onal Project trips were
loaded onto the roadway network based on the exis ng traffic distribu on at the Lucent Blvd../Plum
Valley Lane and County Line Rd./Lucent Blvd.. intersec ons. Analysis of these intersec ons during the
AM and PM peak hours led to the following conclusions:
•
At the intersec on of Lucent Blvd../Plum Valley Lane the le turn volumes onto Lucent Boulevard
may experience substan al delay with the addi on of the Project at the me of buildout. Delay
for the minor street le turns generally does not cons tute the need for the addi on of a signal,
however, the traffic volume forecasts for the east leg of the Plum Valley Lane intersec on appear to
be high enough to meet peak hour warrants for a traffic signal at this intersec on. This intersec on
should con nue to be monitored a er opening of the Project to see if warrants are met.
•
As shown in Table 6-1, with the addi on of future development in the area including such things as
a veterinary/animal clinic and addi onal auto dealership, this le turn will con nue to experience
excessive delay and will likely require signaliza on. All other movements operate within their
capacity.
Table 6-1 : Plum Valley Lane Buildout Comparison
FutureͲwithProject
LucentDrandPlumValley
NBLeft
SBLeft
EBLeft
WBLeft
•
FutureͲw/PlumValleyBuildout
v/c
PMPeak
delay
LOS
v/c
PMPeak
delay
LOS
0.02
0.17
0.3
2.88
9.5
10.6
>100
>100
A
B
F
F
0.02
0.21
0.4
4.19
9.5
10.9
>100
>100
A
B
F
F
The intersec on of County Line Rd./Lucent Blvd.. is already a very busy intersec on under exis ng
condi ons. With the addi on of the Project and con nued background traffic growth this
intersec on will be at its capacity under its exis ng configura on. While analyzing the future Level
11
June 2014
Figure 6-2 : County Line Rd./Lucent Blvd.
County Line Rd./Lucent Blvd.
Conceptual Intersection Scenarios
Exis ng
Intersec on
Configura on
LOS = E
Delay = 67.6
v/c = 1.01
Future Op on
Scenario 1
Future Op on
Scenario 2
Future Op on
Scenario 3
LOS = D
Delay = 45.6
v/c = .86
LOS = D
Delay = 44.2
v/c = .90
LOS = D
Delay = 34.1
of Service for the County Line Rd./Lucent Blvd.. intersec on, TSH looked at three possible future
intersec on improvements that could be accommodated either within the exis ng intersec on
footprint, or with minor construc on improvements to the exis ng intersec on. These scenarios
are shown with their respec ve Level of Service in Figure 6-2 and are outlined below:
•
Scenario 1 includes the addi on of a le turn lane to the Northbound approach making it a double
le turn with a separate right turn lane. There is approximately 34 feet of pavement on this
approach making this a feasible restriping op on or the raised median could be reduced to add an
addi onal le turn lane while maintaining the exis ng loca on of the exis ng turn lanes. There is
currently sufficient receiving pavement in the westbound direc on to add another northbound le
turn lane. A merge downstream across the bridge would be necessary to reduce the westbound
direc on to a single lane.
•
Scenario 2 includes the separa on of the Westbound shared thru-le turn lane that exists today.
By adding this extra lane to obtain double le turns as well as a thru lane, the eastbound approach
would become a shared thru-right turn lane. All this could be done as a simple restriping effort.
Alterna vely, with the removal of addi onal curb in the southwest corner of the intersec on,
both of the eastbound lanes could shi south 12 feet maintaining the separate right-turn and thru
movements.
•
Scenario 3 includes the conversion of the exis ng T-intersec on into an mul -lane roundabout. This
