Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CU2008-31/PD2008-04/Z2008-10
OCT 0 6 2008 zoi�- I D CITY OF GRAPEVINE ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION 1. Applicant/Agent Name Company Name tic, 0 A 7ftA6 L4m(Tal> L-,A&LIT-,rr Ct,)n4pA-6Ay Address %yPAtK4jA--,7 &Are-, %o City I F -q 1 P4 (,- J - Zip -7,5b-62 Phone # Y-144- 7-'7!® 412- Fax # i —8,57ns Email Mobile 2. Applicant's interest in subject property �)6y4ZpeIZ- f-6VOTI N C, - k t,-� W-6 FAA-th14-T- 3. Property owner(s) name Du T)Mj !RMeNf ("rtAUJ>.1-te- Address 35-65 (eA-Pt-W1Nc- rv11L-L,5 pp9,V-tJA-� ,7—e 1t)) City State Teypcs Zip -7Gp51 Phone# q72 --77-q-2-111 Fax# 97Z -724,39o8 4. Address of subject property 32,2-5- Naxg (yjApev1r4g At[ J -of 1tLc4TX Legal Description: Lot Block Addition Size of subject property lb .327 acres square foot Metes & Bounds must be described on 8'/2 "x 11" sheet 5. Present Zoning Classification P1 'D - ?LwNa, [NOU40IRikL- 6. Present Use of Property r&p-m LAf4,p 7. Requested Zoning DistrictMF-2- 8. The applicant understands the master plan designation and the most restrictive zone that would allow the proposed use is C 0AZCU\F0RMS\APP.ZNCP.doc 1/30/2008 IN 9. Minimum/Maximum District size for requested zoning 10. Describe the proposed use :Jj r,�& p4a,_Tj' 11. The Concept Plan submission shall meet the requirements of Section 45, Contents of a Concept Plan, Section 45.C. All Zone Change Requests are assumed to be complete when filed and will be placed on the agenda for public hearing at the discretion of the staff. Based on the size of the agenda, your application may be scheduled to a later date. All public hearings will be opened and testimony given by applicants and interested citizenry. Public hearings may be continued to the next public hearing. Public hearings will not be tabled. Any changes to a concept plan approved with a zone change request can only be approved by city council through the public hearing process. 1 have read and understand all of the requirements as set forth by the application for zone change request and acknowledge that all requirements of this application have been met at the time of submittal. 11. Signature to authorize a zone change request and place a zone change request sign on the subject property. Applicant ' u pr - Applicant signature: W Property Owner (print): O:\ZCU\FORMS\APP.ZNCP.doc 1/30/2008 The State o S County of -Zw-1 Befme e., on this day personally appeared �7E 1-1 nrl C (err known to me (or proved to me on the oath of or through (description of identity card or other document) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed. MAIN •1� +,' SEAL seal of office this day of J� _ ota Signature LS) JULIE ANN LIVINGSTONE �TEXAS COOMMTARY IISOUC sN EXXPRES: 06-15AL® 1 7 The State of TX County ofj/c ( Before me Ql on this day personally appeared �II KL-- ''r~ct K xt known to me (or proved to me on the oath of or through (description of identity card or other document) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed. Given under my hand and seal of office this day of A.D. /Mc �)r uVol, SEAL Notary Si Lure By ��2�;P•• •�.a MOLLY FRASER O:\ZCU\FORMS\APP.ZNCP.doc ; __ Notary Public, State of Texas 1!3012008-,,qF°..E�r�, MyCommissionExpires Jens 9,Gi t 4 IC-) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT All Zone Change Request are assumed to be complete when filed and will be placed on the agenda for public hearing at the discretion of the staff. Based on the size of the agenda, your application may be scheduled to a later date. All public hearings will be opened and testimony given by applicants and interested citizenry. Public hearings may be continued to the next public hearing. Public hearings will not be tabled. Any changes to a concept plan approved with a zone change request can only be approved by city council through the public hearing process. I have read and understand all of the requirements as set forth by the application for zone change request and acknowledge that all requirements of this application have been met at the time of submittal. Signature of Applicant Date. 16 C t 4-Oeje Si' c Scnature of;Property ©wne25 O:\ZCU\FORMSWPP.ZNCP.doc 1/30/2008 0 CT Platting Verification This Verification Statement Must Be Signed Prior To The Submittal of This Zoning Application. It has been determined that the property described below does require platting or replatting and the applicant has been instructed on this procedure. It has been determined that the property described below is currently platted or does not require platting or replatting at this time. Address of subject property '322,5- �/. &aAogv1mE,;- MIL -1-S aal, kvev, t4e; I -T-s,,- Legal description of subject property Public Works Pement ,paft Date This Form Must Be Signed By The Public Works Department And Submitted Along With A Completed Application To The Planning And Zoning Department. 0AZCU\FORMS\APP.ZNCP.doc 1/30/2008 6 �U - 3 1 YI �T K X A S`' C CVTI■ O ■ \F 1■ EVI E CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION Form "A" PART 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of applicant/ agent:/company/contact SL6 W04 -T1 t.. e, ► k %tt &M y fie,(_ tf Street address of applicant/ agent: 9oZ� � 960 City / State / Zip Code of applicant / agent: 1011q&- T Telephone number of applicant / agent: Fax number of applicantlagent 2[y-7-71- iff 9Z- Zty- 271- 195"04 Email address of applicant/agent Mobile phone number of applicantlagent Applicant's Interest in subject property: U PART 2. PROPERTY INFORMATION Street address of subject property 3225" Afrff e.dtn19 Wtlt..L S Udt>l eL'lNC-1 7"K Legal description of subject property (metes & bounds must be described on 8 112" x 11 "sheet) Lot Block Addition Size of subject property 10-37-7 Acres Square foota e Present zoning classilkation: Proposed use of the property: PID I ex tAt. n ( Minimum l maximum district size for conditional use request: Zoning ordinance provision requiring a conditional use: 6C44101.1 22 ' �iEl(r44't C1ot�'j PART 3. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION Name of current property owner., bkt.40v p L I N t" -YT 2.t 'ts Gt Street address of property owner., 35co JiNi5 ati L4A;, i 44 cul !®a City / State / Zip Code of property owner. Telephone number of property owner. Fax number of property owner. 9 qZ- 744- 241 97Z-7Zq-3348 ❑ Submit a letter describing the proposed conditional use and note the request on the site plan document ❑ In the same letter, describe or show on the site plan, and conditional requirements or conditions imposed upon the particular conditional use by applicable district regulations (example: buffer yards, distance between users) ❑ In the same letter, describe whether the proposed conditional use will, or will not cause substantial harm to the value, use, or enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood. Also, describe how the proposed conditional use will add to the value, use or enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood. Ll Application of site plan approval (Section 47, see attached Form W). ❑ The site plan submission shall meet the requirements of Section 47, Site Plan Requirements, ❑ Ali conditional use and conditional use applications are assumed to be complete when tiled and will be placed on the agenda for public hearing at the discretion of the staff. Based on the size of the agenda, your application maybe scheduled to a later date. ❑ All public hearings will be opened and testimony given by applicants and interested citizenry. Public hearings may be continued to the next public hearing. Public hearings will not be tabled. O Any changes to a site plan (no matter how minor or major) approved with a conditional use or conditional use permit can only be approved by city council through the public hearing process. ❑ I have read and understand all the requirements as set forth by the application for conditional use or conditional use permit and acknowiedoe that all reouirements of this aoolication have been met at the time of submittal. PART 4. SIGNATURE TO REQUEST SIGN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY Print Applicant's Name; cant's Wgt6ture. The State of County Of S Before Me on this day personally appeared (notary) (applicant) known to me (or proved to me on the oath of card or other document) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consi eration therein expressed. Q� �� C� (Seat) Given under my hand and seat of office this day of �>� . A. D. 01-06 JULIE ANN LMNGSTONE EANN NOYORMSTATEOFTEXAS + C0YEi16S10Y EX/IRIS: 06-15-2011 Print Property (?WifersName: The State OL � O-Jq+^i County Of Before Me { Property Owner" ig a re: on this day personally appeared RI& j V (property owner) known to me (or proved to me on the oath of card or other document) to be acknowledged to me that he executed the some for the pur, ses and (Seal) Given under my hand and seal of office this day o1 WANGSTONE EANN RY PUBLIC STATE OFIEXABOMMISSION EXPIRES: 6-15-2011 the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and ACKNOWLEDGEMENT All Conditional Use and Special Use Applications are assumed to be complete when filed and will be placed on the agenda for public hearing at the discretion of the staff. Based on the size of the agenda, your application may be scheduled to a later date. All public hearings will be opened and testimony given by applicants and interested citizenry. Public hearings may be continued to the next public hearing. Public hearings will not be tabled. Any changes to a site plan (no matter how minor or major) approved with a conditional use or a special use permit can only be approved by city council through the public hearing process. Any application for a change in zoning or for an amendment to the zoning ordinance shall have, from the date of submittal, a period of four months to request and be scheduled on an agenda before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. If after said period of four months an application has not been scheduled before the Commission and Council said application shall be considered withdrawn, with forfeiture of all filing fees. The application, along with the required filing fee may be resubmitted any time thereafter for reconsideration. Delays In scheduling applications before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council created by city staff shall not be considered a part of the four month period. I have read and understand all of the requirements as set forth by the application for conditional use or special use permit and acknowledge that all requirements of this application have been met at the time of submittal. Signature of Applicant Signature of Owne -� " Date: tf OCT 0 6 2008 p ;- 0 Ll f O:\ZCU\FORMS\app. pd.doc 012308 AlV� T E X A S CITY OF GRAPEVINE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY APPLICATION PART 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Name of applicant/agent:/company/contact Bg=vq-&1Li ` 4.a., tia t Street address of applicant / agent: 101 LAV -9 L.'1 !,l 4 i160 City/ State/ Zip Code of applicant/ agent: lv_4! ,-�& !—��0301 Telephone number of applicant/ agent. Fax number of applicant / agent. H— 7.71 — )—VA -2-11— 550.3 Email address of applicant/ agent Mobile phone number of applicant/ agent Applicant's interest in subject property: (' L- P - PART 2. PROPERTY INFORMATION Street address of subject property Legal description of subject property (metes & bounds must be described on 8 1/2" x 1I sheet) Lot Block Addition Size of subject property 2,-7 Acres'614L4.12. Square footage Present zoning classification: Proposed use of the property: lw'(°' FW t L Minimum / maximum district size for request.- equest.Zoning Zoningordinance provision requesting deviation from: :5 ere -1f°✓ CIV PART 3. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION Name of current property owner: Mt aAl. 1 C :1AA" 6 tt s Street address of property owner.- to tv� City/ State /Zip Code of property owner: Gra4WeNiNE. Telephone number of property owner. Fax number of property owner. 7.— —2 U f O:\ZCU\FORMS\app. pd.doc 012308 OCT 0 6 2008 ❑ Submit a letter describing the proposed Planned Development and note the request on the site plan document. ❑ Describe any special requirements or conditions that require deviation of the zoning district regulations. ❑ Describe whether the proposed overlay will, or will not cause substantial harm to the value, use or enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood. ❑ Describe how the proposed planned development will add to the value, use or enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood. ❑ The site plan submission shall meet the requirements of Section 47, Site Plan Requirements. ❑ All planned development overlay applications are assumed to be complete when filed and will be placed on the agenda for public hearing at the discretion of the staff. Based on the size of the agenda, your application maybe scheduled to a later date. ❑ All public hearings will be opened and testimony given by applicants and interested citizenry. Public hearings may be continued to the next public hearing. Public hearings will not be tabled. ❑ Any changes to a site plan (no matter how minor or major) approved with a planned development overlay can only be approved by city council through the public hearing process. ❑ 1 have read and understand all the requirements as set forth by the application for planned development overlay and acknowledge that all requirements of this application have been met at the time of submittal. PART 4. SIGNATURE TO AUTHORIZE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY REQUEST AND PLACE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY REQUEST SIGN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY t-% `7 &-Irrotj C Print Applicant's Name:pp rcant's Signa ure: The State Of :,Lls County Of ! L, Is Before Me on this day personally appeared (notary) (applicant) known to me (or proved to me on the oath of card or other document) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed. (Seal) Given under my hand and seal of office this J day of % %� , A.D. e JUUE ANN LIVINGSTONE NOTARY KINX STATE OF TEXAS r1a ION EXPIRES: 06,5 2011 No ryin For Sfa e Of exas v>6 Ni. c - Mk V-6 Print Property Owners Name: The State Of County Of rK Before Me on this day personally appeared ' (notary) (property owner) known to me (or proved to me on the oath of card or other document) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed. (Seal) Given under my hand and seal of office this c day of il) A.D. _ itlillfl M .�1aRYPuao, IYIC)LLY ERASER 4!pa ' . �i� Notary Public, State of Texas ' My Commission Expires Notary In And For Stat' Of Texas June 29, 2011 O:\ZCU\FORMS\app. pd.doc 012308 OCT 0 6 200 -0 Ll� ❑ Submit a letter describing the proposed Planned Development and note the request on the site plan document. ❑ Describe any special requirements or conditions that require deviation of the zoning district regulations. ❑ Describe whether the proposed overlay will, or will not cause substantial harm to the value, use or enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood. ❑ Describe how the proposed planned development will add to the value, use or enjoyment of other property in the neighborhood. ❑ The site plan submission shall meet the requirements of Section 47, Site Plan Requirements. ❑ All planned development overlay applications are assumed to be complete when filed and will be placed on the agenda for public hearing at the discretion of the staff. Based on the size of the agenda, your application may be scheduled to a later date. ❑ All public hearings will be opened and testimony given by applicants and interested citizenry. Public hearings may be continued to the next public hearing. Public hearings will not be tabled. ❑ Any changes to a site plan (no matter how minor or major) approved with a planned development overlay can only be approved by city council through the public hearing process. ❑ I have read and understand all the requirements as set forth by the application for planned development overlay and acknowledge that all requirements of this application have been met at the time of submittal. PART 4. SIGNATURE TO AUTHORIZE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY REQUEST AND PLACE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY REQUEST SIGN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY Print Applicant's Name: ants Signa The State Of t� County Of tit �}�p(((//�wt (, Before Me ��LLI".iil, � ,� u m on this day personally appeared moih'n KL14 (notary) (applicant) known to me (or proved to me on the oath of card or other document) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed. (Seal) Given under my hand and seal of office this day of P 11 1W A A.D. j ✓(�. t Notary In And Fo fate Of Texas �,;�m1M,..O®`, tv10LLY ERASER �'.� , Notary Public, State of Texas "a, act o J 29, 2011 VA `ii t� (tom Print Property Owners Name: y f4pperty Owner's ignOU t e: The State Of t County Of 1e- p gn 1; Before Me t, A %� &tx- on this day personally appeared C d tGt notary) (property owner) known to me (or proved to me on the oath of card or other document) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed. (Seal) Given under my hand and seal of office this �_ day of MONY FRASER a Notary Public, State of Texas = LAZI Notary In And r State Of Texas My Commission Expires June 29, 2011 hff�llt��� k O:\ZCU\FORMS\app.pd.doc 04.05 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT _ 6 L - All Planned Development Overlay Applications are assumed to be complete when filed and will be placed on the agenda for public hearing at the discretion of the staff. Based on the size of the agenda, your application may be scheduled to a later date. All public hearings will be opened and testimony given by applicants and interested citizenry. Public hearings may be continued to the next public hearing. Public hearings will not be tabled. Any changes to a site plan (no matter how minor or major) approved with a planned development overlay can only be approved by city council through the public hearing process. Any application for a change in zoning or for an amendment to the zoning ordinance shall have, from the date of submittal, a period of four months to request and be scheduled on an agenda before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. If after said period of four months an application has not been scheduled before the Commission and Council said application shall be considered withdrawn, with forfeiture of all filing fees. The application, along with the required filing fee may be resubmitted any time thereafter for reconsideration. Delays in scheduling applications before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council created by city staff shall not be considered a part of the four month period. I have read and understand all of the requirements as set forth by the application for planned development overlay and acknowledge that all requirements of this application have been met at the time of submittal. Signature of Applicant Date: �D P a Date: O:\ZCU\FORMS\app.pd.doc 04.05 OCT 0 6 Zo —OLA PLATTING VERIFICATION This verification statement must be signed prior To the submittal of this planned development overlay application x It has been determined that the property described below does require platting or replatting and the applicant has been instructed on this procedure. It has been determined that the property described below is currently platted or does not require platting or replatting at this time. Address of subject property 32.x..