The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 10 - Pinnacle Point TIA 2016-02-10Pinnacle Point Traffic Impact Analysis (3 Stantec TBPE Registration #: 6324 Prepared for: Adams Engineering & Development Consultants Prepared by: Josh Smith, PE, PTOE February 9, 2016 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1.1 2.0 DATA COLLECTION AND EXISTING CONDITIONS......................................................2.1 2.1 TRAFFIC COUNTS............................................................................................................2.1 2.2 SITE VISIT........................................................................................................................... 2.1 2.3 ROADWAY NETWORK....................................................................................................2.1 2.4 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES......................................................................................... 2.2 3.0 PROJECTED FUTURE BACKGROUND TRAFFIC.............................................................3.1 3.1 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH............................................................................... 3.1 3.2 ADJACENT BACKGROUND SITE....................................................................................3.1 3.3 ADJACENT VACANT LAND DEVELOPMENT................................................................ 3.2 4.0 PROJECTED SITE AND FUTURE BUILD TRAFFIC.............................................................4.1 4.1 TRIP GENERATION...........................................................................................................4.1 4.2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION...........................................................................................................4.1 4.3 PHASE 1 VOLUMES......................................................................................................... 4.2 4.4 PHASE 2 VOLUMES......................................................................................................... 4.3 5.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS......................................................................................................5.1 5.1 TRAFFIC MODELING METHODOLOGY.........................................................................5.1 5.2 EXISTING TRAFFIC ANALYSIS..........................................................................................5.2 5.3 FUTURE PHASE 1 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS..............................................................................5.2 5.4 FUTURE PHASE 2 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS.............................................................................. 5.3 6.0 DRIVEWAY ANALYSIS..................................................................................................6.1 6.1 AUXILIARY LANE ANALYSIS............................................................................................ 6.1 6.2 INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE....................................................................................6.1 7.0 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................7.1 Appendices Appendix A: Proposed Site Plan Appendix B: Collected Traffic Counts Appendix C: Background Trip Generation Appendix D: Project Site Trip Generation Appendix E: Synchro Analysis Worksheets PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Proposed Site Trip Generation................................................................................... 4.1 Table 2 Intersection Level of Service Thresholds................................................................... 5.2 Table 3 Existing Condition Capacity Analysis........................................................................ 5.2 Table 4 Future Phase 1 Traffic Analysis (without south driveway) ....................................... 5.2 Table 5 Future Phase 2 Traffic Analysis.................................................................................... 5.3 Table 6 Auxiliary Lane Analysis................................................................................................. 6.1 Table 7 Intersection Sight Distance......................................................................................... 6.2 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Proposed Site Location........................................................................................ Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan................................................................................................ Figure 3 Site Context Relevant to Crooked/Kimball Small Area Plan .......................... Figure 4 Existing Traffic Volumes........................................................................................ Figure 5 Background Site with Vacant Areas.................................................................. Figure 6 Estimated Vacant Parcel Development Locations (Phase 2)........................ Figure 7 Proposed Site Trip Distribution............................................................................. Figure 8 Phase 1 Site Volumes............................................................................................ Figure 9 Phase 1 Total Build Volumes................................................................................ Figure 10 Phase 2 Site Volumes.......................................................................................... Figure 11 Phase 2 Total Build Volumes.............................................................................. Figure 12 Trees Obstructing Sight Distance Looking North from Study Intersection... PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Introduction February 9, 2016 A INTRODUCTION Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by Adams Engineering & Development Consultants to complete a traffic impact analysis for the Pinnacle Point proposed office development (formerly known as Southlake Oaks) in Southlake, TX. The site is expected to contain 120,000 square feet of floor area, to be built out over two phases: the first phase will contain two buildings with a total of 37,000 square feet of floor area, and is expected to be built out in 2016; the remaining four buildings will be built as part of the second phase, and is expected to be completed in 2018. The location of the proposed site is shown in Figure 1. The site plan is shown in a condensed form in Figure 2, with the full-sized plan provided in Appendix A. Figure 1 Proposed Site Location One entrance to the site that will be analyzed as part of this study will be located on Kimball Avenue. It will form the fourth, eastern leg of the intersection of Kimball Avenue and the north loop of the George Dawson Middle School/Eubanks Intermediate School entrance. This entrance will be constructed as part of Phase 1. Stantec Wp bk u:\198110064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks to 2016-02-09.docx PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Introduction February 9, 2016 Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan r j��`I'/JIDU:lrift"./.4U'./!//Ad.A/,•A+I/.FJvrd%+r�"`+�,'�//% ~ 11� i:1�1 �1111 I( �. y�1•��'..1 /+�L.�j/./lFi#5 lSfg6.L.% 1 1 311 V5 au r7 i icy.�eetrie4Gi�IAri:ra'�:;.��.,r�i�,esriw,dX�is4Y.�itt��v}}+�r�II✓�C;.Y'i�r��r'.� ��' �„' "i� F �/i The City of Southlake's Mobility Master Plan updated in 2014 and the Mobility Plan for the Crooked/Kimball Special Plan Area show a future 2-lane east -west undivided collector roadway, South Village Center Drive, which will run adjacent to the northeast corner of the site, as shown in Figure 3. A short segment of South Village Center Drive (visible in Figure 1) has recently been constructed west of Kimball Avenue and north of George Dawson Middle School in conjunction with development occurring there. The Mobility Master Plan identifies that this segment will connect to the existing north -south segment of South Village Center Drive that currently intersects Southlake Boulevard (FM 1709) at a traffic signal to the northwest. The Mobility Master Plan also identifies the extension of South Village Center Drive east of Kimball Avenue to Nolen Drive as Project MT17 and lists it as a Priority Tier 3 project with implementation at least 7 years in the future. The Pinnacle Point developer will provide two driveways on the east side of the site that will connect to a future access easement and drive isle, which will in turn connect to South Village Center Drive once it is built. Development on the east side of the future drive isle is expected to also have driveways connecting to it, but specifics are not yet known. Stantec Wp bk u:\198110064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks to 2016-02-09.docx 1.2 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Introduction February 9, 2016 A cross -parcel access point is planned along the southwest part of the site, in the event that a connection to the lot south of the proposed site can be negotiated. Assumptions will be made about future traffic on the access easement and drive isle to address City comments on an earlier draft of this study. However, since funding for South Village Center Drive is unknown, build -out traffic will not be evaluated for its intersection with the drive isle. Figure 3 Site Context Relevant to Crooked/Kimball Small Area Plan tu .