scenario would require the reconstruc on of the exis ng intersec on and would have the greatest
improvement in terms of delay experienced at the intersec on. The roundabout conversion would
be the highest construc on cost and would expand the footprint of the intersec on north onto the
vacant land that is s ll outside the fenced boundary of McClellan Reservoir.
12
June 2014
APPENDIX
• Traffic Level of Service - HCM Output from Synchro
1
June 2014
Existing (2013) and Total (2020) Traffic
Level of Service HCM Results
Organized by:
Analysis Year,
Intersection,
Peak Hour
2
Existing (2013) AM Peak Hour
1: Lucent Blvd & County Line Rd
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Peak-hour factor, PHF
Adj. Flow (vph)
RTOR Reduction (vph)
Lane Group Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated Green, G (s)
Effective Green, g (s)
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Incremental Delay, d2
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
NBL
NBR
333
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1863
1.00
1863
0.92
362
0
362
NA
4
49
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0.92
53
39
14
Perm
117
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.95
1681
0.95
1681
0.92
127
0
114
Split
3
118
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
1.00
1761
1.00
1761
0.92
128
0
141
NA
3
185
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
0.92
201
0
201
Prot
5
477
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0.92
518
60
458
pt+ov
53
30.0
30.0
0.26
4.0
442
0.07
30.0
30.0
0.26
4.0
463
0.08
42.0
42.0
0.37
4.0
652
0.11
76.0
76.0
0.67
0.26
33.2
1.00
1.4
34.6
C
0.30
33.6
1.00
1.7
35.3
D
35.0
D
0.31
25.7
1.00
1.2
26.9
C
14.9
B
30.0
30.0
0.26
4.0
490
c0.19
0.74
38.4
1.00
9.6
48.0
D
45.9
D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio
Actuated Cycle Length (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization
Analysis Period (min)
c Critical Lane Group
6/11/2014 Baseline
6/16/2014
4
30.0
30.0
0.26
4.0
416
0.01
0.03
31.2
1.00
0.2
31.4
C
27.8
0.54
114.0
53.7%
15
1055
c0.29
0.43
8.9
1.00
1.3
10.2
B
HCM 2000 Level of Service
Sum of lost time (s)
ICU Level of Service
C
12.0
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Existing (2013) AM Peak Hour
3: Lucent Ct/Plum Valley Ln & Lucent Blvd
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Hourly flow rate (vph)
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Queue Length 95th (ft)
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
6/11/2014 Baseline
6/16/2014
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
5
0
Stop
0%
0.92
0
5
17
13
14
29
0.92
14
0.92
15
0.92
74
0.92
32
127
Free
0%
0.92
138
10
0.92
18
580
Free
0%
0.92
630
68
0.92
5
0
Stop
0%
0.92
0
0.92
5
0.92
11
7
None
None
848
552
941
74
835
910
352
149
704
552
7.5
941
6.5
74
6.9
835
7.5
910
6.5
352
6.9
149
4.1
704
4.1
3.5
99
393
4.0
100
250
3.3
99
972
3.5
93
250
4.0
100
261
3.3
98
644
2.2
99
1430
2.2
96
889
EB 1
5
5
0
393
0.01
1
14.3
B
11.5
B
EB 2
5
0
5
972
0.01
0
8.7
A
WB 1
18
18
0
250
0.07
6
20.6
C
Err
F
WB 2
14
0
14
0
Err
Err
Err
F
NB 1
15
15
0
1430
0.01
1
7.5
A
0.2
NB 2
420
0
0
1700
0.25
0
0.0
NB 3
284
0
74
1700
0.17
0
0.0
Err
38.4%
15
SB 1
32
32
0
889
0.04
3
9.2
A
1.6
SB 2
92
0
0
1700
0.05
0
0.0
SB 3
57
0
11
1700
0.03
0
0.0
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Existing (2013) PM Peak Hour
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
NBL
NBR
251
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1863
1.00
1863
0.92
273
0
273
NA
4
67
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0.92