-5 t4g-rii U(Ne icy- W Legal description of subject property Public Works I() — — C Date This form must be signed by the public works department and submitted along with a completed application to the planning and zoning department O:\ZCU\FORMS\app.pd.doc 6 04.05 I GU C P. R -MF -2 1P3111 P�)It4 " 10,114 IR 35.47 LD 81R A) 0-v G '41610 IR 35.47 @ IRA 42,26 @ P-ff all E�Y.11 4 3 6 x,351 2 IR fp • :PID: cc� TR 2AIA TR 2A1 B HCO17302 @ TR 2A 589 @ 0 1 inch equals 400 feet R -MF -1 7R 531C TG09AC WIN TR 1B 20.482 TR 1B 20.482 @ 6 \0 0-S 11- �ll 2,033 %8.655 3 IBI 1 537 tie L 7RS 389 4.3369 NAY TR 5F 456@ TR IF 4 112@ Z08-107 CU08-31, PD08-04 Wagon Wheel Addition r, LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEING ALL THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE J. GIBSON SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 587, CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, AND F BEING PART OF "404.3928 ACRES" DESCRIBED IN DEED TO WALLCON EQUITIES, LTD. RECORDED IN VOLUME 13076, PAGE 448, DEED RECORDS, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, AND BEING ALL OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1 OF FARHAT s BROTHERS WEST, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN CABINET A, SLIDE 5795, PLAT RECORDS, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS AND ALSO BEING ALL OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1 OF CROSS CREEK RANCH, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN CABINET A, SLIDE 1619, PLAT RECORDS, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A 5/8" IRON ROD WITH A PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "KHA" FOUND FOR CORNER AT THE COMMON SOUTH CORNER OF SAID WALLCON EQUITIES, LTD. TRACT AND LOT 1, BLOCK 1, OF FIRE STATION NO. 5, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN CABINET A, SLIDE 5096, PLAT RECORDS, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, IN THE NORTH LINE OF GRAPEVINE MILLS BOULEVARD NORTH, A VARIABLE WIDTH PUBLIC RIGHT—OF—WAY, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF A STREET RIGHT—OF—WAY DEDICATION TO THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, RECORDED IN VOLUME 12429, PAGE 2313, DEED RECORDS, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS; THENCE NORTH 02'43'11" WEST, ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID WALLCON EQUITIES, LTD. TRACT AND SAID FIRE STATION NO. 5 AND PASSING AT A DISTANCE OF 143.32 FEET A FOUND "X" AT THE COMMON EAST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK A MILLS RUN ADDITION, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN CABINET A, SLIDE 6389 PLAT RECORDS, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS AND SAID FIRE STATION NO. 5, AND CONTINUING ALONG THE COMMON EAST LINE OF SAID MILLS RUN ADDITION AND SAID WALLCON EQUITIES, LTD. TRACT, AND CONTINUING FOR A TOTAL DISTANCE OF 701.53 FEET TO A 5/8" IRON ROD WITH A PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "KHA" FOUND FOR CORNER AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID WALLCON EQUITIES, LTD. TRACT AND ALSO BEING IN THE SOUTH LINE OF BUTCH VAN HOPPER ADDITION, A CALLED 19.759 ACRE TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO MRAH III, L.P. RECORDED IN VOLUME 15476, PAGE 328, DEED RECORDS, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS; THENCE SOUTH 8925'29" EAST, ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID BUTCH VAN HOPPER ADDITION AND SAID WALLCON EQUITIES, LTD. TRACT, AND PASSING AT A DISTANCE OF 572.37 FEET TO A 5/8" IRON ROD WITH A PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "KHA" FOUND AT THE MOST NORTHERLY NORTH CORNER OF SAID WALLCON EQUITIES, LTD. TRACT AND THE NORTHERLY MOST NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3, BLOCK 1, FARHAT BROTHERS WEST, AND CONTINUING ALONG THE SAID SOUTH LINE OF SAID BUTCH VAN HOPPER ADDITION FOR A TOTAL DISTANCE OF 635.25 FEET TO A 1/2" IRON ROD FOUND FOR CORNER; THENCE SOUTH 02'27'54" WEST, PASSING AT A DISTANCE OF 55.60 FEET A 5/8" IRON ROD WITH A PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "KHA" FOUND FOR CORNER, FOR A TOTAL DISTANCE OF 95.60 FEET TO A 5/8" IRON ROD WITH A PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "KHA" FOUND AT THE COMMON CORNER OF SAID LOT 1, BLOCK 1 CROSS CREEK ADDITION AND SAID WALLCON EQUITIES, LTD. TRACT; THENCE NORTH 89'43'50" EAST, ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID LOT 1, BLOCK 1 CROSS CREEK ADDITION AND SAID WALLCON EQUITIES, LTD. TRACT, DISTANCE OF 60.02 FEET TO A 1/2" IRON ROD SET WITH A PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "SPIARSENG" SET FOR CORNER AT A COMMON NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID WALLCON EQUITIES, LTD. TRACT AND SAID FARHAT BROTHERS ADDITION; THENCE SOUTH 02'25'55" WEST, ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID WALLCON EQUITIES, LTD. TRACT AND SAID FARHAT BROTHERS WEST ADDITION, A DISTANCE OF 580.99 FEET TO A 1/2" IRON ROD WITH PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "SPIARSENG" SET FOR CORNER AT THE COMMON SOUTH CORNER OF SAID WALLCON EQUITIES, LTD. TRACT AND SAID CROSS CREEK RANCH ADDITION, AND ALSO BEING IN THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GRAPEVINE MILLS BOULEVARD—NORTH, SAID POINT ALSO BEING IN THE NORTH LINE OF A STREET RIGHT—OF—WAY DEDICATION TO THE CITY OF GRAVPEVINE, RECORDED IN VOLUME 12429, PAGE 2603, DEED RECORDS, TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS; THENCE SOUTH 89'21'41" WEST, ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID WALLCON EQUITIES, LTD. TRACT AND SAID GRAPEVINE MILLS BOULEVARD NORTH, PASSING A DISTANCE OF 20.03 FEET TO A 5/8" IRON ROD WITH A PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "KHA" FOUND FOR SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CROSS CREEK RANCH ADDITION, AND CONTINUING ALONG SAID GRAPEVINE MILLS BOULEVARD NORTH FOR A TOTAL DISTANCE OF 397.23 FEET TO A 5/8" IRON ROD WITH A PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "KHA" FOUND FOR CORNER; THENCE SOUTH 84'07'23" WEST, CONTINUING ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID WALLCON EQUITIES, LTD. TRACT AND SAID GRAPEVINE MILLS BOULEVARD NORTH, A DISTANCE OF 120.91 FEET TO A 5/8" IRON ROD WITH A PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "KHA" FOUND FOR CORNER; THENCE SOUTH 89'21'41" WEST, CONTINUING ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID WALLCON EQUITIES, LTD. TRACT AND SAID GRAPEVINE MILLS BOULEVARD NORTH, A DISTANCE OF 115.72 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING AND CONTAINING 449,827 SQUARE FEET OR 10.327 ACRES OF LAND. October 31, 2008 Ms. Christine Lopez Fort Worth Star Telegram P.O. Box 1870 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 RE: Grapevine Account # CIT 25 Dear Ms. Lopez, VIA FACSIMILE 817-390-7520 Please find enclosed the following for publication on Sunday, November 2, 2008, in the Northeast Edition of the Neighborhood Extra Section of the Fort Worth Star Telegram. (One time only) Item Notice of Public Hearing Z08-07/PD08-03 — Skinner Custom Homes Notice of Public Hearing Z08-09 — J J Hall Addition Notice of Public Hearing Z08-10/CU08-31/PD08-04 — Wagon Wheel Addition Notice of Public Hearing Z08-11/CU08-30 — Riverwoods Notice of Public Hearing Z08-12 — J J Hall Addition Notice of Public Hearing CU08-28 — Ziziki's Notice of Public Hearing CU08-29 — Grapevine Towne Center Notice of Public Hearing AM08-04 - Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Meeting Date November 18, 2008 November 18, 2008 November 18, 2008 November 18, 2008 November 18, 2008 November 18, 2008 November 18, 2008 November 18, 2008 As always, your assistance is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions please contact me at (817) 410-3155. Sinc ly, Susan Batte Planning Technician DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT The City of Grapevine - P.O. Box 95104 4 Grapevine, Texas 76099 - (817) 410-3154 Fax (817) 410-3018 - www.grapevinetexas.gov CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS On Tuesday evening, November 18, 2008 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 200 South Main Street, Grapevine, Texas, the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Grapevine will hold a public hearing to consider the following items: Z08-07/PD08-03 — SKINNER CUSTOM HOMES — submitted by Skinner Custom Homes for property located at 410 North Dove Road and proposed to be platted as Lots 1-6, Block A, Tuscan Ridge Addition. The applicant is requesting to rezone 1.42 acres from "R-7.5" Single Family Residential to "R-5.0" Zero -Lot -Line District for a residential development. The applicant is also requesting a planned development overlay to include but not be limited to deviation from lot width, depth and setback requirements. The property is owned by Star Bible Publishing. Z08-09 — J J HALL ADDITION — submitted by 222 Starnes LP for property located at 222 North Starnes Street and platted as Lot K, J J Hall Addition. The applicant is requesting to rezone 0.32 acres from "R-5.0" Zero -Lot -Line District to "PO" Professional Office District for an office building. The property is owned by 222 Starnes LP. Z08-10/CU08-31/PD08-04 — WAGON WHEEL ADDITION — submitted by JLB Realty LLC for property located at 3225 North Grapevine Mills Boulevard and proposed to be platted as Lot 1, Block A, Wagon Wheel Addition. The applicant is requesting to rezone 10.327 acres from "PID" Planned Industrial Development to "R -MF -2" Multifamily District for the development of multi -family complex. The applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit to allow a three story multi -family complex and a planned development overlay to include but not be limited to deviation from density, open space, minimum floor area, setbacks, height, design requirements, landscaping and parking in the "R -MF -2" Multifamily District. The property is owned by Dulce Development Group LLC and Farhat Brothers, Inc. Z08-11/CU08-30 — RIVERWOODS — submitted by DeOtte Inc. for property located at 3735 Ira E Woods Avenue and proposed to be platted as Lots 1-3, Block 1, Riverwoods Addition. The applicant is requesting to rezone 12.10 acres from "CN" Neighborhood Commercial to "PO" Professional Office and a conditional use permit to allow a personal care facility. The property is owned by Gary L Cantrell Co, Inc. Z08-12 — J J HALL ADDITION — submitted by George Kuketz for property located at 206, 210 and 216 North Starnes Street and platted as Lots L, M, and N, J J Hall Addition. The 4 applicant is requesting to rezone 0.96 acres from "HC" Highway Commercial District and "R-5.0" Zero -Lot -Line District to "PO" Professional Office District for the development of an office building. The property is owned by George Kuketz. CU08-28 — ZIZIKI'S - submitted by Ion Design Group, LLC for property located at 1295 South Main Street and platted as Lot 1, Block 1, Epicentre Addition. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to amend the previously approved site plan, specifically to allow the possession, storage, retail sale and on -premise consumption of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine and mixed beverages) in conjunction with a restaurant. The property is zoned "PO" Professional Office and is owned by Paul Guernsey. CU08-29 — GRAPEVINE TOWNE CENTER - submitted by Lawrence A. Cates & Associates, LLP for property located at 801 Ira E Woods Avenue and platted Lots 1, 2R, 3R, 4R1, 5, 6R, 7-10, 11 R, 12R1, 13R, 14R, 15R, 16, 17, Block 1, Towne Center Addition No. 2 and Lots 1 R2 and 3R1, Block 1, Towne Center Addition. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to amend the previously approved site plan for a planned commercial center, specifically to allow a 25 foot landscape setback for all parcels adjacent to Ira E Woods Avenue and William D Tate Avenue. The property is zoned "CC" Community Commercial and is owned by Grapevine/Tate JV. AMENDMENTS TO COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE 82-73 - The City Council and the Commission will consider amendments and changes to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, No. 82-73, same being Appendix D of the Code of Ordinances as follows: Section 23, "LB" Limited Business, Section 24, "CN" Neighborhood Commercial, Section 25, "CC" Community Commercial, Section 26, "HC" Highway Commercial, Section 27, "PO" Professional Office, Section 28, "CBD" Central Business District, Section 31, "LI" Light Industrial and Section 40 "MXU" Mixed Use District relative to second hand goods and private, public and non-profit institutions, and any other additions, deletions, or changes to various sections, articles and provisions contained in said Ordinance No. 82-73. After all parties have been given an opportunity to speak, the public hearing will be closed and the Commission and the City Council will deliberate the pending matters. Please contact the Department of Development Services concerning any questions, 200 South Main Street, Grapevine, Texas, 76051 or P.O. Box 95104, Grapevine, Texas, 76099,817- 410-3155. A copy of the site plan for all the above referenced requests is on file with the Development Services Department. K HP OfficeJet K Series K80 Personal Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner Last Transaction Date Time Type Identification Oct 31 2:38pm Fax Sent 98173907520 Log for DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 8174103018 Oct 312008 2:39pm Duration Pages Result 1:01 3 OK W1K17D05 Star -Telegram 400 W. 7TH STREET rrr.nT tSlni)TLI TV '741M Customer ID: CIT25 Invoice Number: 301184271 Misc Fee $26.00 Net Amount: $993.26 10 4`a��. 3 UMy CHRIS'TY L. HOLLAND Commission ExpiresJuly 31, 2012 THE STATE OF TEXAS County of Tarrant Before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, this day personally appeared Deborah Baylor, Bid and Legal Coordinator for the Star - Telegram, published by the Star -Telegram, Inc. at Fort Worth, in Tarrant County, Texas; and who, after being duly swom, did depose and say that the attached clipping of an advertisement was published in the above named paper on the listed dates: BIDS & LEGAL DEPT. STAR TELEGRAM (817)390-7501 C\ h C n _ (\ SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, TI Thank You For Your Payment --------------------------------------------- Remit To: Star -Telegram 36 i t Customer ID: CTT25 P.O. BOX 901051 Customer Name: CITY OF GRAPEVINE SECR } FORT WORTH, TX 76101-2051 Invoice Number: 301184271 Invoice Amount: $993.26 PO Number: Amount Enclosed: Development Service D• . Public Hearing Property Owner Research Wagon Wheel Addition Case No.: Z08-10, CU08-31, PD08-04 Address/Legal Description: 3225 Grapevine Mills Pkwy O:\ZCU\FO RMS\ZCU.31.doc V gee -e gee Farhat Brothers West 3525 Grapevine Mills Pkwy Star Grande LIc Addition 5818 NW EI Rey Dr Blk 1 Lot 2 Camas Wa 98607 Farhat Brothers West 3501 Grapevine Mills Pkwy Farhat Brothers Inc Addition 3501 Grapevine Mills Pkwy Blk 1 Lot 1 Grapevine Tx 76051 Farhat Brothers West 3549 Grapevine Mills Pkwy Farhat Industries Inc Addition 3500 Grapevine Mills Pkwy Blk 1 Lot 3 Grapevine Tx 76051 Grapevine Fire Station #5 2801 N Grapevine Mills Grapevine, City Of Addn Blvd PO Box 95104 Blk 1 Lot 1 Grapevine Tx 76099 Gibson, James Survey 2800 Grapevine Mills Pkwy North Texas Acquisition LIc A 587 Trs 2A1A 2A1 & 5701 N Shartel Ave 5A1 Oklahoma City Ok 73118 &A 1415 Tr1C1A1 Gibson, James Survey N Grapevine Mills Blvd Dulce Development Group LIc A 587 Tr 21302 3500 Grapevine Mills Pkwy Grapevine Tx 76051 Gibson, James Survey N Grapevine Mills Blvd Dulce Development Group Lic A 587 Trs 2 & 5B 3500 N Grapevine Mills Blvd Less Homesite Grapevine Tx 76051 Gibson, James Survey N Grapevine Mills Blvd Dulce Development Group LIc A 587 Tr 2 3500 N Grapevine Mills Blvd Abst 587 Tr 2 & 5B Imps Grapevine Tx 76051 Gibson, James Survey N Grapevine Mills Blvd Dulce Development Group Llc A 587 Trs 2 & 5B 3500 N Grapevine Mills Blvd Less Homesite Grapevine Tx 76051 Cross Creek Ranch Anderson Gibson Rd Dulce Development Group LIc Addition 3500 Grapevine Mills Pkwy Blk 1 Lot 1A1 Grapevine Tx 76051 Van Hopper, Butch 3601 Grapevine Mills Pkwy Mustang Ridge Apartments Lp Addition 7701 Forsyth Blvd Blk 1 Lot 1 Saint Louis Mo 63105 Mills Run Addition 2701 Grapevine Mills Pkwy Granite Cross Creek Lp Blk 1 Lot 1 R 2 Park Piz Ste 800 Irvine Ca 92614 Gibson, James Survey N Grapevine Mills Blvd Dulce Development Group LIc A 587 Tr 21302 3500 Grapevine Mills Pkwy Grapevine Tx 76051 O:\ZCU\FO RMS\ZCU.31.doc V Applicant: Wagon Wheel Addition Case No.: Z08-10, CU08-31, PD08-04 Address/Legal Description: 3225 Grapevine Mills Pkwy Proof of Notice in the City of Grapevine, Texas Case No. Z08-10, CU08-31, PD08-04 Planning and Zoning Commission Pursuant to Article 1011 F, Vernon's Civil Statutes: I, the undersigned being a Planner for the City of Grapevine and having the records pertaining to applications for change of zoning and the notices sent pursuant thereto under my supervision and control, in the performance of the function of my office and employment, do hereby solemnly swear and affirm that pursuant to Article 1011 F, Vernon's Civil Statutes, written notices were served on the parties listed above in the City of Grapevine, zoning Case Z08-10, CU08-31, PD08-04 on this the 7th day of November 2008. (D) — Duplicate (,i) — Indicates notice addressed and stamped. Executed this the 7th day of November 2008. City of Grapevine PI ner State of Texas County of Tarrant Before me Susan Batte on this day personally appeared Ron Stombaugh known to me (or proved to me on the oath of card or other document) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes and consideration therein expressed. (Seal) given under my hand and seal of office this 7th day of November 2008. r ilk Notar in and for State of Texas tip 0:\ZCU\FORMS\ZCU.31.doc 2 P, Nvw- 1 19.759@ � TR 5B1C 7.0489 AC a rf' > z LU a I - .. .... 