�® r \ \r♦ h 'rS ` ,r\ syO Future Extended% South Village Center Drive ' ,q 75 LDN I \k L i 6 ALL 1._L Cr i Flniciz:�151e�r�m1Y P1WYt ♦ `r♦ :� rn..ea axf.aaiw�.eem � � u Cana. n,c�am¢,tseeian-: r m mer�a. r,..xra. ew rl, \♦ iFl atiratic�yearMeaapYealy 1 \♦ r..merY.fy to a hag. npm �rvrrlav4 \ \ "-'iithi: :.�wiJfN1=L'^{ C�u:�:..;YFi�LN - '; fhmeretrtal<e Sv4aYe?JZSvian �h�.rnyw�v.ebestx 4'. 65 LDN ' r,NDVR911I,41. Cii; ------------ Mobility Plan CraokeWXjmba11 Special Plan Area Legend � Hwy 114 (WY-500' ROW) � RanchI MiW W" 04(y ROW Parkway) - FM 1709+FM IW81I W' ROW) ABO - 124 Aderel - A 5l1 - 64' Arterial 4-40 - I DU Arlerial A417 - 88' Ante nal A2U - U Artenal -- A3U - 70' Artenal +ter C2U - 84 Collactor -- C2U - 71Y Collect., .r^a+ 02U - ea Coileatwr Cmomon Aa ss Easement Clwake,IIKI haM Plan Area o. DFWAirport Noise Corridor Scale: 1:6,000 1 inch - 500 feet Cms Q..d [�nrnen[d FliNrn) W.e.mrv.ae ax+x.0 mdCkVebp�nl5w,wss w.m r.aa n as.w.e. zcu4;hc 1,1,.W n 11A. S Source: Adapted from City of Southlake Crooked/Kimball Small Area Plan, page 17 Stantec Wp bk u:\1981 10064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southIake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 1.3 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Data Collection and Existing Conditions February 9, 2016 The data collection for this project included peak hour turning movement counts for one intersection near the proposed site. In addition, a site visit was made by Stantec staff. 2.1 TRAFFIC COUNTS CJ Hensch & Associates, Inc. was contracted to collect traffic counts for the study intersection of Kimball Avenue and the George Dawson Middle School/Eubanks Intermediate School northern entrance driveway. Turning movement counts were collected on Wednesday, November 4, 2015, from 7:00-9:00 AM and from 4:00-6:00 PM. From the traffic counts, the AM peak hour was found to occur from 7:15 AM to 8:15 AM, and the PM peak hour was found to occur from 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM. The collected counts are provided in Appendix B. 2.2 SITE VISIT A site visit was conducted by Stantec staff on Tuesday, December 1, 2015 during the AM peak period and student drop-off period for the adjacent George Dawson Middle School. During the site visit, geometric information was collected for the intersection of Kimball Avenue and the school's north loop entrance, the sight distances were measured at the locations of the proposed site's northwest driveway along Kimball Avenue, and the build -out of the background site, located northwest of the proposed Pinnacle Point development, was noted. During the school drop-off period, a 20 mph speed limit was in effect along Kimball Avenue for the school zone instead of the usual posted speed limit of 35 mph. Throughout the site visit, neither heavy congestion nor long turning delays were observed. 2.3 ROADWAY NETWORK Kimball Avenue is a four -lane divided roadway, operating with a speed limit of 35 mph within the study area. In the City of Southlake Master Thoroughfare Plan, the roadway is classified as an arterial. At its intersection with the George Dawson Middle School north loop driveway, left turn bays are present for the northbound and southbound approaches. The north loop driveway is one-way for entering traffic only at this intersection, so the intersection is not stop -controlled or signalized. bk u:\198110064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks to 2016-02-09.docx 2.1 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Data Collection and Existing Conditions February 9, 2016 2.4 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES From the collected turning movement counts, the existing year 2015 traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4 for the AM and PM peak hours. Figure 4 Existing Traffic Volumes 1 a' Lo co It N School Drwy. m o cD rn -- ,n N N co `r' AM \ph PM \,ph)l Stantec Wp bk u:\198110064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks to 2016-02-09.docx 2.2 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Projected Future Background Traffic February 9, 2016 3.1 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH Phase 1 for the proposed site is expected to be built out in 2016, while Phase 2 is expected for 2018. Between the existing condition year of 2015 and the two build -out years, traffic in the area is expected to increase. By comparing historical average daily traffic counts in the area, obtained through both TxDOT and the City of Southlake, a background growth rate of 3% per year was determined, and applied to the collected turning movement counts. 3.2 ADJACENT BACKGROUND SITE To the northwest of the proposed site, and directly north of George Dawson Middle School, is a retail development which has been constructed recently but is not yet fully occupied. During the site visit (December 1, 2015), it was noted that the remaining vacant space was approximated to be around 20,300 square feet. The background site with the vacant areas marked is shown in Figure 5. Figure 5 Background Site with Vacant Areas �� +s•,.ateir ILL.. A trip generation and trip distribution analysis was conducted to estimate the added traffic due to the full build -out of the background site's vacant spaces. The resulting traffic volumes were Stantec Wp bk u:\198110064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks to 2016-02-09.docx 3.1 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Projected Future Background Traffic February 9, 2016 then added to the expected future volumes of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed site's construction. The trip generation worksheet for the adjacent background site is included in Appendix C. 3.3 ADJACENT VACANT LAND DEVELOPMENT The vacant land surrounding the proposed site is zoned for general sites and retail commercial. Since Pinnacle Point is the first proposed development among the vacant parcels in the vicinity, no other surrounding background development is anticipated for its 2016 Phase 1 build -out. However, for Phase 2 of the proposed site's build -out, estimates of the number of trips produced by the surrounding vacant sites were added to the expected Phase 2 background traffic. These added volumes considered the future extension of Village Center Drive. The vacant parcels considered are shown in Figure 6. The trip generation estimates for the vacant parcels are included in Appendix C. Because much of the vacant development is not near Kimball Avenue, it was not predicted that these vacant parcels would have a great effect on traffic volumes adjacent to the proposed site. Figure 6 Estimated Vacant Parcel Development Locations (Phase 2) ' _vMm go k Stantec Wp bk u:\198110064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks to 2016-02-09.docx 3.2 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Projected Site and Future Build Traffic February 9, 2016 eROJECTED SITE AND FUTURE BUILD TRAFFIC The proposed site traffic was estimated through trip generation and trip distribution analyses. This section provides the resulting turning movement volumes at the study intersection that will be generated by the proposed site, and the overall projected future traffic volumes including site and background traffic. 