73
60
13
Perm
620
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.95
1681
0.95
1681
0.92
674
0
573
Split
3
452
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.99
1755
0.99
1755
0.92
491
0
592
NA
3
440
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
0.92
478
0
478
Prot
5
279
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0.92
303
38
265
pt+ov
53
47.0
47.0
0.39
4.0
658
c0.34
47.0
47.0
0.39
4.0
687
0.34
39.0
39.0
0.32
4.0
575
c0.27
90.0
90.0
0.75
0.87
33.7
1.00
14.7
48.4
D
0.86
33.5
1.00
13.4
46.9
D
47.7
D
0.83
37.5
1.00
13.1
50.6
D
32.9
C
22.0
22.0
0.18
4.0
341
c0.15
0.80
46.9
1.00
17.7
64.6
E
59.5
E
6/11/2014 Baseline
6/16/2014
4
22.0
22.0
0.18
4.0
290
0.01
0.05
40.4
1.00
0.3
40.7
D
44.4
0.84
120.0
76.6%
15
1187
0.17
0.22
4.5
1.00
0.4
4.9
A
D
12.0
D
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Existing (2013) PM Peak Hour
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median type
Median storage veh)
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
6/11/2014 Baseline
6/16/2014
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
11
0
Stop
0%
0.92
0
13
58
63
12
23
0.92
68
0.92
13
0.92
16
0.92
25
658
Free
0%
0.92
715
6
0.92
63
645
Free
0%
0.92
701
15
0.92
14
0
Stop
0%
0.92
0
0.92
12
0.92
7
7
None
None
848
1145
1512
361
1157
1507
359
722
717
1145
7.5
1512
6.5
361
6.9
1157
7.5
1507
6.5
359
6.9
722
4.1
717
4.1
3.5
91
133
4.0
100
114
3.3
98
636
3.5
56
143
4.0
100
115
3.3
89
638
2.2
99
876
2.2
97
879
EB 1
12
12
0
133
0.09
7
34.6
D
21.7
C
EB 2
14
0
14
636
0.02
2
10.8
B
WB 1
63
63
0
143
0.44
49
48.6
E
Err
F
WB 2
68
0
68
0
Err
Err
Err
F
NB 1
13
13
0
876
0.01
1
9.2
A
0.2
NB 2
467
0
0
1700
0.27
0
0.0
NB 3
250
0
16
1700
0.15
0
0.0
Err
35.7%
15
SB 1
25
25
0
879
0.03
2
9.2
A
0.3
SB 2
477
0
0
1700
0.28
0
0.0
SB 3
245
0
7
1700
0.14
0
0.0
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Horizon Year (2020) AM Peak Hour
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
NBL
NBR
375
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1863
1.00
1863
0.92
408
0
408
NA
4
83
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0.92
90
60
30
Perm
187
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.95
1681
0.95
1681
0.92
203
0
171
Split
3
133
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.99
1754
0.99
1754
0.92
145
0
177
NA
3
220
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
0.92
239
0
239
Prot
5
561
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0.92
610
98
512
pt+ov
53
16.0
16.0
0.20
4.0
336
0.10
16.0
16.0
0.20
4.0
350
0.10
25.0
25.0
0.31
4.0
553
0.14
45.0
45.0
0.56
0.51
28.5
1.00
5.4
33.9
C
0.51
28.5
1.00
5.1
33.6
C
33.8
C
0.43
21.9
1.00
2.5
24.3
C
16.9
B
27.0
27.0
0.34
4.0
628
c0.22
0.65
22.5
1.00
5.1
27.6
C
25.9
C
6/11/2014 Baseline
6/16/2014
4
27.0
27.0
0.34
4.0
534
0.02
0.06
17.9
1.00
0.2
18.1
B
23.0
0.64
80.0
61.1%
15
890
c0.32
0.57
11.3
1.00
2.7
14.0
B
C
12.0
B
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Horizon Year (2020) AM Peak Hour
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median type
Median storage veh)
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
Average Delay
6/11/2014 Baseline
6/16/2014
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
6
0
Stop
0%
0.92
0
6
62
50
16
116
0.92
54
0.92
17
0.92
296
0.92
126
143
Free
0%
0.92
155
11
0.92
67
653
Free
0%
0.92
710
272
0.92
7
0
Stop
0%
0.92
0
0.92
7
0.92
12
7
None
None
848
803
1454
84
1229
1312
503
167
1005
803
7.5
1454
6.5
84
6.9
1229
7.5
1312
6.5
503
6.9
167
4.1
1005
4.1
3.5
97
209
4.0
100
104
3.3
99
959
3.5
40
113
4.0
100
127
3.3
89
514
2.2
99
1408
2.2
82
685
EB 1