0 TR -2' _ 25.33B il�?- 3 TR5B1C V. -- -- -- -- ---- -- 7.0489 AC 3 - -7 5B' 52135 •[1 ¢ AC- 1.492 @ 1 - 5.87 @ IF 1 inch equals 200 feet Z08-107 CU08-31, PD08-04 Wagon Addition Star Grande Llc Mustang Ridge Apartments Lp Z08-10, CU08-31, PD08-04 5818 NW EI Rey Dr 7701 Forsyth Blvd WAGON WHEEL ADDITION Camas Wa 98607 Saint Louis Mo 63105 Farhat Brothers Inc 3501 Grapevine Mills Pkwy Grapevine Tx 76051 Farhat Industries Inc 3500 Grapevine Mills Pkwy Grapevine Tx 76051 Grapevine, City Of PO Box 95104 Grapevine Tx 76099 North Texas Acquisition Llc 5701 N Shartel Ave Oklahoma City Ok 73118 Dulce Development Group Lic 3500 Grapevine Mills Pkwy Grapevine Tx 76051 Dulce Development Group Llc 3500 N Grapevine Mills Blvd Grapevine Tx 76051 Dulce Development Group Lic 3500 N Grapevine Mills Blvd Grapevine Tx 76051 Dulce Development Group Lic 3500 N Grapevine Mills Blvd Grapevine Tx 76051 Dulce Development Group Lic 3500 Grapevine Mills Pkwy Grapevine Tx 76051 Granite Cross Creek Lp 2 Park Plz Ste 800 Irvine Ca 92614 Dulce Development Group Lic 3500 Grapevine Mills Pkwy Grapevine Tx 76051 I Case #: Z08-10, CU08-31, PD08-0-Ai WAGON ADDITION ` . 0 1 PJrkq ! ! Because you are a property owner within 200 feet of the subject tract of land as shown by the last City -approved tax rolls, you received this notice. If you cannot or do not wish to attend the hearing, the attached form is provided for your convenience. If owners of more than 20% of the property within 200 feet of the subject tract object to the case, a 3/4 vote of the City Council is required to approve the request. Purpose of Request: The public hearing is to consider an application submitted by JLB Realty LLC for property located at 3225 North Grapevine Mills Boulevard and proposed to be platted as Lot 1, Block A, Wagon Wheel Addition. The applicant is proposing to rezone 10.327 acres from "PID" Planned Industrial Development and "CC" Community Commercial to "R -MF -2" Multifamily District. The applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit to allow a three story multi -family complex and a planned development overlay to deviate from density, open space, setbacks, design requirements, landscaping and parking. The property is owned by Dulce Development Group LLC and Farhat Brothers, Inc. A copy of the site plan is on file with the Department of Development Services. Hearing Procedure: Location: PUBLIC HEARING: COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2nd FLOOR COMMISSION'S DELIBERATION SESSION, 2nd FLOOR 200 S. MAIN STREET, GRAPEVINE, TEXAS Applicant and Other Speakers' Presentation. Public Input, Neighborhood Associations, Property Owners Within 200 feet, Interested Citizenry. Questions from City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission for Applicants, City Staff and Guests Present. Case #: Z08-10, CU08-31, PD08-04 WAGON WHEEL ADDITION WRITTEN COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THIS OFFICE NO LATER THAN.5 PM ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17,200 As (a Property Owner within 200 feet of the subject tract) or (an interested citizen), I (approve) (protest) and/or (have the following comments) Current Property Owner Name (printed) Property Address: Lot , Block , AdditioM Property Owner Signature: Daytime phone number: Telephone: (817)410-3155 Fax: (817)410-3018 Direct questions and mail responses to: Planning Secretary Department of Development Services City of Grapevine P.O. Box 95104 Grapevine, Texas 76099 c't - , fV TO: HONORABLE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION '2-- FROM: BRUNO RUMBELOW, CITY MANAGER' SCOTT WILLIAMS, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TECHNICAL REPORT OF ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION Z08-10 CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION CU08-31 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY PD08-04 .t i I I I -- ------------ Grapevine Lake ��. APPLICANT: Britton Church I r �0ke Aa. t� I .aye' I.H.!635 PROPERTY LOCATION AND SIZE: The subject property is located at 3225 North Grapevine Mills Boulevard and is proposed to be platted as Lot 1, Block A, Wagon Wheel Addition. S DFW ? Airport Y I The property contains 10.327 acres and has Hall -Johnson X00 a ' approximately 634 feet of frontage along North I ___ I i l _ ° _ Grapevine Mills Boulevard. m I Glade Rd. �, I _I REQUESTED ZONE CHANGE, CONDITIONAL USE, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND COMMENTS: The applicant is requesting a zone change to rezone 10.159 acres from "PID" Planned Industrial Development District and. 168 acres from "CC" Communitv Commercial District to "R -MF -2" Multifamily District for the development of a 291 unit multifamily complex The applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit to allow the development of three- story multifamily structures and a planned development overlay to include but not be limited to deviation from the density requirement, open space parking front and side yard setback, and building length as established in the "R -MF -2" Multifamily District. The applicant proposes to develop a 291 -unit apartment project on the subject tract that will be comprised of four separate, three-story structures with garage access for some (75 spaces) but not all units and surface parking serving the rest of the tenants. Building 0AWL1 Z08-10.4, CU08-31.4 & PD08-04.4 1 November 11, 2008 (8:07AM) height for the proposed three-story structures is 40 -feet which is allowed with approval of a conditional use permit. The proposed apartment mix consists of the following: • 194 one bedroom units, 39 of which are less than 750 square feet • 85 two bedroom units • 12 three bedroom units The following is a brief summary of those areas of the zoning ordinance in which the project is noncompliant and the planned development overlay is being used to accommodate the request: • Density: maximum allowed under the conditions set forth in the request is 18 units per acre; requested density is 28.3 units per acre • Recreational open space: minimum allowed is 250 square feet per dwelling unit; requested recreational open space is 110 square feet per dwelling unit • Front yard setback: minimum front yard setback by ordinance is 40 feet; requested front yard setback established along North Grapevine Mills Boulevard is 20 feet • Side yard setback: minimum side yard setback by ordinance is 20 feet; requested side yard setback for a small area near the south east corner of the site is 10 feet • Parking: minimum required parking is established at 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit; applicant proposes 2 spaces per unit • Parking within the front yard setback area: the ordinance establishes the front yard as both a building setback and landscaped setback area; applicant proposes to provide parking in the front yard along North Grapevine Mills Boulevard • Design requirements relative to the length of buildings: ordinance requires a maximum length of any building shall not exceed 200 feet; the proposed buildings have some elevations that are approximately 220 to 240 feet in length • Landscaping requirements: ordinance requires a minimum of fifty percent of the landscaping be placed in the required front yard; due to the reduced depth of the front yard the applicant proposes placing thirty percent of the landscaping in the front yard area The proposed complex will contain a total of 400 bedrooms. The applicant proposes providing 1.75 parking spaces forthe 194 one bedroom units and 2.5 spaces forthe 85 two bedroom and 12 three bedroom units. See the attached parking study. The manager of the Noise Compatibility Office for the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport has provided a letter recommending that if the project is approved an avigation easement be placed on the plat and also filed by separate instrument notifying any potential purchasers of the property that it lies within an airport noise contour. In addition building design and construction should achieve a noise reduction of at least 25 dB. See the attached letter. 0AZCU\Z08-10.4, CU08-31.4 & PD08-04.4 2 November 11, 2008 (8:07AM) PRESENT ZONING AND USE: The property is currently zoned "PID" Planned Industrial Development District and is developed as a small farm/horse ranch that has been referred to as the Cross Creek Ranch. The subject property was rezoned from 1-1" Light Industrial District to "PID" Planned Industrial Development District during the 1984 City Rezoning. The subject tract and the surrounding areas to the north, east and west were rezoned in 1985 as part of the "Terra Tract" to "R -MF -1" Multifamily District, "R -MF -2" Multifamily District, "HCO" Hotel/Corporate Office District, "LI" Light Industrial District, "CC" Community Commercial District, and "PID" Planned Industrial Development District. A zoning change (Z95-06) rezoned most of the surrounding area and established most of the zoning currently in place. Grapevine Mills Mall, to the south of the subject tract is a planned commercial center in excess of 1,000,000 square feet that has numerous conditional use permits for alcoholic beverage sales in conjunction with restaurants, signage, and a special use permit for video games in excess of eight machines. A conditional use permit (CU98-15) was approved by Council on May 5, 1998 for a 392 -unit apartment complex immediately adjacent to the subject site to the north and west. To the east several conditional use permits have been granted for a convenience store with off -premise alcohol beverage sales and gasoline sales. A conditional use permit has also been granted (CU06-34) for a 29 -foot pole sign for the small multi -tenant retail building that has frontage on Grapevine Mills Parkway. SURROUNDING ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE: NORTH: "R -MF -2" Multifamily District—developed apartment project SOUTH: "HCO" Hotel/Corporate Office District—vacant EAST: "CC" Community Commercial District—small multi -tenant retail building, Starbuck's, convenience store with gasoline sales WEST: "R -MF -2" Multifamily District—developed apartment project and "GU" Governmental Use District—City of Grapevine fire station The subject tract is located within "Zone B" Middle Zone of Effect as defined on the "Aircraft Sound Exposure: Dallas/Fort Worth Regional Airport Environs" map. In Zone B, the following uses may be considered only if sound treatment is included in building design: multi family apartments, motels, office buildings, movie theaters, restaurants, personal and business services. Single family residential and sound sensitive uses such as schools and churches should avoid this zone. The applicant's proposal is an appropriate use in this 0:VU208-10.4, CU08-31.4 & PD08-04.4 3 November 11, 2008 (8:07AM) noise zone. MASTER PLAN APPLICATION: The Master Plan designates the subject property as a Commercial land use. The applicant's proposal is not in compliance with the Master Plan. Grapevine Mills Boulevard North is not a designated City of Grapevine thoroughfare as shown on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. lrs 0:\ZCU\Z08-10.4, CU08-31A & PD08-04.4 4 November 11, 2008 (8:07AM) FROM: BRUNO RUMBELOW, CITY MANAGER SCOTT WILLIAMS, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR MEETING DATE: MAY 19, 2009 SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CU08-31 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY PD08-04 - WAGON WHEEL ADDITION RECOMMENDATION: Staff has received a request from Mike Farhat requesting a one-year extension to the previously approved conditional use permit and planned development overlay to allow the development of three-story multifamily structures and deviation from the density requirement, open space, parking, front and side yard setback, and building length as established in the "R -MF -2" Multifamily District. Staff recommends the City Council consider a one-year extension of this conditional use permit and planned development overlay to expire on November 18, 2010. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Conditional Use Permit CU08-31 and Planned Development Overlay PD08-04 was originally considered and approved at the November 18, 2008 joint public hearing. The site is located at 3225 North Grapevine Mills Boulevard and platted as Lot 1, Block A, Wagon Wheel Addition. GU R -MF -2j Mlyl 5 �� 1�o' et 1R 38.47 @ County pN 011�1'5R�� P261g1 1 IR 38.47 Q TR 2A1 sm Q O� JPCw s3p4 1 Z1 IRA 42.28 Q 1 yAN Happe A®pi'T10N pu'CGII 1 9 , 19.759@ "TR Q • e • • . . • �S�.1i4 J4C �O `� .7R.SZi3r..•Q. . . . � i'114TC• i TR 2A18 17802Q TR X54• TR 18 20.482 @ TR WC 7.0489AC 3 K TR wic P7.0489AC itp C 8 VIL N 2�3 AH TR 18 i 20.482@ 1.4Y2Q 3g$ti8'Qi i t cc i II 8 1 2A33 Q pRp'p 1g114 Cl: j 3 B 1537 A Taw LI,1 >! GRP`P ARp sas1 Q g60T ms lip i 389 Q 1 1 4.378 Q if _ST R� 84-STRaPZ wAY _--- - �y TR SF 4T22 Q "[T4 • -o 180 N CU08-31'i•: i4 WagonAddition • December 9, 2008 Britton Church JLB Realty LLC 909 Lake Carolyn Pkwy #960 Irving, TX 75039 RE: GRAPEVINE FILE #Z08-10, CU08-31, PD08-04 Dear Mr. Church, This letter is to verify that your request to rezone 10.159 acres from "PID" Planned Industrial Development District and 0.168 acres from "CC" Community Commercial District to "R -MF -2" Multifamily District for the development of a 291 unit multifamily complex, a conditional use permit to allow the development of three-story multifamily structures and a planned development overlay to include but not be limited to deviation from the density requirement, open space, parking, front and side yard setback, and building length as established in the "R -MF -2" Multifamily District on property located at 3225 North Grapevine Mills Boulevard and platted as Lot 1, Block A, Wagon Wheel Addition was approved by City Council on November 18, 2008 as shown on the approved site plan. A copy of Ordinances 2008-64, 2008-65 and 2008-66 and a copy of the approved site plan are enclosed. On November 18, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the City Council approve the request. Any changes to a site plan approved with a conditional use or a special use (no matter how minor or major) can only be approved by city council through the public hearing process. No Conditional Use Permit or Planned Development Overlay shall be valid for a period longer than one (1) year from the date on which the City Council grants the Conditional Use Permit or Planned Development Overlay, unless within such one (1) year period: (1) a Building Permit is obtained and the erection or alteration of a structure is started, or (2) an Occupancy Permit is obtained and a use commenced. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we may be of further assistance. Sincerely, 4uSsa'n Batte Planning Technician DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT The City of Grapevine . P.O. Box 95104 • Grapevine, Texas 76099 • (817) 410-3154 Fax (817) 410-3018 • www.grapevinetexas.gov May 28, 2009 Mike Farhat Dulce Development Group LLC 3500 Grapevine Mills Pkwy Grapevine, TX 76051 RE: GRAPEVINE FILL CU08-31 & PD08-04 - WAGON WHEEL ADDITION Dear Mr. Farhat, This is to verify that conditional use permit CU08-31 (Ord. 08-65) to allow the development of three-story multifamily structures and a planned development overlay PD08-04 (Ord. 08-66) to include but not be limited to deviation from the density requirement, open space, parking, front and side yard setback, and building length as established in the "R -MF -2" Multifamily District approved by City Council on November 18, 2008 was approved for a one year extension by City Council to expire on November 18, 2010. Sincerely Susan Batte Planning Technician DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT The City of Grapevine - P.O. Box 95104 - Grapevine, Texas 76099 - (817) 410-3154 Fax (817) 410-3018 - wwwgrapevinetexas.gov !ction - 22 1. MAXIMUM DENSITY - The maximum density within the R- Maximum unit count to be 291 units 1- Maximum Density MF -2 District shall conform to the following requirements. The maximum density shall be sixteen (16) units per acre the minimum nonvehicular open space is twenty (20) �rcent or less of the total site area. The maximum density shall be eighteen (18) units per re if the minimum nonvehicular open space is between ,enty (20) and twenty-five (25) percent of the total lot The maximum density shall be twenty (20) units per acre the minimum nonvehicular open space exceeds twenty - ,e (25) percent of the total lot area. The maximum density within the R -MF -2 Districts shall a exceed twenty (20) dwelling units per gross acre. e. Nonvehicular open space is any area not devoted to buildings, parking, loading, storage, or vehicular use. OL" � 5, M8 .