4.1 TRIP GENERATION The proposed site is expected to be built -out in two phases: the first phase will include two office buildings (Lots 1 and 2 on the site plan) with a gross floor area of 37,000 square feet; for the second phase, an additional four office buildings will be built, bringing the total floor area to 120,000 square feet. The standard practice for estimating site trip generation is to use the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. For the proposed site, the land use type "General Office Building" (ITE code 710) was used. The resulting peak hour trips for both phases of the proposed site build -out are shown in Table 1. (Phase 2 totals are cumulative and thus include trips from both Phase 1 and Phase 2 buildings). The corresponding ITE worksheets are provided in Appendix D. Table 1 Proposed Site Trip Generation Traffic Phase 1 Phase 2 Volumes Total Trips In Out Total Trips In Out Daily Trips 617 309 308 1,508 754 754 AM Peak 86 76 10 221 194 27 PM Peak 120 20 100 213 36 177 4.2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION A trip distribution analysis is used to estimate how site -generated trips enter and exit the project's study area. For this study, the external trip distribution was based on the current traffic volumes and the expected traffic patterns around the proposed site. The trip distribution, shown in Figure 7, was developed for both build -out phases. It was assumed to be the same for both peak hours and for inbound and outbound traffic. Stantec Wp bk u:\198110064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks to 2016-02-09.docx 4.1 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Projected Site and Future Build Traffic February 9, 2016 Figure 7 Proposed Site Trip Distribution Phase 1 4.3 PHASE 1 VOLUMES Phase 2 The Phase 1 volumes consider the first stage of the proposed site's build -out, including two of the six proposed buildings, and the full build -out of the retail/restaurant development on the southwest corner of Southlake Boulevard and Kimball Avenue. The proposed site volumes are shown in Figure 8, and the Phase 1 total build volumes are shown in Figure 9. Stantec Wp bk u:\198110064\revised scope work- 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 4.2 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Projected Site and Future Build Traffic February 9, 2016 Figure 8 Phase 1 Site Volumes d a boa`. Y Site Driveway 7 (75) N School Drwy. 0 (0) L- 3 (25) 0 0 � 0 o rn AM Figure 9 Phase 1 Total Build Volumes 1z � Lo E Y W Site Driveway 7(75) N School Drwy. 0 (0)0) 3 (25) o �n I- co N lfJ uJ AM vph (PP 4.4 PHASE 2 VOLUMES The Phase 2 volumes for the proposed site are shown in Figure 10. The estimated Phase 2 total build volumes are shown in Figure 11. The Phase 2 volumes consider the full build -out of the proposed site, the shopping development northwest of the site, and build -out of the vacant parcels surrounding the proposed site. Stantec Wp bk u:\198110064\revised scope work- 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 4.3 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Projected Site and Future Build Traffic February 9, 2016 Figure 10 Phase 2 Site Volumes a' boo" �oo00 Y Site Driveway 7-- 11 (72) N School Drwy. < 0 (0) Lx- 7 (44) o_ o rn 0 o w v d N d fIt O N V `N, W LL (i (43) � 0 (0) N Site Drwy o m 0 Cl) m N 0 O � N r 7 LL 3 (18) � S Site Drwy $tantec AM vph (PM AM AM bk u:\198110064\revised scope work- 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 4.4 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Projected Site and Future Build Traffic February 9, 2016 Figure 11 Phase 2 Total Build Volumes > N O 00 I- Y W Site Driveway 7-- 11 (72) N School Drwy. 0 (0) 7 (44) M m O (O V M O_ AM vph (P� 2 d N N > D7 W 0 r-- LO � � W 6 (43) � 0 (0) —y N Site Drwy 0 o v O Ln AM vph (PM vph) d N O O W LL W 7 lL Bkrd Driveway 3 (18) 7-- 30 (143) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) S Site Drwy T 3 o S o o S o Y r m AM bk u:\198110064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks tia 2016-02-09.docx 4.5 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Traffic Analysis February 9, 2016 Phase 2 also considers the extension of South Village Center Drive from Kimball Avenue to Nolen Drive, and the construction of the access easement and drive isle along the east side of the proposed site. This study assumes that the vacant parcels adjacent to the drive isle would also use Village Center Court to access Kimball Avenue and Nolen Drive. Two driveways were assumed along the east side of the drive isle for these background developments, and a portion of the estimated trip generation of these sites was distributed among those driveways. In Figure 11, the driveway locations for the proposed site are shown as solid white lines, while the analysis driveways included for the background developments are shown with dotted white lines. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The traffic analysis performed for this study includes a level of service and queue length analysis for the study intersections. This section describes the methodology used in the traffic analysis and presents the traffic performance for each intersection movement studied. 5.1 TRAFFIC MODELING METHODOLOGY SynchroTM Version 9 was used to perform capacity analysis at the study intersection. The capacity analysis functions are based on the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010. The HCM is a nationally recognized standard for performing capacity analyses. The reports generated from each Synchro model are shown in Appendix E. Capacity analyses are evaluated based on a level of service (LOS) that ranges from A (excellent) to F (poor). Levels of service A through D are generally considered acceptable and levels of service E and F are considered unacceptable. The level of service thresholds from the Highway Capacity Manual are shown in Table 2. For side -street stop -controlled intersections, the major street movements have right-of-way, and thus don't have any delay passing through the intersection. Therefore, these approaches were not considered for this study. Overall level of service values for such intersections are not computed, as these free -flow movements would cause overall delay to be misleadingly low. For this study, both the delay (and respective level of service) and 95th-percentile queue length was computed for each applicable movement. bk u:\198110064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks to 2016-02-09.docx 5.1 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Traffic Analysis February 9, 2016 Table 2 Intersection Level of Service Thresholds LOS Control Delay Per Vehicle seconds Stop -Controlled Intersection A <10 B >10 and <_15 C >15 and <_25 D >25 and <_35 E >35 and <_50 F > 50 5.2 EXISTING TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The existing traffic analysis incorporates the traffic volumes counted in the field and the current geometric conditions. The results of the existing condition capacity analysis are shown in Table 3. Table 3 Existing Condition Capacity Analysis LOS Delay [s] & 95th Percentile Queue [vehicles] No. Intersection Control Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Type LOS Delay Queue LOS Delay Queue Kimball Ave & NBL B (11) 1 A 9) 1 1 School N Side -Street Entrance Loop Stop Note that because the school driveway is one-way moving away from the intersection, the only existing movement that experiences any delay at the intersection is the northbound left turn. This movement does not experience significant congestion or queues during either peak hour. No improvements are therefore needed based upon existing conditions. 5.3 FUTURE PHASE 1 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Phase 1 of the proposed site's build -out includes two of the six planned office buildings, and is projected for the year 2016. The traffic analysis for Phase 1 is shown in Table 4. Table 4 Future Phase 1 Traffic Analysis (without south driveway) LOS Delay [s] & 95th Percentile Queue [vehicles] No. Intersection Control Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Type LOS Delay Queue LOS Delay Queue Kimball Ave & NBL B (11) 1 A 10 0 School N Side -Street SBL A 9 0 A 9 0 1 Entrance Loop Stop- WBL E 44 0 D 31 1 / Site Drwy Controlled WBR B 10 0 B (11) 0 Stantec bk u:\198110064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks to 2016-02-09.docx 5.2 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Traffic Analysis February 9, 2016 The only movement projected to face high delay is the westbound left turn out of the proposed driveway during the AM peak. However, during the AM peak, the volume making that left turn is only 3 vph, and there would thus be nearly no queues expected. Therefore, improvements to this intersection are not recommended. Adequate throat length will be available during both the AM and PM peak hours to allow left turns without queues backing up into the roundabout internal to the site. With a previous analysis, a right-in/right-out driveway was considered on the southwest portion of the site along Kimball Avenue. It was determined that the site traffic using this driveway would not significantly contribute to the delay or queues at the northwest driveway along Kimball Avenue, and was therefore not considered for the analysis of this report. 