7
7
0
209
0.03
2
22.8
C
15.8
C
EB 2
7
0
7
959
0.01
1
8.8
A
WB 1
67
67
0
113
0.60
73
75.4
F
Err
F
WB 2
54
0
54
0
Err
Err
Err
F
NB 1
17
17
0
1408
0.01
1
7.6
A
0.1
NB 2
473
0
0
1700
0.28
0
0.0
NB 3
532
0
296
1700
0.31
0
0.0
Err
53.2%
15
SB 1
126
126
0
685
0.18
17
11.4
B
4.9
SB 2
104
0
0
1700
0.06
0
0.0
SB 3
64
0
12
1700
0.04
0
0.0
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Horizon Year (2020) PM Peak Hour
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
NBL
NBR
272
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1863
1.00
1863
0.92
296
0
296
NA
4
90
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0.92
98
82
16
Perm
766
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.95
1681
0.95
1681
0.92
833
0
666
Split
3
489
1900
4.0
0.95
1.00
0.99
1749
0.99
1749
0.92
532
0
699
NA
3
571
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
0.92
621
0
621
Prot
5
356
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0.92
387
20
367
pt+ov
53
47.0
47.0
0.39
4.0
658
0.40
47.0
47.0
0.39
4.0
685
c0.40
42.0
42.0
0.35
4.0
619
c0.35
93.0
93.0
0.78
1.01
36.5
1.00
38.1
74.6
E
1.02
36.5
1.00
39.6
76.1
E
75.4
E
1.00
39.0
1.00
37.0
76.0
E
48.6
D
19.0
19.0
0.16
4.0
294
c0.16
1.01
50.5
1.00
54.2
104.7
F
89.5
F
6/11/2014 Baseline
6/16/2014
4
19.0
19.0
0.16
4.0
250
0.01
0.06
42.9
1.00
0.5
43.4
D
67.6
1.01
120.0
90.0%
15
1226
0.23
0.30
4.0
1.00
0.6
4.6
A
E
12.0
E
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Horizon Year (2020) PM Peak Hour
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (veh/h)
Sign Control
Grade
Peak Hour Factor
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Percent Blockage
Median type
Median storage veh)
vCu, unblocked vol
tC, single (s)
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s)
p0 queue free %
cM capacity (veh/h)
Direction, Lane #
Volume Total
Volume Left
Volume Right
cSH
Volume to Capacity
Control Delay (s)
Lane LOS
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT
SBR
12
0
Stop
0%
0.92
0
15
222
257
14
145
0.92
279
0.92
15
0.92
85
0.92
158
741
Free
0%
0.92
805
7
0.92
241
726
Free
0%
0.92
789
78
0.92
16
0
Stop
0%
0.92
0
0.92
13
0.92
8
7
None
None
848
1549
2029
407
1596
1990
437
813
874
1549
7.5
2029
6.5
407
6.9
1596
7.5
1990
6.5
437
6.9
813
4.1
874
4.1
3.5
60
33
4.0
100
44
3.3
97
594
3.5
0
58
4.0
100
47
3.3
51
567
2.2
98
810
2.2
79
768
EB 1
13
13
0
33
0.40
33
175.5
F
84.2
F
EB 2
16
0
16
594
0.03
2
11.2
B
WB 1
241
241
0
58
4.19
Err
Err
F
Err
F
WB 2
279
0
279
0
Err
Err
Err
F
NB 1
15
15
0
810
0.02
1
9.5
A
0.2
NB 2
526
0
0
1700
0.31
0
0.0
NB 3
348
0
85
1700
0.20
0
0.0
Average Delay
6/11/2014 Baseline
6/16/2014
Err
52.9%
15
SB 1
158
158
0
768
0.21
19
10.9
B
1.8
SB 2
537
0
0
1700
0.32
0
0.0
SB 3
276
0
8
1700
0.16
0
0.0
A
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Horizon Year (2020) PM Peak Hour Scenario 1
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
NBL
NBR
283
1900
6.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1863
1.00
1863
0.92
308
0
308
NA
4
91
1900
6.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0.92
99
81
18
Perm
781
1900
6.0
0.95
1.00
0.99
1750
0.99
1750
0.92
849
0
688
Split
3
509
1900
6.0
0.95
1.00
0.99
1750
0.99
1750
0.92
553
0
714
NA
3
578
1900
6.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
0.92
628
0
628
Prot
5
361
1900
6.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0.92
392
33
359
pt+ov
53
54.0
54.0
0.45
6.0
787
0.39
54.0
54.0
0.45
6.0
787
c0.41
26.0
26.0
0.22
6.0
743
c0.18
86.0
86.0
0.72
0.87
29.9
1.00
12.9
42.9
D
0.91
30.7
1.00
16.1
46.8
D
44.9
D
0.85
45.1
1.00
11.4
56.4
E
37.4
D
22.0
22.0
0.18
6.0
341
c0.17