-q units per acre) iA multifamily development with increased density will allow for a sustainable ,community, maximizing the use of the land while minimizing unnecessary sprawl. This :development conforms with the adjacent uses and will increase the value of all properties in the submarket. This will bring more residents to the area to help bolster ;the adjacent retail/commercial uses and enhance a stable, appreciating tax base for the Section - 22 A portion of the minimum open space equivalent to two A portion of the minimum open space equivalent to one With our proposed density, we would be required to place 1.6 acres of recreation area F.3 - Minimum Open hundred fifty (250) square feet per dwelling unit shall be hundred ten (110) square feet per dwelling unit shall be devoted ion a 10.3 acre site. The recreational area that will be provided will have a resort style Space :devoted to planned and permanent usable recreation area. to planned and permanent usable recreation area. The amount, pool, barbeque grills, chase lounges, play fountain, and lounge areas. In addition to The amount, location and type of usable recreation space ':location and type of usable recreation space is shown on the :these outdoor recreational areas the community will also have +J- 4,500 square foot shall be shown on the site plan. isite plan. leasing and amenity area with a professional grade fitness center, resident's entertainment lounge, internet cafe, community kitchen, media/game room business i center and conference room. Section - 22 i Every dwelling hereafter erected, constructed, Every dwelling hereafter erected, constructed, reconstructed or Market conditions show robust demand for the smaller one bedroom units and it is our F.6.B,C,D - Minimum Floor reconstructed or altered in the R -MF -2 District shall have a `:altered in the R -MF -2 District shall have a minimum square feet :experience that by offering a 700 square foot unit you open up many opportunities for Area minimum square feet of floor area, excluding common of floor area, excluding common corridors, basements, open residents to enjoy the luxuries of high end living within a valuable price point. We will .corridors, basements, open and screened porches or decks, :and screened porches or decks, and garages as follows: be increasing our minimum sizes on the two and three bedroom units to match the unit and garages as follows: mix we feel is most in line with market factors. Efficiency.... 600 square feet - ..................................._._......._....;.................._Efficiency -.600 square Peet................................_..... ........... ................._ One Bedroom - 750 square feet One Bedroom - 700 square feet -_ ........................................................................_......................... ..............._...................................................................... ...................... ............. ........................... ............. i Two Bedroom - 900 square feet_._........................................_.._...............-Two Bedroom : 1,000 square feet ................................ .......... Three Bedroom - 1,000 square feet Three Bedroom - 1,400 square feet tion - 22 1. Depth of Front Yard - 40 Feet 1. Depth of Front Yard - 15 Feet Allows for efficient layout and site usage. Area Regulations ............................. ............... ..............................._.................... .__............................ ................... ..._.._.................. ,............................................_.......-....-.............................,......................................._..............................................._.............................................. ........................................................ ...................... 2. Depth of Rear Yard - 30 Feet 2. Depth of Rear Yard - 10 Feet Allows for carports and trash compactor to be located outside of setback. No primary building will be located within regular R -MF -2 setback ..........................__...._............................. ................._...................... ...--_.........,..................... .............._.................................................._...........................-........_...._._...............«....__.........._.._,,... ................-_.._................_-.._....__.._...............-.._......-........ . ....................................................................... 3. Width of Side Yard - 20 Feet 3. Width of Side Yard -10 Feet Allows for carports and trash compactor to be located outside of setback on West and i East Property line. 0 i v 6 ZOOS - C) C� SECTION, R -MF -2 REGULATION PROPOSED DEVIATION EXPLANATION Section - 22 1. The maximum height of the principal structure shall be The maximum height of the principal structure shall be three (3) 'Allows for spacious 9 foot ceiling heights within the units. This request is in comparable' I.1- Height Regulations :two (2) stories not to exceed thirty-five (35) feet. Whenever :stories not to exceed thirty nine (39) feet in height. :scale to the current multifamily communities to the North. a multifamily structure is erected contiguous to an existing single-family dwelling, the number of stories and height of :the multifamily structure shall not exceed the number of stories and height of the contiguous single-family dwelling. In no instance shall the height of a multifamily structure 'exceed two (2) stories or thirty-five (35) feet. Section - 22 No building shall be located closer than fifteen (15) feet to :There will be no minimum distance between the off-street Removing the minimum distance of fifteen (15) feet allows for parking behind the M.5 - Design Requirement ;the edge of an off-street parking, vehicular use, or storage parking or vehicular use and the building. enclosed garages, which allows for better parking allocation and functionality for the area. Day care centers shall be exempt from the residents requirement. Section - 53 In all non-residential zoning districts, a minimum of fifteen 'A minimum of fifteen (15) percent of the total site area shall be Due to the depth of the site, 50% ofthe landscaping could not be provided in the front �;yard 1.3.13 :(15) percent of the total site area shall be devoted to 'devoted to feature landscaping with not less than thirty (30%) but we have met the 15% requirement in the R -MF -2 guidelines :feature landscaping with not less than fifty (50) percent of i percent of the landscaping being located in the required front the landscaping being located in the required front yard. yard. Section - 56 Off street parking shall be provided at a ratio of 2.5 parking Off street parking shall be provided at a ratio of 2 parking :The unit mix has a majority on one bedroom units with few three bedroom units. By C.1- Parking Spaces :spaces per unit spaces per dwelling unit providing 1.75 parking spaces per one bedroom units and keeping 2.5 parking spaces o Required both the two and three bedroom units we achieve a ratio of 2 parking spaces per unit. 'With a one bedroom ratio of over 66%, the Mills Development has a lower parking 'demand per unit than a development that has a higher percentage of two and three :bedroom units. 'The proposed parking ratios exceed the requirements for most cities in Texas including :the City of Dallas, Frisco, and Austin. In addition, this parking ratio is well above the accepted ratio of the Urban Land Institute and is in line with the goal of the Green Building Council to reduce impervious coverage due to over parking. PbOIR-OLA June 13, 2008 DALLAS/FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 3200 EAST AIRFIELD DRIVE, P.O. BOX 619428 Mr. Britton Church DFW AIRPORT, TEXAS 75261-9428 www.dfwairport.com J LB Partners, LP T 972 574 8888 F 972 574 0000 909 Lake Carolyn Parkway, Suite 960 Irving, Texas 75039 RE: Proposed 290+ Unit Apartment Development North of DFW International Airport Dear Mr. Church: On June 10, 2004, you met with my staff and me to discuss the Airport's position regarding your proposal to develop a 290+ unit apartment complex. The development site is the old Cross Creek Ranch site in the City of Grapevine. It lies in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of North Grapevine Mills Boulevard and FM 2499. We appreciate your efforts to coordinate with the obvious stakeholders in the early stages of your planning. As we discussed in our meeting, the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport has some concerns about your proposal given the noise levels and aircraft activity in the vicinity of the property. The property lies well within the 65 DNL noise contour, also referred to as Zone B. The contour map used was promulgated by the North Central Texas Council of Governments to cities surrounding DFW and was adopted by the City of Grapevine as part of Ordinance 78-2. The Ordinance governs land uses within the various contour "zones". Graphics 1 and 2 were taken from the City of Grapevine's web site, modified to provide additional information and are attached. They depict the location of the property in relation to Zone B, air traffic corridors and surrounding land use. According to the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, residential development inside the 65 DNL is considered incompatible unless measures to achieve an outdoor -to -indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at least 25 dB are incorporated into the building design and construction. The site is located approximately 4 miles north of DFW Airport and less than one mile from the extended runway centerlines of four of DFW's longest and most used runways. The site is subject to routine and regular air traffic by all types of aircraft operating at DFW Airport. Historical flight data indicates that, regardless of wind flow, at least 400 to 500 aircraft operate daily within a one -mile radius of the property. When the winds are out of the South, which occurs 70% of the year on average, arriving aircraft fly adjacent to the property at an average altitude of 1,200 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) and as low as 900 feet AGL. Further, when the winds are northerly (30% of the year), departing aircraft fly adjacent to the property at about 3,500 feet AGL with aircraft as low as 2,000 feet AG L. The DFW Airport Staff recommend that all decision -makers, including the City of Grapevine, consider these points while developing plans for the property. If the decision if made to approve the project for development, we strongly recommend the following conditions be applied: 1. Dedication of an avigation easement to the City of Grapevine, the Dallas -Fort Worth International Airport Board, and the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, on the plat and by separate instrument, in a form acceptable to the City of Grapevine, t and the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth. 2. The design and construction of the buildings achieve a noise reduction of at least 25 dB outdoor to indoor. The attenuation efforts should be evidenced on design drawings and stamped and sealed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Texas. We would further recommend that the City require that such evidence be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit(s) or Certificates of Occupancy. 3. Full disclosure of the noise and aircraft activity in this area should be made by the developer to the initial purchaser and such disclosure should be made to all subsequent purchasers by the then current owners. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We certainly appreciate your proactive approach to this development. Further, we appreciate your efforts to understand DFW Airport's concerns. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, �l Sandra J. Lancaster Manager, Noise Compatibility Office cc: Tommy Hardy, City of Grapevine FFA C - OL4 Terminal Routes v. a - FFA C - OL4 Terminal Routes GRAPEVINE, TEXAS NOVEMBER 10'", 2008 GRAPEVINE MILLS DEVELOPMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Proiect Name(s) Grapevine Mills Development, Mills Site, Wagon Wheel Ranch Location The Mills site is located in the northwest quadrant of FM 2499 and Grapevine Mills Boulevard at 3225 North Grapevine Mills Boulevard on the former Wagon Wheel Ranch. Site Acres 10.327 acres (449,844 square feet) Current Zoning Planned Industrial District (PID) / Community Commercial (CC) Requested Zoning JLB Realty LLC is requesting to rezone the 10.327 acre tract from Planned Industrial / Community Commercial District to R -MF -2 with a PD Overlay in order to construct a sustainable community that will be comparable and complementary to the adjacent properties while fulfilling a demand for high end luxury apartment homes. Page12 LB GRAPEVINE MILLS DEVELOPMENT SITE DESCRIPTION The Mills site encompasses 10.32 acres of land (449,827 square feet) and is comprised of three separate tracts to be replatted during the rezoning process. The property is locally known as Wagon Wheel Ranch and is currently improved with two vacated single family homes, three barns, horse stables and a one story metal work building along with other various improvements associated with farming. The site is bound on the north by Mustang Ridge Apartments, on the east by three retail buildings (including Starbucks, cleaners, Magic Mikes Gas Station and a restaurant) and a cell tower, on the south by Grapevine Mills Boulevard and on the west by a City of Grapevine fire station and the Cross Creek Apartments. The adjacent apartment communities are a mixture of two and three story, Class A multifamily developments. There is no single family adjacency to the project. JLB GRAPEVINE MILLS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Grapevine Mills Development will be a class -A, luxury, three story, surface parked, multifamily community consisting of 291 units (28.3 upa) in four (4) buildings. The community will have a +/- 4,500 square foot leasing and amenity area with a professional grade fitness center, resident's entertainment lounge, internet cafe, community kitchen, and conference room. The community will also provide a resort style pool and courtyard area. There will be ten unique one, two and three bedroom floor plans ranging in size from 701 square feet to 1,471 square feet with an average unit size of 920 square feet. Below is a unit breakdown of the proposed development: Exterior Specifications The Residences at Grapevine Mills will implement a traditional craftsman architectural style with a blend of stone, brick, cementious siding, and wood trim accents. JLB Page14 lus GRAPEVINE MILLS UNIT BREAKDOWN UNIT TYPE SQ/FT QUAN %/UNIT %/BDRM Total SQ/FT Al1 ...-.,.......w.........,..._....m B/1 B ..._ 701 � 18 . �,...,.... 6.2% 12,618 �.. �..w, ,...,..._.m_� A1A 1B/1B 701 21 7.2% 14,721 AIB 113/113 769 24 8.2% 18,456 A2 .�...._,.�..16/1B 1B/1B 774 66 22.7% 51,084 A3 w�A4 M.. 826 4013.7%33,040� pmnM� 113/113 896�p 25 8.6% 66w7%µ� 22,400 B1 213/2B 1,073 29 10.0% 31,117 B2 - „- 213/26_ 1,134 2_4 mm 8.2% M 2_7,216 133 213/213 1,229 32� 11.0% 29.2% 39,328 C1 3B/2B 1,471 12 4.1% 4.1% 17,652 TOTAUAVG 920 291 100.0% 267,632 Exterior Specifications The Residences at Grapevine Mills will implement a traditional craftsman architectural style with a blend of stone, brick, cementious siding, and wood trim accents. JLB Page14 lus GRAPEVINE MILLS DEVELOPMENT Interior Specifications —The community will offer luxury homes with high end interior finish out levels. Below is a list of preliminary specifications for the development. Unit Specifications A range of spacious one, two and three bedroom floor plans Private spacious balconies Variety of carpet, wood type flooring, and ceramic tile for the entry, living, and dining room areas Custom color accent walls* > Full Size Washer and Dryer connections y Integrated Desk with Granite Top* y 2 inch faux wood blinds * in select units Gourmet Kitchens y Granite Counter tops Gourmet Prep Island with pendant lighting* Custom Finished Wood Cabinetry with 42 inch upper cabinets Designer pendant lighting y Stainless Steel (or steel like) E -star refrigerator Stainless Steel (or steel like) built in microwave Stainless Steel (or steel like) Tall Tub Dishwasher (potentialforblack) Stainless Steel (or steel like) 30" electric range (potentialforblack) Designer track Lighting in kitchen/dining * in select units Bedroom and Baths y Custom cabinetry with granite countertops Spacious Vanity Areas Oval Garden Tub Ceramic tile tub and shower surrounds Spacious Walk in Closet ➢ Linen Closets (some incorporated in the closet) y Ceramic tile in baths High grade carpet in bedrooms and closets Low -flow fixtures (excludes shower head) Ceiling fans with custom lighting in bedrooms J—1 E) P a g e 15 1..D GRAPEVINE MILLS DEVELOPMENT AIRPORT ADJACENCY—The site is located within the 65 DNL noise contour (known as Zone B) and is subject to routine and regular air traffic. We have met with Sandy Lancaseter, Manager of Noise Compatibility, and have agreed to follow her recommendations below: y Dedicate an avigation easement to the City of Grapevine, City of Dallas, City of Fort Worth and the DFW International Airport. • Design and construct the buildings to achieve a noise reduction of at least 25 dB outdoor to indoor. • We will also provide full disclosure of the noise and aircraft activity in the area to all subsequent owners. PD VARIANCE REQUEST We are requesting variances from the existing R -MF -2 zoning district in order design the community in a way to achieve the best use of the land by integrating smart density design, accurate parking calculations and provide a unit mix that meets the demands of the market. Our intent is not to alter the existing zoning vehicle but to conform to as many of the base regulations as possible while designing a development that will stand the test of time. By approving the below variances JLB Partners will be able to construct a community that will be called home to many of the people wishing to enjoy the lifestyle the City of Grapevine has to offer. This site has a number of hardships that require the additional variances, which are describe below: ■ Density Increase: In order to create the community aspect within a multifamily development it is important to provide a certain number of units. The other garden communities in the immediate area of Grapevine range from 344 to 600 units per development. With only 10.32 acres of land, and noway to increase the acreage, we are requesting to increase the density to allow for 291 units (28.3 units per acre) in our community. By doing this we are able to provide higher quality amenities for our residents because the cost is spread out over a larger unit count. Even with the increased density the development will still conform to the adjacent multifamily communities. ■ Parking Variance: Adequate parking is critical for a multifamily development. A third party parking study has been conducted by DeShazo, Tang and Associates, inc., which determined that the average requirement for the proposed development would be 538 parking spaces or 1.85 spaces per unit. We are requesting a variance to allow for two (2) spaces per unit for a total of 582 parking spaces. This equates to 1.75 spaces per one bed room and 2.5 spaces per two and three bedroom unit. ■ Area Regulations: We are requesting a variance of the Front and Side yard setbacks. This allows for smart design to efficiently maximize the site's use. ■ Side Yard Setback: The only portion of the development needing a variance on the side yard setback is adjacent to the Farhat Plaza Retail Center. We have received a letter of support for this variance from Mike Farhat, the owner of Farhat Plaza. Page16 GRAPEVINE MILLS DEVELOPMENT ■ Front Yard Setback: Our intent is to create the boulevard feel along Grapevine Mills Boulevard by pushing the building a little closer to the tree lined street. With a 20 foot right of way at this point on Grapevine Mills Blvd our building will be setback approximately 35 feet off the curb and be in the background of the mature Live Oaks lining the street. • Recreational Open Space: We will be offering a resort style pool and courtyard area equipped with barbeque grills, chase lounges, tables, WIN internet access, and an interactive fountain. By minimizing the square footage of the area we are able to put money into the amenities so the residents will enjoy a unique, resort style gathering area. ■ Landscape Requirement: Due to the depth of the site it is unfeasible to have 50% of the landscaping in the front yard setback. Existing live oak trees are located in the front yard in addition to the landscaping we will be providing. It is important to note that this does not lessen the amount of landscaping on the overall site. ■ Design Requirement — M.3: We are requesting an increase in the maximum length of any building from 200 feet to 250 feet. This allows us to use the more efficient corridor building layout. ■ Offstreet Parking: We are requesting this variance to clarify that we will not have any off-street parking located in the front yard setback as redefined by this PD Overlay. This equates to no parking within the fifteen (15) foot front yard setback. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT We are also requesting a conditional use permit to allow for three-story construction not to exceed thirty nine (39) feet in height measured to the midpoint of the roof. This is in conformance with the adjoining multifamily projects. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES This luxury apartment development is the ideal use for this 10.32 acre outparcel. The total project cost is estimated to be greater than $30,000,000 which will enhance the tax base for the City. The site is bounded by multifamily or commercial development on all sides and will not have any impact to single family neighborhoods. The development will offer units priced from $850 - $1,800 with an estimated average monthly rent of +/-$1,150, which will be on the higher end of the market. This will build upon the already robust demand and interest for high end multifamily living in this established corridor. In addition to increased demand, this Grapevine Mills community will attract additional residents to the immediate area to bolster the adjacent retail and commercial uses as well as provide another luxury housing option for many of the employees in the area. j-ml.wB Page17 v, " . , ,. Filial 1171�� i 111 fill Prepared for: JLB Realty LLC 909 Lake Carolyn Parkway Suite 960 Irving, TX 75039 Prepared by: DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. Engineers Planners 400 South Houston Street Suite 330 Union Station Dallas, Texas 75202 Phone 214/748-6740 Fax 214/748-7037 November 4, 2008 DT&A #08129 The services of DT&A were retained by 1LB Realty LLC to assess the parking needs for a multifamily residential development in the Grapevine, Texas. The study summarizes the parking requirements of several similar communities in the Dallas-Fort Worth area as well as some nationally accepted parking demand data and is intended to provide a basis for determining an appropriate ratio of parking space in relation to the number of bedrooms, number of units or floor area of the proposed complex. The analysis shows that, in the eight DFW area cities studied, the average parking requirement for the proposed development would be 538 spaces (which equals 1.85/unit or 1.35/bedroom). The proposed parking supply of 582 spaces (which equals 2.0/unit or 1.46/bedroom) exceeds these requirements by more than 8%. In addition, the proposed supply has been shown to exceed the nationally observed average (based on data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers) by 67%. DT&A, therefore, supports the proposed parking supply of 582 spaces and believes that it represents a more than adequate number of parking spaces for the proposed development scenario. is DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. Engineers ♦ Planners 400 South Houston Street, Suite 330 Dallas, TX 75202-4899 214.748.6740 FAX 214.748.7037 www.deshazotang.com To: Mr. Britton Church JLB Realty LLC From: DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. Date: November 4, 2008 Re: Parking Needs Study for a Proposed Multifamily Development in Grapevine, Texas - oT&A Project No. 08229 The services of DT&A were retained by JLB Realty LLC to assess the parking needs for a multifamily residential development in the Grapevine, Texas. The study summarizes the parking requirements of several similar communities in the Dallas -Fort Worth area as well as some nationally accepted parking demand data and is intended to provide a basis for determining an appropriate ratio of parking space in relation to the number of bedrooms, number of units or floor area of the proposed complex. The proposed multifamily development, located in the northwest quadrant of the Grapevine Mills Boulevard J Grapevine Mills Parkway intersection, will include 1-, 2- and 3 -bedroom units with the unit type distribution shown in Table 1. A total of 291 units and 400 bedrooms is planned. Table 1 Proposed Development Scenario Unit Type # Units = # Bedrooms 1 Bedroom 194 = 194 bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 85 = 170 bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 12 = 36 bedrooms 291 = 400 bedrooms Dallas Area Parking Requirements DT&A has researched a number of municipalities to determine an 'average' parking requirement in the Dallas -Fort Worth area. These cities were selected at random and range in size from large metropolitan areas to smaller suburbs. In addition, they represent all portions of the metroplex geographically. Table 2 summarizes the code -based requirements of each of the cities selected and shows that while most codes focus on the number and type of units, the independent variables utilized also include the area of each unit, the amount of common area and building height. However, because the composition of single- and multiple -bedroom units changes from one complex to the next, basing the required parking supply on the total number of bedrooms is considered to provide a more accurate determination of parking demand since the typical per unit basis does not consider the likely variation of single- and multiple -bedroom composition. Table 3, therefore, summarizes these same criteria, but on a per bedroom basis. Table 4 applies these standards to the proposed development scenario. Exhibit 1 summarizes the same information graphically. Table 4 also calculates the resulting per unit and per bedroom parking requirements for each city, offers an 'average' requirement and relates all of these requirements back to the proposed parking supply. In all but two cities (Grapevine and Carrollton), it is found that the proposed supply exceeds the calculated requirement. And, in the case of Carrollton, the proposed supply is only 3 spaces or 0.5% lower than the required supply. is Table 2 DFW Area Parki - • Requirements (per unit) Unit Type CitV Carrollton Dallas Fort Worth Plano Richardson Irving Mesquite Southlake *Not less than one space or more than two and one-half spaces are required for each dwelling unit in a multifamily structure 36 feet or less in height. Not less than one space or more than two spaces are required for each dwelling unit in a multifamily structure over 36 feet in height. 1 space per Studio / Efficiency 1.5 spaces per 1 space per 500 SF of area per bedroom plus 1 space 250 2 spaces per 2 spaces per 1 2 spaces per 1 space per 500 unit per unit unit space per unit unit SF of area per unit* SF of common unit area 1 space per 2 spaces per 1 space per 500 bedroom plus 1 2 spaces per 2 spaces per 1.5 spaces per 2 spaces per 1 space per 500 1 Bedroom unit SF of area per space per 250 unit unit unit unit SF of area per unit* SF of common unit area 1 space per 2 spaces per 1 space per 500 bedroom plus 1 2 spaces per 2 spaces per 2 spaces per 2 spaces per 1 space per 500 2 Bedrooms unit SF of area per space per 250 unit unit unit unit SF of area per unit* SF of common unit area 2 spaces per 1 space per unit plus .25 1 space per 500 bedroom plus 1 2 spaces per 2 spaces per 2.5 spaces per 2 spaces per 1 space per 500 3 Bedrooms spaces for each SF of area per space per 250 unit unit unit unit SF of area per bedroom over 2 unit* SF of common unit area 2 per spaces P P 1 space per 500 1 space per bedroom plus 1 2.5 spaces per 1 space per 500 4+ Bedrooms unit plus .25 SF of area per space per 250 2 spaces per 2 spaces per unit plus .S 2 spaces per SF of area per spaces for each unit* SF of common unit unit spaces for each unit unit bedroom over 2 bedroom over 3 area *Not less than one space or more than two and one-half spaces are required for each dwelling unit in a multifamily structure 36 feet or less in height. Not less than one space or more than two spaces are required for each dwelling unit in a multifamily structure over 36 feet in height. Table DFW Area Parking Requirements (per bedroo Unit Type Carrollton Dallas Fort Worth Plano Richardson Irving Mesquite Southlake is 1 space per Studio / Efficiency 1.5 spaces per 1 space per 500 SF of area bedroom plus 1 space 250 2 spaces per 2 spaces per 1 space per 2 spaces per 1 space per 500 bedroom per bedroom* per SF of common bedroom bedroom bedroom bedroom SF of area area 1 space per 1 Bedroom 2 spaces per p p 1 space per 500 SF of area per bedroom plus 1 space 250 2 spaces per p p 2 spaces per p p 1.5 spaces per p p 2 spaces per p p 1 space per 500 bedroom bedroom* per SF of common bedroom bedroom bedroom bedroom SF of area S area 1 space per 1 space per 500 bedroom plus 1 2 Bedrooms 1 space per p p SF of area per space per 250 1 space per p p 1 space per p p 1 space per p p 1 space per p p 1 space per 500 p bedroom bedroom* SF of common bedroom bedroom bedroom bedroom SF of area area 1 space per 3 Bedrooms .75 spaces per p p 1 space per 500 SF of area bedroom plus 1 space 250 .67 spaces per p p .67 spaces per p p .83 spaces per p p .67 spaces per p p 1 space per 500 p bedroom per bedroom* per SF of common bedroom bedroom bedroom bedroom SF of area area 1 space per 4+ Bedrooms <.63 spaces per p p 1 space per 500 SF of area bedroom plus 1 space 250 <.67 spaces per p p <.67 spaces per p p <.75 spaces per p p <.67 spaces per p p 1 space per 500 p bedroom per bedroom* per SF of common bedroom bedroom bedroom bedroom SF of area area is Table 4 DFW Area Parking Requirements Applied to the Proposed Development Unit Type Citv (tt of bedrooms) Carrollton Dallas Fort Worth Plano Richardson Irving Mesquite Southlake Studio / Efficiency (0) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 Bedroom (194) 388 305 194 388 388 291 388 305 2 Bedrooms (170) 170 195 170 170 170 170 170 195 3 Bedrooms (36) 27 35 36 22 22 30 22 35 4+ Bedrooms (0) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Average Requirement Proposed Parking supply 585 535 420* 580 580 491 580 535 (2.01/unit or (1.84/unit or (1.44/unit or (1.99/unit or (1.99/unit or (1.69/unit or (1.99/unit or (1.84/unit or 1.46/bdrm) 1.34/bdrm) 1.05/bdrm) 1.45/bdrm) 1.45/bdrm) 1.23/bdrm) 1.45/bdrm) 1.34/bdrm) 538 (1.85/unit or 1.35/bdrm) 582 (2.0/unit or 1.46/bdrm) *Includes 20 spaces for common area. is i EXHIBIT 1 Total Parking Supply Requirements by City I 700 i Average Parking Requirement of 538 Spaces Proposed 582 -Space Parking Supply 600 x j M it '!2 a ,,. 3RIi 500 __ � U; ss ar. — '�r _ 3� Ki MR t i :fir� v, 4, . t �r 400 my Le , �� x ; x IN * IWO; i�q r itWL s r'3 s - 300 x �r i ra 200 `� �—_Paul! _ �'_�� � qv�" 6 x> n r`'' az: $ s � W f �.OX-E 4 4mw , E ' 100 t a t � s•„ r g a �r �� a r tea �ME a 0 Dallas Carrollton Ft Worth Plano Richardson Irving Mesquite Southlake 113 Published Parking Data Published parking demand data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) is calculated in parking spaces per dwelling unit (information on the number of bedrooms per unit is not available). Table 5 provides a comparison of published multifamily parking demand data from the ITE Parking Generation manual (3`d Edition). Table 5 Data Excerpts from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Parking Generation, 3rd Edition (2004) No. Of Average Peak Parking Land Use Day Studies Location/Area Demand Rate Low/Mid-Rise Apartment Weekday 19 Suburban 1.20 vehicles per (ITE Land Use Code: 221) Dwelling Unit Weekday 12 Urban 1.00 vehicles per _........................ _. _.------.._........._.._.__........_ _ _...... _._..... Dwelling Unit - Saturday 7 Urban 1.02 vehicles per Dwelling Unit As Table 5 shows, the national average suburban parking demand rate (the category most similar to that of the proposed development) is 1.2 spaces per unit. This rate is also far below the proposed rate of 2.0 spaces per unit. CONCLUSION This analysis shows that the proposed parking supply of 582 spaces exceeds the requirements of seven of the eight cities studied (87.5%) and is within 0.5% of meeting the requirements of the eighth. The 582 -space supply will exceed the average parking demand of these eight cities by more than 8%. In addition, the proposed supply has been shown to exceed the nationally observed average (ITE) by 67%. DT&A, therefore, supports the proposed parking supply of 582 spaces (2.0 per unit) and believes that it represents a more than adequate number of parking spaces. END TRAFFIC IMPACTANALYSIS AND ACCESS ADEVELOPMENT IN GRAPEVINE., TEXAS Prepared for: JLB Realty LLC 909 Lake Carolyn Parkway Suite 960 Irving, TX 75039 Prepared by: DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. Engineers Planners 400 South Houston Street Suite 330 Union Station Dallas, Texas 75202 Phone: 214/748-6740 Fax: 214/748-7037 July 10, 2008 DT&A #08129 Traffic Impact Analysis and Access Assessment for a Multi -Family Development • DT&A Project No. 08129 Executive Summary TrafficImpact Analysis ..... ___ ..... ......................... ...................... ....... ...................................... ...................... ........i AccessAssessment................................................................................................................................................. i INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................. l Purpose......................................................................................................................................................................1 ProjectDescription....................................................................................................................................................2 StudyParameters......................................................................................................................................................2 StudyArea.................................................................................................................................................................2 TRAFFICIMPACT ANALYSIS.... ........ ........ .............. .......................... ....................... _ ............. ........ ............. 2 Approach...................................................................................................................................................................2 ExistingVolumes....................................................................................................................................................2 Historical Traffic Characteristics., ......................... _ .................. .................................... ........................... - 2 Projected Background Traffic Volumes.................................................................................................................3 Site -Related Traffic....................................................................................................................................................3 TripGeneration and Mode Split............................................................................................................................3 TripDistribution and Assignment..........................................................................................................................4 Site -Generated Traffic Volumes............................................................................................................................4 TrafficOperational Analysis.......................................................................................................................................4 AnalysisMethodology...........................................................................................................................................4 AnalysisTraffic Volumes........................................................................................................................................5 Summaryof Results...............................................................................................................................................5 CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................................6 TrafficImpact Analysis....... ................. ___ ..................... ............... .......... - ... ................... ............ ........ ............ 