5.4 FUTURE PHASE 2 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Phase 2 includes the full build -out of all six office buildings in the proposed site, projected for the year 2018. It also includes the extension of South Village Center Drive between Kimball Avenue and Nolen Drive, and the access easement and drive isle, which would provide driveway access to the proposed site and two of the adjacent vacant parcels included in the background analysis. The traffic analysis for Phase 2 is shown in Table 5. It should be noted that the driveways for the background sites along the access easement and drive isle are modeled only for purposes of determining the impacts to the Pinnacle Point driveways. Therefore, LOS and queuing movements relating to the background driveways are not listed in Table 5 and any improvements related to those driveways would be the responsibility of adjacent developers. Table 5 Future Phase 2 Traffic Analysis LOS(Delay s & 95th Percentile Queue vehicles No. Intersection Control Movement AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Type LOS(Delay) Queue LOS(Delay) Queue Kimball Ave & NBL B 13 1 B 12 0 School N Side -Street SBL B 10 0 B (11) 0 1 Stop- WBL F 88 1 F 133 3 Entrance Loop Controlled WBR B (11) 0 B 14 1 / Site Drwy SidStotreet EBL A (10 0 B (11) 0 2 Drive Isle & NE p Site Driveway Controlled SidStotreet EBL B (11) 0 B 14 0 3 Drive Isle & NE p Site Driveway Controlled . . . . . . The westbound left turn out of the proposed site's Kimball driveway would experience LOS F during both peak hours. However, the 95th percentile queue for this movement is only three vehicles during the PM peak hour. The site design includes storage for three vehicles between the stop bar at Kimball Avenue and the internal site roundabout, so queues would be unlikely to affect conflicting movements at the roundabout. bk u:\198110064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks to 2016-02-09.docx 5.3 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Traffic Analysis February 9, 2016 With the low expected queue for the westbound left turn exit from the proposed site onto Kimball Avenue, and the other options for vehicles to leave the site, neither improvements to the site driveway along Kimball Avenue nor an additional driveway would be warranted. bk u:\198110064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks to 2016-02-09.docx 5.4 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Driveway Analysis February 9, 2016 6.0 URIVEWA 6.1 AUXILIARY LANE ANALYSIS An auxiliary lane analysis was conducted to determine if a right turn deceleration lane would be required for any of the three proposed driveways to the site, per City of Southlake Standards. As explained in the previous section, the tentatively proposed southwestern driveway on Kimball Avenue will not be required, and is therefore not considered for an auxiliary lane. The right turn ingress volumes and volume threshold are shown in Table 6. As shown in the table, none of the driveways would require a right turn deceleration lane. Table 6 Auxiliary Lane Analysis Deceleration Lane (based on Deceleration right -turn ingress) Lane Required? City of Southlake >50 vph Requirement Northwest Driveway 49 No Northeast Driveway 47 No Southeast Driveway 20 No 6.2 INTERSECTION SIGHT DISTANCE An intersection sight distance analysis was conducted for the proposed northwestern driveway along Kimball Avenue. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6th Edition ("Green Book") was consulted to compute the required intersection sight distance based on the major roadway design speed and grade. The actual sight distance for the driveway was measured during the site visit. Although the speed limit along Kimball Avenue is 35 mph, a design speed of 40 mph was assumed to consider vehicles that may be speeding along that roadway. The results of the sight distance analysis are shown in Table 7. Right turns out of the northwestern driveway will have adequate sight distance. For left turns out of the driveway, however, the small trees in the median just north of the intersection inhibit that movement's sight distance, and would make for an unsafe turn out of the proposed site. Refer to the image of this location taken when trees are in full bloom in Figure 12. Due to this sight distance issue, it is recommended that the trees along the median north of the proposed site's north driveway be removed. Stantec Wp bk u:\198110064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks to 2016-02-09.docx 6.1 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Driveway Analysis February 9, 2016 Table 7 Intersection Sight Distance Driveway Movement Design Speed (mph) Grade Recommended Intersection Sight Distance ft Actual Sight Distance (ft) Sight Distance OK? Right -turn -3% 385 470 Yes Left w/ trees _3% 500 95 No Northwest 40 Left w/o trees 600 Yes Figure 12 Trees Obstructing Sight Distance Looking North from Study Intersection Image source: Google Earth Stantec bk u:\198110064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks to 2016-02-09.docx 6.2 PINNACLE POINT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Conclusions February 9, 2016 `:ONCLUSIOt The proposed Pinnacle Point development is expected to include six office buildings with a total floor area of 120,000 square feet. The first phase of development is expected for 2016, and would include two of the six buildings. The full site build -out is expected for 2018. The first phase of build out of the proposed site would only include one driveway on the northwest part of the proposed site along Kimball Avenue. With the expected volumes, traffic conditions would not warrant any improvements to the driveway. At the driveway, sight distance was determined to be inadequate for vehicles turning left from the site onto Kimball Avenue. Therefore, it is recommended that the trees located along the median directly north of this intersection be cleared to provide adequate sight distance for this vehicle movement. The second phase of the build -out includes all six of the site's proposed buildings, as well as the build -out of the vacant parcels surrounding the proposed site. It is assumed that Village Center Drive would be extended from Kimball Avenue to Nolen Drive to the east of the site. The proposed access easement and drive isle would run alongside the eastern side of the proposed site, and would access Village Center Drive. The second phase of build -out would also include two driveways which would access the drive isle. Traffic analyses conducted for the two driveways along the drive isle showed low congestion and delay for those driveways, and further improvements would not be needed. Future traffic capacity within the study area for the existing condition and with the build -out of Phase 1 was determined to be adequate for the projected traffic demand. Therefore, no improvements to the surrounding Kimball Avenue or to the site's driveways would be needed except to remove trees from the Kimball Avenue median north of the site driveway for adequate sight distance for left turns exiting the site. Stantec Wp bk u:\198110064\revised scope work - 01-06-2016\report\southlake oaks to 2016-02-09.docx 7.1 APPENDIX A: PROPOSED SITE PLAN e$� r % �e� d kro,YF>L 6� m% wo'Oa3 E HHH2 0 PC .F T m 1 ` \\ \ `\ I Howgra E.Gglcana l'a1MeCm,TruYeq m �heUa,armore In,wr uMcrM \ I LOO: Retell-Cawn,er iel \ Valffi HovaN Cm LTmBTma, \� \ \ I LmI-R-I, 134wk1 Il 1 ` Chm PoavdwJe, I ducd Fabrvuy 4, 2014 \ � \ ~ 1iPe'g`rO"n� - I z: fined whn-PmaPo D. esem-ur I 2x.. Na uz2eaz41n BUFFERYARD TYPE'A' \ BUF ARD TYPE 'A' = I _ Oue.Nu.Ut991Y73s5 BUFFERYARD TYPE'F1' T. NRQ'99'4Bl 88' _ F K O Z W F O > z1 WD WO UN ¢H OO to w m� e� I + ♦ . ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ . . ♦ . . . . . . + ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦+♦ ♦�. .+. . . ... . . .