0.90
48.0
1.00
29.4
77.4
E
68.5
E
6/11/2014 Baseline
6/16/2014
4
22.0
22.0
0.18
6.0
290
0.01
0.06
40.5
1.00
0.4
40.9
D
45.6
0.89
120.0
81.4%
15
1134
0.23
0.32
6.2
1.00
0.7
7.0
A
D
18.0
D
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Movement
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
Ideal Flow (vphpl)
Total Lost time (s)
Lane Util. Factor
Frt
Flt Protected
Satd. Flow (prot)
Flt Permitted
Satd. Flow (perm)
Adj. Flow (vph)
Turn Type
Protected Phases
Permitted Phases
Actuated g/C Ratio
Clearance Time (s)
Lane Grp Cap (vph)
v/s Ratio Prot
v/s Ratio Perm
v/c Ratio
Uniform Delay, d1
Progression Factor
Delay (s)
Level of Service
Approach Delay (s)
Approach LOS
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
NBL
NBR
272
1900
4.0
1.00
0.97
1.00
1800
1.00
1800
0.92
296
10
384
NA
4
90
1900
766
1900
4.0
0.97
1.00
0.95
3433
0.95
3433
0.92
833
0
833
custom
3
3
31.0
31.0
0.26
4.0
886
c0.24
489
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1863
1.00
1863
0.92
532
0
532
NA
8
571
1900
4.0
1.00
1.00
0.95
1770
0.95
1770
0.92
621
0
621
Prot
5
356
1900
4.0
1.00
0.85
1.00
1583
1.00
1583
0.92
387
62
325
pt+ov
53
63.0
63.0
0.52
4.0
978
0.29
49.0
49.0
0.41
4.0
722
c0.35
84.0
84.0
0.70
0.94
43.6
1.00
18.8
62.4
E
0.54
18.9
1.00
2.2
21.1
C
46.3
D
0.86
32.4
1.00
12.7
45.1
D
30.7
C
28.0
28.0
0.23
4.0
420
c0.21
0.91
44.8
1.00
26.9
71.8
E
71.8
E
6/11/2014 Baseline
6/16/2014
0.92
98
0
0
44.2
0.90
120.0
83.3%
15
1108
0.21
0.29
6.8
1.00
0.7
7.5
A
D
12.0
E
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh
Intersection LOS
34.1
D
Approach
Entry Lanes
Conflicting Circle Lanes
Adj Approach Flow, veh/h
Demand Flow Rate, veh/h
Vehicles Circulating, veh/h
Vehicles Exiting, veh/h
Follow-Up Headway, s
Ped Vol Crossing Leg, #/h
Ped Cap Adj
Approach Delay, s/veh
Approach LOS
Lane
Designated Moves
Assumed Moves
RT Channelized
Lane Util
Critical Headway, s
Entry Flow, veh/h
Cap Entry Lane, veh/h
Entry HV Adj Factor
Flow Entry, veh/h
Cap Entry, veh/h
V/C Ratio
Control Delay, s/veh
LOS
95th %tile Queue, veh
6/11/2014 Baseline
6/16/2014
EB
2
2
394
402
850
1176
3.186
0
1.000
13.1
B
WB
2
2
1365
1393
633
697
3.186
0
1.000
56.3
F
NB
2
2
1008
1028
302
950
3.186
0
1.000
12.2
B
Left
LT
LT
Right
R
R
Left
L
L
Right
LTR
LTR
Left
L
L
Right
LTR
LTR
0.751
4.293
302
597
0.980
296
586
0.506
14.8
B
3
0.249
4.113
100
623
0.980
98
611
0.160
7.8
A
1
0.530
4.293
738
703
0.981
724
689
1.050
72.4
F
19
0.470
4.113
655
725
0.980
642
711
0.903
38.1
E
12
0.530
4.293
545
901
0.980
534
883
0.605
13.1
B
4
0.470
4.113
483
915
0.981
474
897
0.528
11.1
B
3
Synchro 8 Report
Page 1
P:\623\0201\dwg\Plot\GDP\01 Cover.dwg, Layout1, 9/9/2014 9:39:01 AM, 1:1, JKO, JKO
12265 W. Bayaud Avenue, Suite 130
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
P:303.989.1461 F: 303.989.4094
P:\623\0201\dwg\Plot\GDP\02 Planned Development.dwg, Layout1, 8/18/2014 9:29:22 AM, 1:1, JKO, JKO
P:303.989.1461 F: 303.989.4094
P:\623\0201\dwg\Plot\GDP\03 Conceptual Site.dwg, Layout1, 8/18/2014 9:30:14 AM, 1:1, JKO, JKO
P:303.989.1461 F: 303.989.4094
P:\623\0201\dwg\Plot\GDP\04 Conceptual Drainage.dwg, Layout1, 8/18/2014 9:36:57 AM, 1:1, JKO, JKO
P:303.989.1461 F: 303.989.4094
P:\623\0201\dwg\Plot\GDP\05 Conceptual Utility.dwg, Layout1, 8/18/2014 9:39:35 AM, 1:1, JKO, JKO
P:303.989.1461 F: 303.989.4094

City of Littleton

Transcription

Similar documents

Event Poster

Devour - Roto Grip

Purpleleaf Plum

15 Plum Road Booklet Hi Res Apts and House.pmd

Racing Cars - Everyday Math

Price Guide £350,000

What`s On | Majura Spring Carnival 2016

Be our Guest!

Press release

BREAK FREE - Roto Grip