6 AccessAssessment................................................................................................................................................6 Grapevine Multi -Family Development Page 2 The services of DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. (DT&A) were retained by JLB Realty LLC (JLB) to conduct a traffic impact analysis (TIA) and access assessment for a proposed multi -family development in Grapevine, Texas. The site is currently zoned industrial and is located just west of the intersection of Grapevine Mills Boulevard and Grapevine Mills Parkway. The purpose of this report is to summarize the findings of the TIA and access assessment for use by JLB to satisfy the requirements of the City of Grapevine. This report and its findings will be used to pursue approval of the proposed site plan and points of access from the City of Grapevine. Traffic Impact Analysis The intersection capacity analysis conducted as part of this study indicates that the signalized intersection of Grapevine Mills Boulevard and Grapevine Mills Parkway currently operates at acceptable levels of service. This continues to hold true through 2010 when the project is expected to open. The unsignalized site driveway on Grapevine Mills Boulevard also operates well. Left turns out of the site will incur slight delays of about 30 seconds during peak periods, but the driveway intersection overall will experience good levels of service during both AM and PM peak hours. Based upon the results of this TIA, it is concluded that no negative traffic impacts associated with the proposed Project are anticipated. While specific movements at some of the intersections studied will experience delays, the overall levels of service are still acceptable. Based upon these findings, no mitigation measures are required. Some signal timing changes, however, are recommended. Access Assessment As part of the access assessment portion of this study, the number, spacing and design of the driveways proposed for the site were examined. We have found that, assuming a driveway capacity of 300 vehicles per hour, the site driveway will adequately serve the projected site -generated peak hour traffic. It is recommended that the driveway on Grapevine Mills Boulevard be designed with two exit lanes to serve both left and right turns separately. We have examined the driveway spacing and have found that the driveway on Grapevine Mills Boulevard meets the current Grapevine driveway/intersection spacing standards. In addition, because the driveway aligns with an existing median opening, an eastbound left turn bay of at least 50-60 feet in length should be constructed to provide vehicle storage that does not block the inside bound through lane on eastbound Grapevine Mills Boulevard. No right turn deceleration lanes are required or recommended. Grapevine Multi -Fancily Development Page i Engineers o planners 400 South Houston, Suite 330 Dallas, TX 75202-4899 214-748-6740 FAX 214-748-7037 www,deshazotang.com IN —1 0 : i To: Britton Church JLB Realty LLC From: DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. Date: July 30, 2008 Re: Traffic Impact Analysis for a Multi -Family Development in Grapevine, Texas (DT&A Project No. 08129) The services of DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. (DT&A) were retained by JLB Realty LLC (JLB) to conduct a traffic impact analysis (TIA) for a proposed multi -family development (Project). DT&A is an engineering consulting firm providing licensed engineers skilled in the field of traffic/transportation engineering. The site is currently zoned Planned Industrial District (PID) and is located just north of the Grapevine Mills Boulevard / Grapevine Mills Parkway intersection in Grapevine, Texas (see Exhibit 1). Purpose The purpose of this report is to summarize the findings of the TIA and Access Assessment for use by JLB in a request for a site plan approval. The TIA will be provided to the City of Grapevine staff ("Staff") for technical review to fulfill the associated requirements of the local approval process. This TIA determines the impact of background traffic growth and the addition of site -related traffic at specified build -out conditions. Based upon the results of this determination, a list of traffic -related measures considered commensurate and appropriate to mitigate any excessive or undue projected impacts will be offered. It is intended that the findings and recommendations presented herein be considered a credible basis to determine the traffic -related improvements essential for the Project to operate safely and efficiently. Grapevine Multi -Family Development Page I DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. July 30, 2008 Project Description The proposed development will include approximately 293 multi -family units. A preliminary site plan for the Project is provided in Exhibit 2. Study Parameters This TIA analyzed the day-to-day traffic operational conditions that were anticipated to be the most critically impacted by the proposed Project at build -out conditions. Based upon the traffic generation characteristics of the Project and the prevailing background traffic conditions, the AM and PM peak hours of the following periods were included. 1) Existing conditions 2) Year 2010 without site -generated traffic 3) Year 2010 with site -generated traffic Study Area The TIA study area was defined based upon the scale of the proposed Project in order to assess the most relevant traffic impact to the local area. The study area includes the following location(s). a) Grapevine Mills Boulevard at Grapevine Mills Parkway (signal -controlled) In accordance with the site plan approval process in the City of Grapevine, submittal of a TIA is required for the Project. The study will be provided to the Staff for review of the projected traffic impact and to be incorporated into the approval process. Approach Using standardized analytical methodologies, the TIA presented in this report analyzed the operational conditions for the peak hours and study area as defined previously. Current traffic volume data were collected around the site to represent existing traffic conditions. Growth factors were applied to the existing volumes to project future background traffic at the site build -out year conditions. Traffic generated by the proposed development was then projected using the standard four -step approach: Trip Generation, Mode Split, Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment. By adding the site -generated traffic to the background traffic, the resulting site -related traffic impact to operational conditions can be assessed. From this impact assessment, mitigation measures may be recommended. Background Traffic Volume Data Existing Volumes Current daily and peak traffic volumes were collected by DT&A in the study area in July of 2008 and are summarized in Exhibits 3, 4 and S. Detailed traffic count data are provided in Appendix A. Historical Traffic Characteristics A compilation of historical traffic volume data available from NCTCOG maps was assembled for review and development of an approximate average annual growth rate for background traffic in the study area (see Table 1). Generally, historical traffic volumes on the major area roadways have increased steadily Grapevine Multi -Family Development Page 2 DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. July 30, 2008 in recent years. Although no consistent growth factor is evident, DT&A assumed a 2.0 percent/per year rate of growth. Table 1. Historical Daily Traffic Volumes ROADWAY SEGMENT HISTORICAL DAILY VOLUME ANNUAL GROWTH RATE (DATE) Grapevine Mills Parkway 49,540 ('08) 9.36%* North of 34,630 ('04) Grapevine Mills Boulevard* Grapevine Mills Parkway 54,759 ('08) South of 51,458 ('04) 1.57% Grapevine Mills Boulevard Grapevine Mills Boulevard 8,293 ('08) 2.23% East of 7,592 ('04) Grapevine Mills Parkway Grapevine Mills Boulevard 7,680 ('08) 5.03% West of 6,310 ('04) Grapevine Mills Parkway *count locations do not match — data disregarded Data Source: NCTCOG Projected Background Traffic Volumes Background (non -site -related) peak -hour traffic volumes in the study area for the year of 2010 were developed by applying the assumed 2% annual growth rate to the existing volumes collected. These future volumes are summarized in Exhibits 6 and 7. Site -Related Traffic Trip Generation and Mode Split Trip generation for the Project was calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual (7`h Edition). ITE Trip Generation is a compilation of actual traffic generation data by land use as collected over several decades by creditable sources across the country and it is accepted as the standard methodology to determine trip generation volumes for various land uses where sufficient data exists. It is assumed that "mode split" characteristics (i.e., consideration of vehicle occupancy, transit usage, and other factors that may affect site -generated traffic volumes) for the subject uses are "typical" and are sufficiently incorporated into the default Trip Generation data. Trip generation is summarized in vehicular trip ends. A trip end is a one-way trip entering or leaving a site. This analysis evaluates weekday AM and PM peak -hour conditions of the local street traffic. Table 3 provides a summary of the calculated trip generation data, Excerpts from Trip Generation are provided in Appendix B. Table 2. Trip Generation Summary ITE ITE Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Quantity_______________________-------------______--_-______e- Code Land Use Trips Total In Out Total In Out 220 Apartment 293 units 1,911 147 29 118 179 116 63 Grapevine Multi -Family Development Page 3 DoShazoTang & Associates, Inc. July 30, 2008 � Trip Distribution and Assignment Traffic generated by the proposed development at site build -out conditions was distributed and assigned to the study area roadway network based upon a subjective interpretation of the existing traffic distribution in the vicinity, using professional judgment and a technical understanding of the available roadway network. Estimated trip orientations are summarized in Exhibit 8. Site -Generated Traffic Volumes Site -generated traffic is calculated by multiplying the trip generation values (from Table 3) by the corresponding traffic assignments (from Exhibit 8). The resulting peak -hour site -generated traffic volumes atbuild-out ofthe Project are summarized inExhibits 9and 1D. Traffic Operational Analysis Analysis Methodology Traffic operational conditions for traffic-i8noI -controlled ("signalized") roadway intersections are quantitatively measured in terms of average delay per vehicle through the intersection as u function of roadway capacity and operational characteristics of the traffic signal, The standardized methodology applied herein was developed by the Transportation Research Board as presented in the Highway Capacity Manual /HCM/. H[Mo|so qualitatively rates the overall delay conditions in terms of "level of service" (LOS) ranging from "A" (free-flowing conditions) to "F" (over -capacity conditions). Generally, LOS D or better is considered an acceptable condition for signalized intersections in urban and suburban conditions. A detailed description of HCM LOS for signalized intersections is provided in Appendix C. The standard methodology for measuring the operational conditions of STOP -controlled ("unsignalized") intersection capacity was also developed by the Transportation Research Board and presented in the K[M. These operational conditions are also qualitatively defined in terms of LOS ranging from "A" to "F" and are quantitatively measured in terms of average delay per vehicle but as a function of acceptable gaps inthe opposing traffic stream(s). LOS for unsigna|izedlocations |snot measured for the entire intersection; rather, LOS is only calculated for individual traffic movements that must stop or yield right-of-way. (Traffic movements that do not stop or yield have no effective delay.) A detailed description of LOS for unsignalized intersections is also provided in Appendix C. NOTE: The HCM methodology for unsignalized intersections was originally designed to analyze low- to moderate -volume locations where the traffic is, generally, evenly distributed throughout the intersection (e.g, on intersection of tow /nco/ streets). However, for unsigno0zed intersections located on MqLQL thoroughfares (where traffic volume o/roadway capacity b very high and/or vastly disproportionate), the methodology /sdeficient. Although LOS D or better is desirable, LOS F (calculated) commonly results and cannot be operationally mitigated unless o traffic signal is installed (subject to the findings of Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis and subsequent approval of traffic signal installation by the responsible transportation agency). fxte/no//bcturs, such osgaps /n the traffic stream created bynearby traffic signals, are not sufficiently accounted for /n the methodology but may, /n fact, provide better -than - calculated conditions. ettepthon'co/cu/otedmonditions. Since no alternative analysis methodology exists, the results directly obtained from the calculated values one presented herein. /t is recommended that analysis results for such locations be taken in the context of day-to-day experience rather than as an absolute determination of inadequacy. Grapevine Multi -Family Development Page 4 DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. July 30, 2008 Analysis Traffic Volumes Determination of the traffic impact associated with the Project is measured by comparing the incremental change in operational conditions with and without site -related traffic. Exhibits 11 and 12 summarize the 2010 background -plus -site peak period traffic volumes as well as the roadway geometry assumed to be in place. Summary of Results Intersection capacity analyses presented in this study were performed using the Synchro 7 software package. Table 3 provides a summary of the intersection operational conditions during the periods under the analysis conditions presented previously. Detailed software output is provided in Appendix D. Table 3 Capacity Analysis Summary of Results (w/ 90- and 150 -second cycle lengths) Existing (2008) 2010 Background Traffic 2010 Total Traffic AM PM AM PM AM PM Intersection 90 150 1 90 150 90 150 90 150 90 150 1 90 150 Grapevine Mills Parkway at Grapevine Mills Boulevard Project Driveway on Grapevine Mills Boulevard E c (68.7) (26.9) FD (102.1) (53.5) F c F E (91.6) (33.8) (113) (62.6) F D F E (91) (42.6) (118) (67.5) A A (2.8) (1.3) X=level of Service (XX.X)= Average Delay The capacity analysis summary above indicates the following. 1) Existing conditions experience high delays with the existing signal timings, but lengthening the signal cycle provides acceptable levels of service. 2) Under 2010 background traffic conditions, the Grapevine Mills Parkway / Grapevine Mills Boulevard intersection experiences high delays with the existing signal timings, but lengthening the signal cycle provides acceptable levels of service. 3) When site -generated traffic is added in 2010, the Grapevine Mills Parkway / Grapevine Mills Boulevard intersection experiences high delays with the existing signal timings, but lengthening the signal cycle provides acceptable levels of service. 4) The unsignalized driveway on Grapevine Mills Boulevard functions at acceptable levels of service in both AM and PM peak periods.. Grapevine Multi -Family Development Page 5 DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. July 30, 2008 Traffic Impact Analysis The intersection capacity analysis conducted as part of this study indicates that the signalized intersection of Grapevine Mills Boulevard and Grapevine Mills Parkway currently operates at acceptable levels of service. This continues to hold true through 2010 when the project is expected to open. The unsignalized site driveway on Grapevine Mills Boulevard also operates well. left turns out of the site will incur slight delays of about 30 seconds during peak periods, but the driveway intersection overall will experience good levels of service during both AM and PM peak hours. Based upon the results of this TIA, it is concluded that no negative traffic impacts associated with the proposed Project are anticipated. While specific movements at some of the intersections studied will experience delays, the overall levels of service are very good. Based upon these findings, no mitigation measures are required. Some signal timing changes, however, are recommended. Access Assessment As part of the access assessment portion of this study, the number, spacing and design of the driveways proposed for the site were examined. We have found that, assuming a driveway capacity of 300 vehicles per hour, the site driveway will adequately serve the projected site -generated peak hour traffic. It is recommended that the driveway on Grapevine Mills Boulevard be designed with two exit lanes to serve both left and right turns separately. We have examined the driveway spacing and have found that the driveway on Grapevine Mills Boulevard meets the current Grapevine driveway/intersection spacing standards. In addition, because the driveway aligns with an existing median opening, an eastbound left turn bay of at least 50-60 feet in length should be constructed to provide vehicle storage that does not block the inside bound through lane on eastbound Grapevine Mills Boulevard (see Exhibit 13). No right turn deceleration lanes are required or recommended. END OF MEMO Grapevine Multi -Family Development Page 6 Project Locatiol Grapevine Mills Blvd 2 May 08 . EXHIBIT 2 Development Plan EXHIBIT 3 AM reaK volumes 711012008 1 0-* T000 59 50-)- 70-* EXHIBIT 4 7rentIJnna rm reaK volumes II. onk ,Ooh 178-0 D I r i 66 -*I I I 77-0 �,m +66 M T-- ill` M cu II ':II 3 II ill a II SII; w II � a II EII' t� EXHIBIT 5 Existing 24 -Hour Traffic Vol times EXHIBIT 6 2nin AM Base Vniumes 7/10/2008 190- - --- 190->> _ b , oc>o __ �� _ EXHIBIT 7 2010 PM Base Volumes 7/10/2008 II II *-167 4-125 x-1 53 Grapevine Mills Blvd. • Trip Orientations EXHIBIT 9 AM Site Volumes 7/10/2001 EXHIBIT 10 Pm Sita Vn111mP-q 711012008 X-0 *-35 Aro C;o Grapevine Mills Blvd. oe� ■ EXHIBIT 11 2010 Base Plus Site Volumes 190 fi7� 0-Y o 0 87- 132. 