+ 10' BUFFER + . . . . + . + n 18.0' n + 9 ... . . . . . . . + �- + + 95.3'� it aH a 3. sal a 24' a COMMON ACCESS, a z 1 10'X 40' 24.0' 24 0' EMERGENCY ACCESS VISIBILITY ` ' f AND UTILITY EASEMENT 87.6' TRIANGLE 24.0' (--) 18.0' 19 + R30.0' v 6.0'Iftl lam v Iz NIN 39.0' 111 20.0' -130' �' 24D' N SrgOK1NG LOT 9 q, 21,500S.F FFE=676.5 + 96 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED P40' ` WCONC. WALK W . (TYP.) -18.0' f 18.0'� 24.0' 33.0' I= 6.(Y R30.0' 1 16 18.0' 10' )(40' VISIBILITY TRIANGLE n N69'46'39"E' 507 a 24' COMM 24.0'r 66.3' EMERGEN ' ' F 89'46'39"W' 312.03' S89`46'39"W 146.73' 88.0' AND UTILI axvran axn se se _LL C 166.7 O ♦ . .e.'" �� F 13 9G 13 to W 'Y ry 'Y . W • Z_ 9 mm WSELI 9 - NEW DECORATIVE W,U to p BLOCK RETAINING WALL A. TO BE CONSTRUCTED ,. o U " IN TO TBD 21F SOOwn 1 >w< LOT 3 . . . .�.1 < 20,000 SF FFE=676.5 S 74 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED F N W LOT 4 . . . . Y W Y 19 V rn 21,000SF auk V CONC. WALK ,. FFE=676.5 - o It .may. .; 18.\ (TVP.) 64 PARKING Zi SPACES PROVIDED 13 p 1- s4 24.0' 0, • . •�. az 'a 'e 10'x 50' LOADING 4m+3 w 4 1 H.0' 17 �,. SPACE(TYP.) w'w � 32.5' 6. ® z . . . . . . W . S® N + + . +27,500 Slirial SF� + - W VStgrmkya%[,�e(gn. . . . \ o \ 18.0'_ 24.01 18.0' .o \_ FUTURE VILLAGE CENTER RD. SPACE(TYPJ s LOT 2 15,500 S.F. / FFE=660.9 / 67 PARKING SPACES PRONGED r 6' CONIC. WALK (TYPJ EASEMENT Il r 6'GONC. WALK(TYP.) LOT 5 21,000 SF FFE= 680.9 61 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED ear W35.0'- D ` LOT 6 21,t700 SF FFE= 680.9 86 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED . . . . . NEW DECORATIVE to BLOCK RETAINING WALL , 60'y . �. q. g, . TO BE CONSTRUCTED 13 18.0' . 23 18.0' HEIGHT/MATERIALS TBD 1 _ q NEW DECORATIVE v` rl R30.0' R30.0' r . NCRETE 1 'COMMON BLOCK RETAINING WALL O p 01 PAVEMENT 24.0' EMERGENCY TO BE CONSTRUCTED '" "' 8fi.0' HEIGHT/MATERIALS TBD_ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � rPe� (TYP� + ANDrUE UTILITY n • + 10'BUFFER t4 18.0' Iclre V^ cc 26 18.0, nnP Site Data Summary Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot3 LAW Lots Lot 6 ROW Total Existing Zoning PIA SFIA SPIA SPIA PIA PIA 91A Proposed Loring SP2 SP2 SP2 SP2 SP2 SP2 SP2 Lord Use Designalinn MIXF.DUSE MIXFDUSE MIXEDLSE MIXEDUSP MIXEDU-SE MIXEDUSH MLXEDt)a Crro"Acreage 2,74 IA6 2.73 129 1.34 1.70 11.26 Net Acreage 294 IAE 1.73 1.29 1,34 1.70 1126 Numlur.rPmposed Lots I 1 1 I I I 0 6 Percc,L" elSite Ccacrs,e 18"n 2P, 33% ;'^.., ;o'a 25% Area of Open 52.250 19,597 73,246 24.SR3 1Weli 22240 207.996 Percnr.p.1-Op'l Space 43% 1 31% 62°4 44% 28% 30% 40% Area of Impervious Coverage fin Sy, A 1 67,012 43,035 46472. 31,609 42,DIo 49.810 280.1.48 P.n:enllip of lrope"outl Covcrnge 57% 69% 39% 56Psa 72% 67% 60% Preposcd 1361di ng Aree /Foo/Prlrrr 2n Sq_I,J 21 500 15,500 20.000 11,000 21.000 21,000 120.000 Ntonl7er of Stories I 1 1 1 I I Maximum Bud lding Height 35 Fecl 35 Feet 35 Feet 35 Feet 35 Peel 35 Peet Proposed Hulking Heighl 24 Peel 24 Feet 24 Peel 24 Feet 24 Feet 24 Feet Proposed Floor Area (iv S'9. Fr+ 21.500 15,500 20,000 21 000 21,000 21,000 120,000 Reepoed Parking 72 52 67 70 70 70 400 Provided Parking BY.&,it 94 63 66 60 57 82 422 Handicap 4 4 4 4 4 4 24 T coat 98 67 70 64 61 86 446 Regnired Loading Spaces (Per T-'- Rea_ulm otoO to' x 25' 10, x 50' 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Provokol Tel Spaces IPx2s' 10' x 50' 1 I I I 1 1 6 Start Construction hfowAiYeor End Construction Mmr7h,Tevr BUFFERYARD TYPE' 1,44 uonsol Cnsn mi.Ym Vdpme 39&139,Prye Pl SFIA PA. Z:SFIA Llrn 3a.-aro•in Reaameel LEGEND PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK PAVEMENT PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AREA PROPOSED BUFFER YARD NOTE: FIRELANES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN SHALL BE PERMANENT 24'COMMON ACCESS, EMERGENCY ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENTS. OWNER: LOT 1 PO CHIN 2409 CASTLE ROCK ROAD ARLINGTON, TX 76006 86.0' ABILITY TRIANGLE R30�.0' 'e + + rz 9rJ� 24.0' 118.0' . . OU 2w O ,0 W o10. 13 a 10 I ® I 18.0' 24.0' 18.0' {� 15.4' 24.0' a e R30.to r'1y W R30.0' . . . . . . PRELIMINARY FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY -IT------- I' I II GRAPHIC SCALE 0 50 100 Ill 1 o=50' OWNER: OWNER: APPLICANT: LOT 2 LOT 3 BROWN COMPANY PARTNERS, LLC TERESA FLOYD BLAINE THOMPSON 5440 HARVEST HILL ROAD, SUITE 236 1395 HIDE A WAY LANE 20236 FM 1804 DALLAS, TX 75230 HIDEAWAY, TX 75771 LINDALE, TX 75771 CONTACT: DAVID KARR PHONE: (214) 506-3205 EMAIL: david.karr@browndfw.com 1 � O N 0 KN04" PROJECT LOCATION WF • e ° WALL = a w 4 Z � RAINBOW °o V 0 se 3 P Ott roC C" NOBSNtG U� z LOCATION MAP 1"= 2000' SUMM YCHART -BUFFERYARDS- 1 LenBuBeryar;m�;, a8on Length WidthHe rubs Fe ce/Screening ght&Materiel Comments MobA Required 300, 10'-TYPE' 24 Fene FI -e n,e m 12 Existing Cenopy- t m,mted o.onrds arovs c Provided 10'-TYPE' 24 None - varimm reg,erted ral-lmlons N hS Required 166, IP-TYPEt'13 7 Existing Gnopy-5 mweedlooeinklandic,' Provided ID'-TYPE'13 clonell n Required 230' N/A None required per W zoning Provided Required 466' N/A None required per W mning in, Provided Re ed 230' 1W-TYPE"IB Hett 14ExistingCanopyProvidedIB H Ht-75% SETMMARYCHART-BUFFERYARDS-LYF2 afion Length Buae Wirth- Canopy 'Dees Accent Trees Shrubs Fe He ee/Screening ghttkMaterial Contro la North Required 363 10'- TYPE' 3 8 30 3 Exiein,Cenopy Provided W-TYPE' 3 7 30 a5t Required 245' W-TYPE' 2 5 20 Pmvlded IOF-TYPE' 2 5 20 enquirM 349' N/A None requiredper SP mning Nh Provided Wn.Required 245' N/A Nane requires per $P mucus Provid d SUMMARY CHART - BUFFERYARDS - 3 Let atiw LengthShrum BuAe Widh- e Coal Tree Accent Trees Fe He ce/Screening ght B: Mahrisl Comments North Requ'ned 442' WA None required per SP mning Provided Required 16W WA None on trod per SP zoning se Provided Both Required 442 N/A None rel iredper W zoning Pevided ee Required 160' ID' -TYPE" 2 3 13 Nest, HI 24Exleingranopy Provided 10'-TYPE 2 3 13 Undo HI SUMMARY CHART - BUFFERVARDS - L T4 axon Le got Buaerya idth - Canopy Trees Accent Trees Shrubs Felice/Screening a ht& erisl Co mmenb Nine Required 442' N/A None required per SP mning Provided n RegwrN 220, N/A None required per SP zoning Provided onopagm Required 146 or-TYPE' 1' 13 27 35 Fen FI-8'edoing Cenopy-] nnwted eoumds Im,d¢ape Provided 10'-TYPE' I' 13 27 3$ None -variance requeeed regwremem Requorl 220' ID -TYPE" 2 5 19 H HI ee Provigkd 10'-TYPE" 5 19 H NI 22 Exieing Cenopy SUMMARY CHART -BUFFERVARDS -LOT 5 I.oceeav length 8ulreryard Wid[h-Type Canopy Trees Accent Trees Shrubs Fene./Screening Height&Material Commena North Requ'n How N/A None required per SP mning P-icle Es. Re lucre 38W N/A None re,eiredper SP zoning Provi bmM1Regoore I80' 10'-TYPE'FI' 5 II 15 Hedge Nl 2Exining Canopy Provi or-TYPETV 5 11 15 Hedge HI W. Restore 380' N/A None required per SP mning Provi SUMMARY CHART -BUFFERYARDS-LOT 6 location length 8u@ryard Canopy Trees Accent Trees Shrub Fence/Screening FkigM1t& Materiel ConnectionWidth-Type North Require195' N/A Noner,,ured per SPzoning Prov' Ent Require 38W IW- IYPE'A' 4 8 30 None Provi 10'-TYPE 'R 4 8 30 Sawh Regw 195, 10'-TYPE TV 6 12 t6 Fine. FI - 8'apagm 3 Existing Cenopy Provi 10'- rYPP.'PI' 6 12 16 None-vanxneeregmsted We. Require 380' N/A None mgooed per SP mning Provid LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TEXAS AND BEING ENGINEER/CONSULTANT: OUT OF THE G. MAIN SURVEY, ADAMS ENGINEERING ABSTRACT NO. 1098 AND THE 8951 CYPRESS WATERS BLVD., SUITE 150 T. EASTER SURVEY ABSTRACT DALLAS, TEXAS 75019 CONTACT: JIMMY ECPECHTER, PLA CON NO. 474, TARRANT COUNTY, PHONE: (817) 328-3200 TEXAS EMAIL: jimmy.fechter@adams-engineering.com CASE NO: Z415-115 ES?�n E��atlE $= a s as zg�o�E _ -y mE e_?3 PEE - a ¢e"LEE ii ox-E} isi3A=_ ;F.g3kO Q Z X J oL a LJJ r Lu w JY a U a Q W z _ 0 Z 0-0 V THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW, AGENCY APPROVAL, AND COMMENT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF DENNIS W. LANG, P.E. LICENSE No. 41411, ON 02/09/16 THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES TBPE Registration #: F-1002 h_ J JOB NUMBER: MON 2015.083 DESIGNED BY: LIF DRAWN BY: RWA CHECKED BY: DWL DATE: 01 19 2016 SHEET: C2.0 U EoPYright20r5, MamS APPENDIX B: TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS A HensktI�rsoc3al& savant@cjhensch.com 5215 Sycamore Ave Pasadena, Texas, United States 77503 281-487-5417 Turning Movement Data Count Name: 1.Kimball Avenue at George Dawson Middle School North Loop Entrance Site Code: 1 Start Date: 11/04/2015 Page No: 1 Start Time Thru Right Kimball Avenue Southbound U-Turn Peds Total Left Thru Kimball Avenue Northbound U-Turn Peds Total Left School Driveway Eastbound Right U-Turn Peds Total Int. Total 7:00 AM 47 4 0 0 51 2 72 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 125 7:15 AM 54 4 0 0 58 5 69 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 132 7:30 AM 93 14 0 0 107 9 76 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 0 192 7:45 AM 139 73 1 0 213 38 139 0 0 177 0 0 0 0 0 390 Hourly Total 333 95 1 0 429 54 356 0 0 410 0 0 0 0 0 839 8:00 AM 150 58 0 0 208 40 149 1 0 190 0 0 0 0 0 398 8:15 AM 146 28 0 0 174 28 133 0 0 161 0 0 0 0 0 335 8:30 AM 89 19 0 0 108 20 111 0 0 131 0 0 0 1 0 239 8:45 AM 59 6 0 0 65 4 77 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 146 Hourly Total 444 111 0 0 555 92 470 1 0 563 0 0 0 1 0 1118 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... BREAK... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hourly Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4:00 PM 94 22 0 0 116 12 141 0 0 153 0 0 0 0 0 269 4:15 PM 90 43 0 0 133 19 157 0 0 176 0 0 0 0 0 309 4:30 PM 108 24 0 0 132 15 114 0 0 129 0 0 0 0 0 261 4:45 PM 125 29 0 0 154 19 155 0 0 174 0 0 0 0 0 328 Hourly Total 417 118 0 0 535 65 567 0 0 632 0 0 0 0 0 1167 5:00 PM 128 22 0 0 150 15 164 0 0 179 1 0 0 0 1 330 5:15 PM 85 14 1 0 100 7 137 0 0 144 0 0 0 0 0 244 5:30 PM 92 20 0 0 112 17 135 0 0 152 0 0 0 0 0 264 5:45 PM 93 18 1 0 112 4 138 0 0 142 0 0 0 0 0 254 Hourly Total 398 74 2 0 474 43 574 0 0 617 1 0 0 0 1 1092 6:00 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Grand Total 1593 398 3 0 1994 254 1967 1 0 2222 1 0 0 1 1 4217 Approach % 79.9 20.0 0.2 - - 11.4 88.5 0.0 - - 100.0 0.0 0.0 - - - Total % 37.8 9.4 0.1 - 47.3 6.0 46.6 0.0 - 52.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 All Vehicles Vehicles (no classification) 1593 398 3 1994 254 1967 1 2222 1 0 0 1 4217 All Vehicles (no classification) 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 - - - 100.0 100.0 Pedestrians - - - 0 - - - - 0 - - - - 1 - - Pedestrians i - - - - - I - - - - - i - - - 100.0 - - t fells A._a savant@cjhensch.com 5215 Sycamore Ave Pasadena, Texas, United States 77503 281-487-5417 Count Name: 1.Kimball Avenue at George Dawson Middle School North Loop Entrance Site Code: 1 Start Date: 11/04/2015 Page No: 2 N 1 000�� 75 co M J S 3 � 11/04/2015 7:00 AM o � � 0 � — Ending At 11/04/2015 6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 of Z All Vehicles (no p 0 classification) Pedestrians h T Kimball Avenue [N] Out In Total 1971 1994 3965 0 0 0 1971 1994 3965 398 1593 3 0 0 0 0 0 398 1593 3 0 R T U P U L T P 1 254 1967 0 0 0 0 0 1 254 1967 0 1594 2222 3816 0 0 0 1594 2222 3816 Out In Total Kimball Avenue [S] Turning Movement Data Plot A HensktI�rsoe3fll& savant@cjhensch.com 5215 Sycamore Ave Pasadena, Texas, United States 77503 281-487-5417 J� •17�C�111'i�i7fiCl�_1TA1! Count Name: 1.Kimball Avenue at George Dawson Middle School North Loop Entrance Site Code: 1 Start Date: 11/04/2015 Page No: 3 Start Time Thru Right Kimball Avenue Southbound U-Turn Peds Total Left Thru Kimball Avenue Northbound U-Turn Peds Total Left School Driveway Eastbound Right U-Tum Peds Total Int. Total 7:45 AM 139 73 1 0 213 38 139 0 0 177 0 0 0 0 0 390 8:00 AM 150 58 0 0 208 40 149 1 0 190 0 0 0 0 0 398 8:15 AM 146 28 0 0 174 28 133 0 0 161 0 0 0 0 0 335 8:30 AM 89 19 0 0 108 20 111 0 0 131 0 0 0 1 0 239 Total 524 178 1 0 703 126 532 1 0 659 0 0 0 1 0 1362 Approach % 74.5 25.3 0.1 - - 19.1 80.7 0.2 - - NaN NaN NaN - - - Total % 38.5 13.1 0.1 51.6 9.3 39.1 0.1 48.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - PHF 0.873 0.610 0.250 0.825 0.788 0.893 0.250 0.867 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.856 All Vehicles (no classification) 524 178 1 703 126 532 1 659 0 0 0 0 1362 All Vehicles (no classification) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - - - - 100.0 Pedestrians - - - 0 - 0 - Pedestrians 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 100.0 - - t fells A._a savant@cjhensch.com 5215 Sycamore Ave Pasadena, Texas, United States 77503 281-487-5417 Count Name: 1.Kimball Avenue at George Dawson Middle School North Loop Entrance Site Code: 1 Start Date: 11/04/2015 Page No: 4 N 1 � � � Peak Hour Data S Q COO O O M O O J S 3 11/04/2015 7:45 AM E 0 0 O Ending At 11/04/2015 8:45 AM 0 0 o O of Z All Vehicles (no j p 0 0 o classification) fication) Pedestrians h T Kimball Avenue [N] Out In Total 533 703 1236 0 0 0 533 703 1236 178 524 1 0 0 0 0 0 178 524 1 0 R T U P U L T P 1 126 532 0 0 0 0 0 1 126 532 0 525 659 1184 0 0 0 525 659 1184 Out In Total Kimball Avenue [S] Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:45 AM) A HensktI�rsoe3fll& savant@cjhensch.com 5215 Sycamore Ave Pasadena, Texas, United States 77503 281-487-5417 Count Name: 1.Kimball Avenue at George Dawson Middle School North Loop Entrance Site Code: 1 Start Date: 11/04/2015 Page No: 5 Start Time Thru Right Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 Kimball Avenue Kimball Avenue Southbound Northbound U-Turn Peds Total Left Thru U-Turn Peds Total PM) Left School Driveway Eastbound Right U-Tum Peds Total Int. Total 4:15 PM 90 43 0 0 133 19 157 0 0 176 0 0 0 0 0 309 4:30 PM 108 24 0 0 132 15 114 0 0 129 0 0 0 0 0 261 4:45 PM 125 29 0 0 154 19 155 0 0 174 0 0 0 0 0 328 5:00 PM 128 22 0 0 150 15 164 0 0 179 1 0 0 0 1 330 Total 451 118 0 0 569 68 590 0 0 658 1 0 0 0 1 1228 Approach % 79.3 20.7 0.0 - - 10.3 89.7 0.0 - - 100.0 0.0 0.0 - - - Total % 36.7 9.6 0.0 46.3 5.5 48.0 0.0 53.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 PHF 0.881 0.686 0.000 0.924 0.895 0.899 0.000 0.919 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.930 All Vehicles (no classification) 451 118 0 569 68 590 0 658 1 0 0 1 1228 All Vehicles (no classification) 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 - - 100.0 100.0 Pedestrians - - 0 - 0 - - 0 - - Pedestrians - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t fells A._a savant@cjhensch.com 5215 Sycamore Ave Pasadena, Texas, United States 77503 281-487-5417 Count Name: 1.Kimball Avenue at George Dawson Middle School North Loop Entrance Site Code: 1 Start Date: 11/04/2015 Page No: 6 N 1 is m � r Peak Hour Data T~ SN � O � J 3 11/04/2015 4:15 P M o o — Ending At 11/04/2015 5:15 PM 0 0 00 of All Vehicles (no 0 � CD CO classification) Pedestrians 0 0 o a h T Kimball Avenue [N] Out In Total 591 569 1160 0 0 0 591 569 1160 118 451 0 0 0 0 0 0 118 451 0 0 R T U P U L T P 0 68 590 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 590 0 451 658 1109 0 0 0 451 658 1109 Out In Total Kimball Avenue [S] Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM) APPENDIX C: BACKGROUND SITES TRIP GENERATION Trip Generation ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition (2012) Project Pinnacle Point Traffic Impact Analysis Project Number 198110064 Client Adams Engineering & Development Consultants 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Site Background Development NW of Site Leasable Area 20.3 Land Use Shopping Center ITE Code 820 Weekdays Ln(Trips) = 0.65 * Ln(X) + 5.83 AM Peak Hour: Weekdays (Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic) Ln(Trips) = 0.61 * Ln(X) + 2.24 PM Peak Hour: Weekdays (Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic) Ln(Trips) = 0.67 * Ln(X) + 3.31 Saturdays (Peak Hour of Generator) Ln(Trips) = 0.65 * Ln(X) + 3.78 Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 2,409 50% 50% 1,205 1,204 Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 59 62% 38% 37 22 Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 206 48% 52% 99 107 Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 310 52% 48% 161 149 Stantec Vacant Parcel Trip Generation - Phase 2 Zoning Sizes . Floor Area ObiectlD Code Description ftl Ratio ITE Code Intensity Unit Da v Rate AM Rate PM Rate AM Y. In PM % In Da v In Da v Out AM In AM Out PM In PM Out 1 SP2 Generalized Site Plan MF-2 Apartments 146,667 1.0 220 40 Dwelling Units 6.65 0.51 0.62 20% 65% 134 134 4 16 16 9 0-1 Offices 146,667 1.0 710 147 1,000 sq.ft. GFA 11.03 1.56 1.49 88% 17% 809 809 201 27 37 181 C-2 Retail Shopping 146,667 1.0 820 147 1,000 sq.ft. GLFA 42.70 0.96 3.71 62% 48% 3,131 3,131 87 54 261 283 Total 440,000 4,075 4,075 293 97 315 473 2 SP2 Generalized Site Plan MF-2 Apartments 82,667 1.0 220 23 Dwelling Units 6.65 0.51 0.62 20% 65% 76 76 2 9 9 5 0-1 Offices 82,667 1.0 710 83 1,000 sq.ft. GFA 11.03 1.56 1.49 88% 17% 456 456 113 15 21 102 C-2 Retail Shopping 82,667 1.0 820 83 1,000 sq.ft. GLFA 42.70 0.96 3.71 62% 48% 1,765 1,765 49 30 147 159 Total 248,000 2,297 2,297 165 55 177 267 