7/10/2008 R-35 4-61 a r73 C;1 Grapevine Mills Blvd. EXHIBIT 12 7nin PM Base Pius Site Volumes 7/10/2008 8.167 *-160 ,rr153 ('0 Grapevine Mills Blvd. Proposed Appendix A Trak Count Data DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. APPENDIX A Automated Traffic Count DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. Street: Grapevine Mills Parkway 6 5000 t.ocation: North of 4000 Grapevine Mills Blvd c 3000 City/State; Grapevine, Texas 2000 Project -1131!: 08129 - 263 c 1000 Date: July 8, 2008 y 0 Dav of Week: Tuesday o o c g o 0 0 o o 0 Data Source: DT&A (= M Vf r rn Time of Day 4 -Hour Volume: 49,540 -0 Northbound + Southbound —+--Total Vehicles Time Peak Northbound Southbound Time Peak Northbound Southbound 0;00 12:00 0:15 88 56 12:15 295 288 0:30 92 42 12:30 379 274 0:45 55 33 12:45 348 316 1:00 45 280 22 153 13:00 338 1,360 296 1,174 1:15 38 14 13:15 320 254 1;30 32 12 13:30 372 288 1:45 26 12 13:45 328 256 2:00 31 127 5 43 14:00 362 1,382 259 1,057 2:15 24 f2 14:15 342 240 2:30 23 8 14.30 340 276 2:45 15 10 14:45 362 276 3:00 18 80 10 40 15:00 384 1,428 248 1.040 3:15 16 815:15 428 268 3:30 9 17 15:30 439 228 3:45 22 14 15:45 441 261 4:00 32 79 20 59 16:00 542 1,90(1 244 1,001 4:15 18 30 16;15 576 252 4:30 28 52 16:30 717 264 4:45 44 80 16:45 786 304 5:00 56 146 86 248 17:00 778 2,857 232 1,052 5:15 41 1112 1715 868 246 5:.30 5:45 43 58 ISO 17:30 874 285 1,067 6:00 108 250 271 294 857 17:45 18:00 4,609 881 882 3,565 297 276 1,104 6:15 128 398 18:15 823 290 6:30 140 526 18.30 829 261 6:45 174 736 1$:45 766 218 7.40 229 671 686 2.346 19:00 579 2,447 222 991 7:15 180 636 19:15 492 196 7:30 3,419 220 803 558 2,616 19:30 436 203 7:45 254 406 19:45 374 165 8:00 281 935 476 2,076 20:00 378 1,680 145 709 8:15 258 520 20:15 352 128 8:34 300 579 20:30 330 130 8:45 2.55 1,094 698 20:45 256 127 9:00 288 1,101 456 2,253 21:00 290 1.228 108 493 915 236 482 21:15 295 I34 9:30 240 490 21:30 280 120 9:45 223 443 21:45 274 118 10:00 242 941 397 1,812 22:00 281 1,130 94 471 10:15 214 350 22:15 270 88 10:30 227 344 22:30 252 84 10:45 207 316 22:45 208 77 11:00 224 872 297 1,307 1 23:00 271 1,001 52 301 11:15 249 316 23:15 218 49 11:30 274 310 123:301 128 54 11:45 247 308 23:45 128 32 12:00 299 1,069 282 1,216 0:00 92 566 17 152 Direetional Volumes 27,585 21955 Equipment 113#: TM -2937 24 -flour Volume _ 49,540 Automated Traffic Count DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. Street; Grapevine Millss Parkway 6000 0 5000 - — — — — — — — — — — — — — Location: South of Z, 4) 4000 Grapevine Afills Blvd a 3000 City/State: Grapevine, Texas 2000 Project-im: 08129 - 264 3 = 1000 Date: Jul W July 8,2008 > 0 -------- Day ofweek: Tuesday 0 0 0 0 0 Data source: DMA "I "I r c= M r r a NM Time ofDay 24 -How- Volume: 54,759 0 Northbound + Southbound -Total Vehicles Time Peak Northbound -Southbound Time Peak Northbound S Southbound 0:00 12:00 0:15 72 52 12:15 297 316 0:30 0:45 78 60 67 12:30 341 314 1.00 42 252 34 30 183 12:45 13:00 311 342 1,291 368 347 1,345 1:15 46 20 13:15 308 292 1:30 1:45 32 28 12 M30 385 :T7 346 2:00 21 127 20 7 59 13:45 14:00 305 350 1,34:8 324 2:15 28 9 306 1,268 2:30 18 10 14:1 5 348 2 5 5 2:45 17 14:30 320 320 3 3:00 18 81 11 16 46 14-45 15:00 334 1,384 335 328 1,258 3:15 3:30 18 11 9 ISA5 416 294 3:45 26 17 16 M30 422 262 4:00 26 81 19 61 15:45 16-00 488 534 1,860 310 308 1.174 4:15V 4:30 26 20 30 16:15 564 293 4:45 32 49 16:30 716 354 5:00 64 142 74 86 239 16.45 17:00 757 797 2,83_4 360 288 1,295 5.15 5:30 43 38 95 17.15 820 179 5:45 i 2 168 17:30 878 331 6.010 - 92 225 260 273 796 17:45 850 847 331)5 8 350 6 "5 6:15 6:30 121 372 18,15 4,75 912 3,T87 322 1,282 328 1,331 6:45 159 167 538 685 18:30 820 356 1,356 7:00 244 691 806 2.401 18;45 19-00 801 600 3,033 276 298 1,258 7:15 180 922 19:15 495 214 7.30 7:45 216 246 996 19:30 433 242 8.00 -286 928 1006 1038 3,962 19:45 20:00 384 353 1,665 250 8:15 254 931 3,971 20:15 362 216 922 172 8:30 4.991 302 1,088 928 3,903 20:30 338 166 8:45 248 1,090 826 20:45 252 156 9:00 269 1,073692 3377 21:00 274 1,226 128 622 9:15 232 567 21:15 271 171 9:30 234 509 21-30 302 172 9:45 10:00160 219 478 21:45 270 248 933 436 1,990 -22:00 --392 254 1.097 143 646 10;15 10:30 210 22:15 279 - --10-2 10:45 233 200 370 22:30 256 142 11:00 210 853 354 242 1,451 22.45 23:00 184 276 995 too 11:15 261 342 23-15 224 85 429 11:30 1 258 328 23.30 137 56 62 254 334 23:45 114 46 12:001 1 290 1,063 346 1,350 0:00 90 565 32 196 Directional Volumes �27,142 27 65171 Equipment ID#: TM -29311 24 -Hour Volume 54759 I . 9 Automated Traffic Count DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. Street: Grapevine Mills Blvd 800 - - - - - - Location: East of 600 - - - - - - Grapevine Mills Pkwy 400--- City/State: Grapevine, Texas 12! + Project-IDW: 08129-266 200.---- 0090-0-�v X Date: July 8, 2008 0 Al"Me Day of Week: TWS4117Y 0 C, C, C) 0 0 0 0 1= 0 0 EIR Data Source: DT&A P M Time of Day L 24 -Hour Volume: 8,293 0 Eastbound + - Westbound Total Vehicles -71717 Peak Eastbound Westbound Time Peak Eastbound Westbound 0:00 12:00 0:15 10 6 12:15 48 102 0.30 8 6 12:30 58 108 0:45 5 2 12:45 60 84 1:00 4 27 4 18 13:00 56 222 87 381 1;15 9 1 13:15 64 88 1.30 4 1 13,30 65 90 1:45 4 4 13-45 53 88 2.00 3 20 1 7 14-.00 58 240 80 346 2-15 2 1 14:15 49 75 2:30 1 2 14:30 52 60 2:45 0 4 14.45 61 102 3.00 6 9 0 7 15.00 59 221 71 308 3.15 1 1 15:15 58 78 3:30 1 0 15:30 68 74 3.45 1 1 15:45 78 89 4:00 3 6 2 4 16:00 68 27, 2, 101 342 4.15 2 2 16:15 67 90 4:30 4 4 16;30 66 104 4:45 2 4 16:45 81 80 5.00 1 9 61--- 16 17:00 65 279 104 374 5:15 2 1 17:15 75 287 102 5:30 6 10 17:30 63 too 5.45 10 4 17,45 695 74 277 112 418 6M -, 16 34 16 31 18.00 53 265 112 426 6:15 11 11 18.15 695 70 260 fit 475 6:30 24 7 18.30 80 82 6:45 32 26 18-45 so 97 7:00 36 103 32 76 — 19:00 62 81 371 7:15 36 38 19.15 "26) 76 65 7:30 50 36 19:30 70 64 7:45 56 19 19.45 52 55 8:00 — 61 203 44 137 — 20,00 58 256 57 241 8.15 48 215 52 20:15 68 62 8:30 36 48 20:30 61 so 8:45 376 41 186 46 190 20:45 58 37 9.00 32 157 63 209 21:00 50 237 33 182 9:15 32 32 21:15 56 37 9:30 37 54 21:30 73 36 9:45 32 48 21-45 66 46 10.00 34 135 70 204 22:001 64 259 30 149 10:15 37 64 22:15 68 20 10.30 33 70 22:30 36 21 10:45 48 61 22:45 24 12 11:00 36 154 54 249 23:00 23 151 16 69 11:15 32 63 23:15 2515 11:30 50 66 23:30 26 12 11-45 56 73 23.451 17 12 1 1200 1 71 209 1 84 286 0:001 1 12 80 7 46 Volumes 1 3,810 4,483 F—Directional Equipment [D#: TM -29351 24 -Hour Volume 8,293 15:1 16: 16: 16: 17- 17; 17: 17: 18:, t8: 18: 19: 20.- 21.15 0: 21:15 21:30. 21:45 22:00 22:15 x:151 50 141 11 54 192 0:00 Equipment ID#• TM -2433 663 Directional Volumes 64 Automated Traffic Count 74 sheet: Grapevine Mills Blvd 48 Location: West of S7 Grapevine Mills Pk»y _ I 1 i/ilii/ii/■//iii//��/iii City/state: Grapevine, Texas t t iiiiINSiiiiiiiiiii/��il►�/ti■ Projj,cwDtt: 08129 — 265 42 Date: July 8, 2008 ■/i Day of Week: TueSday a t l// Data Source: DT&A INIV 24-HourVofwnc; 7,600 62 Time Peak Eastbound Westbound Eastb�r 0:00 56 1t 60 0:15 62 25 9 259 0:30 15 5 62 0:45 r82 9 1 1:00 10 59 5 20 1:15 75 6 5 1:30 4 3 75 1:45 74 7 0 294 2:00 292 1 18 2 10 2:15 7 3 2:30 3 2 2:45 342 1 1 3:00 335 6 17 6 12 3:15 70 6 4 3:30 73 1 2 3:45 64 4 0 4.00 64 1 12 t 7 4:15 56 1 1 4.30 60 3 50 4:45 57 1 1 5.00 :Z3 2 7 4 8 5:15 2 0 5.30 21276 (j 5 5.45 1 l 9 6:00 8 27 9 23 6:15 12 12 6:30 325 I8 10 6:45 24 26 7.00 24 78 28 76 7:15 32 41 7:30 170 55 45 7:45 41 61 65 8:00 18 52 200 72 223 8:15 19 40 208 58 8:30 453 46 199 59 254 8:45 36 54 9:00 45 167 63 234 9:15 23 37 9:30 39 44 9:45 38 54 10:00 27 127 66 201 10:15 37 70 10:30 26 56 10:45 31 48 11:00 29 123 40 214 11:15 19 36 11:30 32 50 11:45 12.00 40 52 15:1 16: 16: 16: 17- 17; 17: 17: 18:, t8: 18: 19: 20.- 21.15 0: 21:15 21:30. 21:45 22:00 22:15 x:151 50 141 11 54 192 0:00 Equipment ID#• TM -2433 663 Directional Volumes 64 201 74 271 48 S7 _ I 1 i/ilii/ii/■//iii//��/iii t t iiiiINSiiiiiiiiiii/��il►�/ti■ 42 ■/i in a t l// 101CMIN INIV 228 62 62 52 Eastb�r 6I 56 1t 60 62 232 259 74 62 i r82 76 52 264 267 75 15:1 16: 16: 16: 17- 17; 17: 17: 18:, t8: 18: 19: 20.- 21.15 0: 21:15 21:30. 21:45 22:00 22:15 x:151 50 141 11 54 192 0:00 Equipment ID#• TM -2433 663 Directional Volumes 64 201 74 271 48 S7 47 42 42 61 54 191 68 228 62 62 52 6I 56 60 62 232 259 74 62 r82 76 52 264 267 75 66 78 64 75 74 66 294 88 292 90 82 70 86 87 8r� 342 81 328 81 74 335 92 89 349 70 60 73 61 302 64 281 76 64 57 56 58 60 50 241 57 237 57 56 :Z3 45 54 21276 73 65 37 87 34 100 325 38 148 so V2 40 26 38 18 42 170 17 12 83 31 41 9 18 9 19 109 8 38 3 835 3 845 24 -Hour Volume 7 680 Page I of I #0444 N,. 7 444 D, et '�^f6kqtn Ci 41 AOO T kv Rd Ly Of OA lkx&� N ay AJ N, 1 0 N F NL ri ;L+ sT , _!�QP49-34 ,NV� Al DISCLAIMER N NCTCOG Maps This data has been compiled for NCTCOG, Various official and unofficial sources were used to gather this www.dfvvmaps.com information. Every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given or implied as to the accuracy of said data. httP://www.dfwmaps.com/print.asp?Layers=on&TRANS—TRAFFIC—COLNTS=on 7/10/2009 A J, 'ZI) JqL- H,, !LaN Pzct 1 0 lkx&� N ay AJ N, 1 0 N F NL ri ;L+ sT , _!�QP49-34 ,NV� Al DISCLAIMER N NCTCOG Maps This data has been compiled for NCTCOG, Various official and unofficial sources were used to gather this www.dfvvmaps.com information. Every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given or implied as to the accuracy of said data. httP://www.dfwmaps.com/print.asp?Layers=on&TRANS—TRAFFIC—COLNTS=on 7/10/2009 .:r ti X'n �n a F =� 4.1 G, �x a � C"diet r�ftxiw A itm �," JO C � rem ar C'mfcs RdrP) .:r ti X'n �n a F =� 4.1 a � A itm Tuft" JO .:r X'n �n a F =� NCTCOG Maps vwvw.dfwmaps.com Page 1 of 1 A, t. 1,F sx de".? rt: A :.3 3..0Ha eY, .. A. kc fl t" e i e± r, e; DISCLAIMER N This data has been compiled for NCTCOG. Various Official and unofficial sources were used to gather this information. Every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given or implied as to the accuracy of said data. httP://www.dfwmaps.com/print.asp?Layers=on&DAYVOL=on 7/10/2008 1 I ,... A l-11" Alq , o -v IM C", Page I of I DISCLAIMER This data has been compiled for NCTCOG. Various NCTCOG Maps official and unofficial sources were used to gather this www.dfwmaps.com information. Every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given or implied as to the accuracy of said data. http://www.dfwmaps.com/print.asp?Layers=on&DAYVOL=on 7/10/2008 Intersection Traffic Movements It Vill rt!4K n0ur ractor: U.!#4 DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. Location: Grapevine Mills Parkway & Grapevine Mills Blvd 12--15 PM 12.30 PM 12-.45 PM 1:00 PM 1.15 PM 1.30 PM 1.45 PM 2-00 PM 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 111 9 9 10 6 6 11 23 748 820 803 892 848 798 815 831 30 ?9 37 35 35 29 46 26 3 4 13 1 19 17 18 13 20 19 City/state: Grapevine, Texas 31 34 32 39 38 40 32 30 1 1 11) 3 0 3 0 0 0 Data Collector(s): Dan Vanek & Orivile Cowgill 22 16 19 15 24 21 17 25 15 13 20 15 19 13 19 17 --- 0 0 0 0 Day/Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2008 25 37 36 32 22 26 35 -"8 Weather Conditions: Mild/Normal Conditions 40 51 32 32 PM Peak Hour Peak Hr Factor 0 0.00 33 0.75 Project -ID #: 08129 - 01 145 0.79 35 68 0.67 0.85 Hour Factor: Traffic Control: Signalized 1AQ 479 93 0.93 0.93 3 25 178 0.74 77 0.80 0 -6-6 0 87 Data Source: DT&A 147 0.90 120 0.88 161 0.79 Peak Hr: 12-45 PM. 1.45 Pm Intersection Peak Observations: Timeof Northbound on Southbound on Eastbound on Westbound on CountGrapevine Mills Parkway Grapevine Mills Parkway Grapevine Mills Blvd Grapevine Mills Blvd Begin Uturn Left Thru Right Uturn Left Thru Right Uturn Left Thru Right Uturn Left Thru Right 7.00 AM 7.15 AM 0 4 161 11 17 ;'i4 4 9 11 5 3 15 0 6 9 715 AM 7.30 AM 0 3 202 20 4 390 1() 3 5 8 8 0 11 7-30 AM 7.45 AM 0 1 168 4 17 17 6 5 12 0 19 7 7.45 AM 8.00 AM 0 3 202 13 901 18 11 15 14 1 11 14 14 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 0 3 208 48 01 32 953 20 13 19 0 10 15 1 8-15 AM 8:30 AM 0 10 278 1 1 4 38 9"K• 25 15 13 22 0 19 Io 830 AM 8.45 AM 0 9 205 24 '52 94u 16 115 9 15 0 30 11 10 9 8.45 AM 9:00 AM 0 10 257 20 0 0 6 0 0 0 1 17 3 12 AM Peak Hour 0 25 891 72 7 131 3,736--- 79 4 59 so 70 1 70 50 Peak Hr Factor 0.00 0.63 0.80 IV--], u...11 - 0.75 I 0.44 0.86 0.98 - 0.79 I 0.50 0.82 0.83 0.80 0.2 5 ---- 0.58 0.83 34 0.61 I ---- It Vill rt!4K n0ur ractor: U.!#4 -- 12.00 PM 12-15 PM 12*30 PM 12.45 PM 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1.45 PM 12--15 PM 12.30 PM 12-.45 PM 1:00 PM 1.15 PM 1.30 PM 1.45 PM 2-00 PM 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 111 9 9 10 6 6 11 23 748 820 803 892 848 798 815 831 30 ?9 37 35 35 29 46 26 3 4 13 1 19 17 18 13 20 19 301 2 235 286 285 260 276 282 -- 31 34 32 39 38 40 32 30 1 1 11) 3 0 3 0 0 0 39 3110 57 37 44 37 60 42 22 16 19 15 24 21 17 25 15 13 20 15 19 13 19 17 --- 0 0 0 0 37 40 26 28 25 37 36 32 22 26 35 -"8 0 41 34 0 37 28 0 41 26 38 20 40 51 32 32 PM Peak Hour Peak Hr Factor 0 0.00 33 0.75 3,353 0.94 145 0.79 35 68 0.67 0.85 Hour Factor: 1,107 0.'9 7 0.97 0.97 1AQ 479 93 0.93 0.93 3 25 178 0.74 77 0.80 0 -6-6 0 87 0 0.00 147 0.90 120 0.88 161 0.79 Peak Hr: 12-45 PM. 1.45 Pm Intersection Peak Observations: C2,X2HRS.XLS Street Observations DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Street: -Grapevine Mills Parkway Location: -North of Grapevine Mills Blvd cirv/state: Grapevine, Texas Proicet-tots: 08129 - 263 1. Street Width: Northbound-, 38.00 feet Southbound: 38,0 feet Median: 2&2,5 feet 2. Street Material: Concrete 3. Curbing/Gutters?: Concrete 4. Number of Lanes: six 5. Divided?: Divided 6. Traffic Control Devices: Signalized at Grapevine Mills Blvd i. Pedestrian Crosswalks?: Yes 1 8. Pedestrian Pushbutton?: Yes 1 9. On -street Parking: Unmarked [:I:O:�Po�,tedSpeed Speed $5 npli Posted Speed Limit: 11. adjacent Land Use-,,: I. Commercial. Mixed 2. Undeveloped Street Observations DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. street. Grapevine Mills Blvd Location: West Of Grapevine Mills Pkwy city'stitc: Gra evine, Texas Prefect-lDff: 08129-265 1. Street Width: Eastbound: 24,92 feet Westbound: 24,922 feet Median: 18.50' feet 2. Street Material: Concrete 3. Curbing/Gutters?: Concrete 4. Number f Lanes: Four 5. Divided?: Divided r-------------------------------------- 6. Traffic Control Devices: Signalized at Grapevine Mills 7. Pedestrian Crosswalks?: Yes 8, Pedestrian Pushbutton?: Yes 9. On -street Parking: Unmarked 10. Posted Speed Limit: 30 mr 11. Adjacent Land Uses: L Commercial. Mixed 2. Undeveloned 12. Additional Observations/Comments: Street Observations -DeShazo, Tan g & AssociLates, Inc] sired -Grapevine Mills Parkway Location: South of Grapevine Afills Blvd City/Stale: Grapevine, Texas PrQjCct-ID#: 08129 - 264 1. Stmet Width: Northbound: X8.33 feet Southbound, 49,50 feet Median: feet 2. Street Material: Concrete 3. Curbing/Gutters?: Concrete 4. Number of Lanes: -Seven (Three Northbound, Four Southbound) 5. Divided?: Divided 6. Traffic Control Devices: Signalized at Grapevine Hills Blvd & at Stars & Stripes Way L7. Pedestrian Crosswalks?: Yes 8. Pedestrian Pushbutton?: Yes 9. On -street Parking: Unmarked 10. Posted Speed Limit: Unamrked L11. =,dj Adjacent Land Uses: 1. Commercial. -1 Afixed 2. Undeveloped 12. Additional Observations/Comments: The Right Lane of the Southbound traffic is for a Right Turn Bay which extends from Grapevine Mills Blvd to Stars & Stripes way Street Observations DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. street: grapevine Mills Blvd Location: East Of _. Grapevine _. Llevine Mills Pkwy City state: Grapevine, Texas Project -IN: 08129 - 266 I. Street Width: Eastbound: 25-0 feet Westbound: 24-92 feet Median- 2LO feet 2. Street Material: Concrete 3. Curbing/Cutters?': Concrete 4. Number of Lanes: Four S. Divided?: Divided 6. Traffic Control Devices: Signalized at (1) Grapevine Mills Parkway & at (2) SK --114 7. Pedestrian Crosswalks?: Fes (at Grapevine Mills Parkway only) 8. Pedestrian Pushbutton?-, Yes (at Grapevine.Mills Parkway only) 9. On -street Parking: Unmarked 10. Posted Speed Limit: 45 mph 11. Adjacent Land Uses: I. Commercial. Mixed I Undeveloped I R.-vaom t;.i. 12. Additional Observations/Comments: Field Observations DeShazo Tang & Associates, Inc. i Location: Grapevine Mills Parkway & Grapevine Mills Blvd City/Sate: Grapevine, Texas Project Number: 08129 - 01 Mapsco: Fort Worth 14-N MaauaWkId Odse"stion 1. Street Material North Leg: Groaeyin ills arkway Concrete South Leg: Grapevine Mills Parkway Concrete East Leg: Grapevine Mills Blvd Concrete West Leg: GrAwevine Mills Blvd Concrete Other Leg: 2. urbing�G tt rc North Leg: Gxopevine Mills Parkway Concrete South Leg: Grapevine Mill's Parkway Concrete East Leg: Grapevine Lille Blvd Concrete West Leg: Graneyine Molls Blvd Concrete Other Leg: 3. Number of Lanes North Leg: Gmpeylne Il4illC Parkway Six South Leg: GraPeyine Mils P![Y%tW Six (Seven with the SB Right Turn Lane) East Leg: Grapevine Mills Blvd Four West Leg:Gran' nt e Mi Blvd Four Other Leg: 4.iyided/Iindivici�d North Leg: Gropepine 'V1`ills Par tray Divided South Leg: gir_apevine Miilsgrktyav Divided East Leg: Grapeyine Mills BCvd Divided West Leg: GrapevilaeljfilY-vd Divided Cather Leg: S. StrektAY-idth North Leg: Grapevine HLUs Parkway NE/SB: 38.001138.00' Median: 28.25' South Lee; Ip_Qis NB/SB: 38.33`/38.25` Median: 28.00' East Leg: GyeVhwMi is Blvd EB/WB: 25.001/24.92' Median: 25.50' West Leg: r wine Mills Blvd EB/WB: 24.921124.92' Median: 25.501 > 18.50' Other Leg: NEB/SWB: Median: rC�ontlCol vices 6.�Irtterse ll4n Traffic Control Signals Approximate Signal Cycle Length: 1:30 t' (@ 15.00} Left/Right Turn Provisions: Rays)?: L or R Left Turn Protection North Leg: Grapevine Mills Parkway Left/Right Protected Only South Leg: Grapevine Mills Parkway Left/ t:"ight Protected Only East Leg: GMpevine Mills Blvd Left/Left/Right Protected Only West Leg: Siyrapevine Mills Blvd Left/Left/Right Protected Only Other Leg: =Stop Sign(s) (# of Ways): Which legs are controled by STOP Signage? 7. Pedestrian Crosswalks? Yes Pedstrian Traffic: Light Pedestrian Pushbutton(?): Yes L t.ocation: Grapevine Mills Parkway A. Grapevine Mills Blvd Page # 2 of 08129 01 8. 9trgst�urking North Leg: GTAqAedUe MiNS PadhW Unmarked Designated Times. South Leg: x evine Mills ParkwAy Unmarked Designated Times East Leg: GMevine Ms B&d Unmarked Designated Times: West Leg: Ge-pevine Mills Blvd Unmarked Designated Times: Other Leg: Designated Times., 9. P_o ud Swid_Ujn North Leg; GxApevine MM, Parkwigy SS mph South Leg: G-Mpevine MA ParkM, Unmarked Fast Leg: GMevine Mills Blvd 45 mph West Leg: Grapevine Rlills Rlvd 30 mph Other Leg: 10. (?thet_�.bs�t'vatianc( ommen� *Adjacent Land Useage: f. Commercial:Mixed 2. Undeveloped lf..(~��4.