3 SP2 Generalized Site Plan MF-2 Apartments 196,667 1.0 220 54 Dwelling Units 6.65 0.51 0.62 20% 65% 180 180 6 22 22 12 0-1 Offices 196,667 1.0 710 197 1,000 sq.ft. GFA 11.03 1.56 1.49 88% 17% 1,085 1,085 270 37 50 243 C-2 Retail Shopping 196,667 1.0 820 197 1,000sq.ft.GLFA 42.70 0.96 3.71 62% 48% 4,199 4,199 117 72 350 379 Total 590,000 5,464 5,464 393 131 422 634 4 C2 Local Retail Commercial 200,000 1.0 820 200 1,000 sq.ft. GLFA 42.70 0.96 3.71 62% 48% 4,270 4,270 119 73 356 386 *zoning according to Crooked/Kimball Small Area Plan: p. 21 *see Southlake Zoning Map for zoning codes and descriptions Stantec APPENDIX D: PROPOSED SITE TRIP GENERATION Trip Generation ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition (2012) Project Pinnacle Point Traffic Impact Analysis Project Number 198110064 Client Adams Engineering & Development Consultants 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Site Pinnacle Point - Phase 1 (Buildings 1 & 2) Floor Area 37 Land Use General Office Building ITE Code 710 Weekday Ln(Trips) = 0.76 * Ln(# units) + 3.68 AM Peak Hour: Weekday Ln(Trips) = 0.80 * Ln(# units) + 1.57 PM Peak Hour: Weekday Trips = 1.12 (# units) + 78.45 Saturday (Peak Hour of Generator) Trips = 0.43 (# units) Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 617 50% 50% 309 308 Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 86 88% 12% 76 10 Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 120 17 % 83 % 20 100 Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 16 54% 46% 9 7 Stantec Trip Generation ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition (2012) Project Pinnacle Point Traffic Impact Analysis Project Number 198110064 Client Adams Engineering & Development Consultants 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Site Pinnacle Point - Phase 2 (All Buildings) Floor Area 120 Land Use General Office Building ITE Code 710 Weekday Ln(Trips) = 0.76 * Ln(# units) + 3.68 AM Peak Hour: Weekday Ln(Trips) = 0.80 * Ln(# units) + 1.57 PM Peak Hour: Weekday Trips = 1.12 (# units) + 78.45 Saturday (Peak Hour of Generator) Trips = 0.43 (# units) Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 1508 50% 50% 754 754 Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 221 88% 12% 194 27 Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 213 17% 83% 36 177 Trips Total Number Percent In Out Number In Out 52 54% 46% 28 24 Stantec APPENDIX E: SYNCHRO REPORTS HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Kimball Ave & Middle School N Loop Entrance Existing AM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT SBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 126 532 0 1 0 524 178 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 126 532 0 1 0 524 178 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - - - None - - None Storage Length - - - 130 - 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 100 92 100 92 92 92 25 79 89 92 25 92 87 61 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 159 598 0 4 0 602 292 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1234 1827 299 894 894 0 0 436 598 0 0 Stage 1 925 925 - - - - - - - - - Stage 2 309 902 - - - - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.54 6.94 6.44 4.14 - - 6.44 4.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 5.54 - - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 5.54 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.52 2.22 - 2.52 2.22 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 169 76 697 388 755 - - 760 975 - Stage 1 347 346 - - - - - - Stage 2 718 355 - - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 169 0 697 738 738 - 760 975 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 169 0 - - - - - - Stage 1 347 0 - - - Stage 2 718 0 - - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 2.4 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBRWBLnl SBU SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 738 - - 760 975 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.222 - - 0.005 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.3 - 0 9.8 - - HCM Lane LOS B - A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - - 0 0 - Synchro 9 Report HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Kimball Ave & Middle School N Loop Entrance Existing PM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBU SBL SBT SBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 0 0 0 0 0 68 590 0 0 0 451 118 Future Vol, veh/h 1 0 0 0 0 0 68 590 0 0 0 451 118 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - 130 - 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 25 92 100 92 92 92 89 90 92 100 92 88 69 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 4 0 0 0 0 0 76 656 0 0 0 513 171 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1064 1492 328 684 0 0 479 656 0 0 Stage 1 808 808 - - - - - - - - Stage 2 256 684 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 6.44 4.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 5.54 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 5.54 - - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - 2.52 2.22 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 218 122 668 905 - - 714 927 Stage 1 399 392 - - - - - Stage 2 763 447 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 200 0 668 905 —-2147-483648 927 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 200 0 - - - Stage 1 365 0 - - - Stage 2 763 0 - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBRWBLnl SBU SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 905 - - + 927 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.084 - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.3 - 0 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - - 0 0 - Notes -: Volume exceeds capacity $: Delay exceeds 300s +: Computation Not Defined *: All major volume in platoon Synchro 9 Report HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Kimball Ave & Middle School N Loop Entrance/Kimball Drwy Phase 1 Build AM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 3 0 7 129 555 19 57 544 183 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 3 0 7 129 555 19 57 544 183 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - 0 - 0 130 - 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 100 92 100 92 92 92 79 89 92 92 87 61 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 3 0 8 163 624 21 62 625 300 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1398 2010 322 925 0 0 644 0 0 Stage 1 961 961 - - - - - - - Stage 2 437 1049 - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 5.54 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 5.54 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - 2.22 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 132 58 674 734 - - 937 - Stage 1 332 333 - - - - Stage 2 619 303 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 96 0 674 734 - 937 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 96 0 - - - - Stage 1 258 0 - - Stage 2 578 0 - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 20.4 2.3 0.6 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 734 - 96 674 937 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.222 - 0.034 0.011 0.066 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.3 - 43.8 10.4 9.1 - HCM Lane LOS B - E B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.8 - 0.1 0 0.2 - Synchro 9 Report HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Kimball Ave & Middle School N Loop Entrance/Kimball Drwy Phase 1 Build PM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 25 0 75 70 631 5 15 490 121 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 25 0 75 70 631 5 15 490 121 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - 0 - 0 130 - 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 100 92 100 92 92 92 89 90 92 92 88 69 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 27 0 82 79 701 5 16 557 175 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1172 1626 353 732 0 0 707 0 0 Stage 1 861 861 - - - - - - - Stage 2 311 765 - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 5.54 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 5.54 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - 2.22 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 185 101 643 868 - - 887 - Stage 1 374 371 - - - - Stage 2 716 410 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 165 0 643 868 - 887 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 165 0 - - - Stage 1 340 0 - - - Stage 2 703 0 - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 16.3 1 0.2 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 868 - 165 643 887 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.091 - 0.165 0.127 0.018 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.6 - 31.1 11.4 9.1 - HCM Lane LOS A - D B A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 - 0.6 0.4 0.1 - Synchro 9 Report HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Kimball Ave & Middle School N Loop Entrance/N Site Driveway Phase 2 Build AM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 7 0 11 136 710 49 78 689 192 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 7 0 11 136 710 49 78 689 192 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - 0 - 0 130 - 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 100 92 100 92 92 92 79 89 92 92 87 61 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 8 0 12 172 798 53 85 792 315 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1735 2445 426 1107 0 0 851 0 0 Stage 1 1169 1169 - - - - - - - Stage 2 566 1276 - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 5.54 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 5.54 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - 2.22 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 79 31 577 626 - - 783 - Stage 1 258 265 - - - - Stage 2 532 236 - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 51 0 577 626 - 783 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 51 0 - - - - Stage 1 187 0 - - Stage 2 474 0 - - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 41 2.2 0.7 HCM LOS E Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 626 - 51 577 783 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.275 - 0.149 0.021 0.108 - HCM Control Delay (s) 12.9 - 87.6 11.4 10.2 - HCM Lane LOS B - F B B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.1 - 0.5 0.1 0.4 - Synchro 9 Report HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Village Center Crt & NE Driveway Phase 2 Build AM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 0 0 50 158 47 Future Vol, veh/h 6 0 0 50 158 47 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length 0 - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 7 0 0 54 172 51 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 251 197 223 0 - 0 Stage 1 197 - - - - - Stage 2 54 - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - PotCap-1 Maneuver 738 844 1346 - - - Stage 1 836 - - - - Stage 2 969 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 738 844 1346 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 738 - - - - Stage 1 836 - - - Stage 2 969 - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 9.9 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1346 - 738 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.009 - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 9.9 - HCM Lane LOS A - A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - Synchro 9 Report HCM 2010 TWSC 3: SE Driveway/Background Driveway & Village Center Crt Phase 2 Build AM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 0 0 0 0 30 0 17 0 88 50 20 Future Vol, veh/h 3 0 0 0 0 30 0 17 0 88 50 20 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None - - None Storage Length - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 3 0 0 0 0 33 0 18 0 96 54 22 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 292 275 65 275 285 18 76 0 0 18 0 0 Stage 1 257 257 - 18 18 - - - - - - - Stage 2 35 18 - 257 267 - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 660 632 999 677 624 1061 1523 - 1599 - Stage 1 748 695 - 1001 880 - - - - Stage 2 981 880 - 748 688 - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 609 592 999 644 585 1061 1523 - 1599 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 609 592 - 644 585 - - - - Stage 1 748 651 1001 880 - - Stage 2 951 880 701 645 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.9 8.5 0 4.1 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1523 - 609 1061 1599 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.005 0.031 0.06 - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 10.9 8.5 7.4 0 - HCM Lane LOS A - B A A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 0.1 0.2 - - Synchro 9 Report HCM 2010 TWSC 1: Kimball Ave & Middle School N Loop Entrance/N Site Driveway Phase 2 Build PM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 44 0 72 73 949 9 14 809 127 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 44 0 72 73 949 9 14 809 127 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - 0 - 0 130 - 50 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 100 92 100 92 92 92 89 90 92 92 88 69 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 48 0 78 82 1054 10 15 919 184 Major/Minor Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1713 2357 532 1103 0 0 1064 0 0 Stage 1 1223 1223 - - - - - - - Stage 2 490 1134 - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.84 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.84 5.54 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.84 5.54 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - 2.22 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 81 35 492 629 - - 651 - Stage 1 241 250 - - - - Stage 2 581 276 - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 69 0 492 629 - 651 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 69 0 - - - - Stage 1 210 0 - - Stage 2 568 0 - Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 59 0.8 0.1 HCM LOS F Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBRWBLnlWBLn2 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 629 - 69 492 651 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.13 - 0.693 0.159 0.023 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.6 - 133.2 13.7 10.7 - HCM Lane LOS B - F B B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - 3.1 0.6 0.1 - Synchro 9 Report HCM 2010 TWSC 2: Village Center Crt & NE Driveway Phase 2 Build PM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 43 0 0 241 152 9 Future Vol, veh/h 43 0 0 241 152 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None None - None Storage Length 0 - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 47 0 0 262 165 10 Major/Minor Minor2 Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 432 170 175 0 - 0 Stage 1 170 - - - - - Stage 2 262 - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - PotCap-1 Maneuver 581 874 1401 - - - Stage 1 860 - - - - Stage 2 782 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 581 874 1401 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 581 - - - - Stage 1 860 - - - Stage 2 782 - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.7 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1401 - 581 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.08 - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 11.7 - HCM Lane LOS A - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.3 - Synchro 9 Report HCM 2010 TWSC 3: SE Driveway/Background Driveway & Village Center Crt Phase 2 Build PM Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Traffic Vol, veh/h 18 0 0 0 0 143 0 80 0 95 53 4 Future Vol, veh/h 18 0 0 0 0 143 0 80 0 95 53 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None - - None Storage Length - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 20 0 0 0 0 155 0 87 0 103 58 4 Major/Minor Minor2 Minorl Majorl Major2 Conflicting Flow All 431 353 60 353 355 87 62 0 0 87 0 0 Stage 1 266 266 - 87 87 - - - - - - - Stage 2 165 87 - 266 268 - - - - Critical Hdwy 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 4.12 - - 4.12 - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 2.218 - 2.218 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 535 572 1005 602 571 971 1541 - 1509 Stage 1 739 689 - 921 823 - - - - Stage 2 837 823 - 739 687 - - - - Platoon blocked, % - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 425 531 1005 569 530 971 1541 - 1509 - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 425 531 - 569 530 - - - - Stage 1 739 640 921 823 - - Stage 2 703 823 687 638 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.9 9.4 0 4.7 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBR EBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1541 - 425 971 1509 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.046 0.16 0.068 - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 13.9 9.4 7.6 0 - HCM Lane LOS A - B A A A - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 0.6 0.2 - - Synchro 9 Report