��tric�E �iketch of nt rtia�n � c � � N R f � t t DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc APPENDIX C DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. [Excerpts from the Highway Capacity Manual Transportation Research Board - HCM 2000.] LEVEL OF SERVICE Quality of service requires quantitative measures to characterize operational conditions within a traffic stream. Level of service (LOS) is a quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. Six LOS are defined for each type of facility that has analysis procedures available. Letters designate each level, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. Each level of service represents a range of operating conditions and the driver's perception of those conditions. Safety is not included in the measures that establish service levels. SERVICE FLOW RATES The analytical methods in this manual attempt to establish or predict the maximum flow rate for various facilities at each level of service—except LOS F, for which the flows are unstable or the vehicle delay is high. Thus, each facility has five service flow rates, one for each level of service (A through E). For LOS F, it is difficult to predict flow due to stop -and -start conditions. The service flow rate is the maximum hourly rate at which persons or vehicles reasonably can be expected to traverse a point or uniform segment of a lane or roadway during a given period under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions while maintaining a designated level of service. The service flow rates are generally based upon a 15 -minute period. Typically, the hourly flow rate is defined as four times the peak 15 -minute volume. Note that service flow rates are discrete values, whereas levels of service represent a range of conditions. Because the service flow rates are defined as maximums for each level of service, they effectively define flow boundaries between levels of service. Most design or planning efforts typically use service flow rates at LOS C or D, to ensure an acceptable operating service for facility users. SERVICE MEASURES For each type of facility type, one or more or the stated performance measures serves as the primary determinant of levels of service. This LOS -determining parameter is called the service measure or sometimes the measure of effectiveness (MOE) for each facility type. APPENDIX C DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. CHAPTER 16 - SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SCOPE OF THE METHODOLOGY This chapter contains a methodology for analyzing the capacity and level of service (LOS) of signalized intersections. The analysis must consider a wide variety of prevailing conditions, including the amount and distribution of traffic movements, traffic composition, geometric characteristics, and details of intersection signalization. The methodology focuses on the determination of LOS for known or projected conditions. The methodology addresses the capacity, LOS, and other performance measures for lane groups and intersection approaches and the LOS for the intersection as a whole. Capacity is evaluated in terms of the ratio of demand flow rate to capacity (v/c ratio), whereas LOS is evaluated on the basis of control delay per vehicle (in seconds per vehicle). Control delay is the portion of the total delay attributed to traffic signal operation for signalized intersections. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move -up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. The primary output of the method is level of service (LOS). This methodology covers a wide range of operational configurations, including combinations of phase plans, lane utilization, and left -turn treatment alternatives. It is important to note that some of these configurations may be considered unacceptable by some operating agencies from a safety point of view. The safety aspect of signalized intersections cannot be ignored, and the provision in this chapter of a capacity and LOS analysis methodology for a specific operational configuration does not imply an endorsement of the suitability for application of such a configuration. LOS The average control delay per vehicle is estimated for each lane group and aggregated for each approach and for the intersection as a whole. LOS is directly related to the control delay value. The criteria are listed in Exhibit 16-2. APPENDIX C DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. Exhibit 16-2. LOS CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LOS ( CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE (s/veh) A 10 B > 10-20 C > 20-35 D > 35-55 E > 55-80 F > 80 INPUT PARAMETERS This information forms the basis for selecting computational values and procedures in the modules that follow. The data needed are detailed and varied and fall into three main categories: geometric, traffic, and signalization. INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS The computations discussed in the previous section result in an estimation of the average delay per vehicle in each lane group for each approach and for the intersection as a whole. LOS is directly related to delay values and is assigned on that basis. LOS is a measure of the acceptability of delay levels to motorists at a given intersection. When delays are unacceptable, the causes of delay should be carefully examined. Although discussion below is clearly not exhaustive, some of the more common situations are as follows. 1. LOS is an indication of the general acceptability of delay to drivers. It should be noted that this is somewhat subjective: what might be acceptable in a large city is not necessarily acceptable in a smaller city or rural area. 2. When delay levels are acceptable for the intersection as a whole but are unacceptable for certain lane groups, the phase plan, allocation of green time, or both might be examined to provide for more efficient handling of the disadvantaged movement or movements. 3. When delay levels are unacceptable but v/c ratios are relatively low, the cycle length may be too long for prevailing conditions, the phase plan may be inefficient, or both. It should be noted, however, that when signals are part of a coordinated system, the cycle length at individual intersections is determined by system considerations, and alterations at isolated locations may not be practical. 4. When both delay levels and v/c ratios are unacceptable, the situation is critical. Delay is already high, and demand is near or over capacity. In such situations, the delay may increase rapidly with small changes in demand. The full range of potential geometric and signal design improvements should be considered in the search for improvements. The following point must be emphasized: unacceptable delay can exist where capacity is a problem as well as in cases in which it is adequate. Further, acceptable delay levels do not automatically ensure that capacity is sufficient. Delay and LOS, like capacity, are complex variables influenced by a APPENDIX C DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. wide range of traffic, roadway, and signalization conditions. The operational analysis techniques presented here are useful in estimating the performance characteristics of the intersection and in providing basic insights into probably causal factors. The determination of LOS is based on average control delay. It is possible, however, for average delay to decrease with increasing volumes if the volume increased occur in movements with less than the average delay. Even with increases in more than one movement on an approach, the net effect can still be a decrease in average delay if the movements with less than average delay increase sufficiently. One way to avoid this anomaly is to consider the change in mean delay on a lane -group -by -lane - group basis rather than by averaging delay over the entire intersections. Adding traffic to a particular lane group will always increase the delay for that lane group (as long as all other factors remain unchanged). These procedures do not, however, account for all possible conditions. The influences of such characteristics as specific curb -corner radii, intersection angle, combinations of grades on various approaches, odd geometric features (offset intersections, narrowing on the departure lanes, etc.), and other unusual site-specific conditions are not addressed in the methodology. The capacity of an intersection is complex variable depending on a large number of prevailing traffic, roadway, and signalization conditions. Suggestions on interpretation are not meant to be exhaustive or complete but merely to point out some of the more common problems that can be identified from the Capacity and LOS Worksheet results. APPENDIX C PREFACE OVERVIEW DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. The procedures in this chapter can be used to analyze the capacity and level of service, lane requirements, and effects of traffic and design features of two-way stop -controlled (TWSC) and all - way stop -controlled (AWSC) intersections. In addition, a procedure for estimating capacity of roundabouts is presented. LIMITATIONS OF THE METHODOLOGY This chapter does not include a detailed method for estimating delay for yield sign -controlled intersections. However, with appropriate changes in the values of key parameters, the analyst could apply the TWSC method to yield -controlled intersections. All of the methods are for steady-state conditions (i.e., the demand and capacity conditions are constant during the analysis period); the methods are not designed to evaluate how fast or how often the facility transitions from one demand/capacity state to another. Analysts interested in that kind of information should consider applying simulation models. PART A. TWO-WAY STOP -CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS 11. METHODOLOGY —PART A Capacity analysis at TWSC intersections depends on a clear description and understanding of the interaction of drivers on the minor or stop -controlled approach with drivers on the major street. Both gap acceptance and empirical models have been developed to describe this interaction. Procedures described in this chapter rely on a gap acceptance model developed and refined in Germany. LEVEL -OF -SERVICE CRITERIA Level of service (LOS) for a TWSC intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole. LOS criteria are given in Exhibit 17-2. APPENDIX C DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. TABLE 17-2. LOS CRITERIA FOR TWSC INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Average Control Delay (s/veh) A 0-10 B > 10-15 C > 15-25 D > 25-35 E > 35-50 F > 50 The LOS criteria for TWSC intersections are somewhat different from the criteria used in Chapter 16 for signalized intersections primarily because different transportation facilities create different driver perceptions. The expectation is that a signalized intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes and experience greater delay than an unsignalized intersection. INPUT DATA REQUIREMENTS Data requirements for the TWSC intersection methodology are similar to those for other capacity analysis techniques. Detailed descriptions of the geometrics, control, and volumes at the intersection are needed. Key geometric factors include number and use of lanes, channelization, two-way left -turn lane (TWLTL) or raised or striped median storage (or both), approach grade, and existence of flared approaches on the minor street. The number and use of lanes are critical factors. Vehicles in adjacent lanes can use the same gap in the traffic street simultaneously (unless impeded by a conflicting user of the gap). When movements share lanes, only one vehicle from those movements can use each gap. A TWLTL or a raised or striped median (or both) allows a minor -stream vehicle to cross one major traffic stream at a time. The grade of the approach has a direct and measurable effect on the capacity of each minor movement. Compared with a level approach, downgrades increase capacity and upgrades decrease capacity. A flared approach on the minor street increases the capacity by allowing more vehicles to be served simultaneously. Volumes must be specified by movement. For the analysis to reflect conditions during the peak 15 min., the analyst must divide the full hour volumes by the peak -hour factor (PHF) before beginning computations. If the analyst has peak 15 -min flow rates, they can be entered directly with the PHF set to 1.0. The presence of traffic signals upstream from the intersection on the major street will produce nonrandom flows and affect the capacity of the minor -street approaches if the signal is within 0.25 mile of the intersection. The basic capacity model assumes that the headways on the major street are exponentially distributed, To assess the effect on capacity, a separate analysis is provided that requires the signalized intersection data (cycle length, green time), the saturation flow rate, and information on platooned flow. APPENDIX C DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. INTERPRETING RESULTS Shared Lanes A movement, most often a left -turn movement, can sometimes have a poorer level of service if it is given a separate lane than if it shares a lane with another movement (usually a through movement). This is not inconsistent in terms of the stated criteria. Left -turn movements will generally experience longer control delays than other movements because of the nature and priority of the movement. If left turns are placed in a shared lane, the control delay for vehicles in that lane may indeed be less than the control delay for left turns in a separate lane. However, if delay for all vehicles is considered, providing separate lanes will result in lower total delay. Performance Measures LOS F occurs when there are not enough gaps of suitable size to allow a minor -street demand to safely cross through traffic on the major street. This is typically evident from extremely long control delays experienced by minor -street traffic and by queuing on the minor approaches. The method, however, is based on a constant critical gap size. LOS F may also appear in the form of drivers on the minor street selecting smaller than usual gaps. In such cases, safety may be a problem, and some disruption to the major traffic stream may result. Note that LOS F may not always result in long queues but in adjustments to normal gap acceptance behavior. At TWSC intersections the critical movement, often the minor -street left turn, may control the overall performance of the intersection. The lower threshold for LOS F is set at 50 s of delay per vehicle. In some cases, the delay equations will predict delays greater than 50 s for minor -street movements under very low-volume conditions on the minor street (less than 25 veh/h). Note that the LOS Fthreshold is reached with a movement capacity of approximately 85 veh/h or less. This analysis procedure assumes random arrivals on the major street. For a typical four -lane major street with average daily traffic volumes in the range of 15,000 to20,000 vehicles per day (peak hour with 1,500 to 2,000 veh/h), the delay equation will predict greater than 50 s of delay (LOS F) for many urban TWSC intersections that allow minor -street left -turn movements. LOS F will be predicted regardless of the volume of minor -street left -turning traffic. Even with an LOS F estimate, most low-volume minor -street approaches would not meet any of the MIITCD volume or delay warrants for signalization. As a result, analysts who use the HCM LOS thresholds to determine the design adequacy of TWSC intersections should do so with caution. In evaluating the overall performance of TWSC intersections, it is important to consider measures of effectiveness in addition to delay, such as v/c ratios for individual movements, average queue lengths, and 95`h -percentile queue lengths. By focusing on a single measure of effectiveness for the worst movement only, such as delay for the minor -street left turn, users may make less effective traffic control decisions. APPENDIX C De5hazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. PART B. ALL -WAY STOP -CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS il. METHODOLOGY — PART B LEVEL -OF -SERVICE CRITERIA The level -of -service criteria are given in Exhibit 17-22. The criteria for AWSC intersections have different threshold values than do those for signalized intersections primarily because drivers expect different levels of performance from distinct types of transportation facilities. The expectation is that a signalized intersection is designed to carry higher traffic volumes than an AWSC intersection. Thus a higher level of control delay is acceptable at a signalized intersection for the same LOS. TABLE 17-22. LEVEL -OF -SERVICE FOR AWSC INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Control Delay (s/veh) A 0-10 B > 10-15 C > 15-25 D > 25-35 E > 35-50 F > 50 The methodology analyzes each intersection approach independently. The approach under study is called the subject approach. The opposing approach and the conflicting approaches create conflicts with vehicles on the subject approach. AWSC intersections require drivers on all approaches to stop before proceeding into the intersection. While giving priority to the driver on the right is a recognized rule in some areas, it is not a good descriptor of actual intersection operations. What in fact happens is the development of a consensus of right-of-way that alternates between the intersection geometry and the arrival patterns at the stop line. In summary: 1. AWSC intersections operate in either two-phase or four-phase patterns, based primarily on the complexity of the intersection geometry. Flows are determined by a consensus of right-of-way that alternates between the north/south and east/west streams (for a single -lane approach) or proceeds in turn to each intersection approach (for a multilane approach). 2. The headways between consecutively departing subject approach vehicles depend on the degree of conflict between these vehicles and the vehicles on the other intersection approaches. The degree of conflict is a function of the number of vehicles faced by the subject approach vehicle and of the number of lanes on the intersection approaches. APPENDIX C DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. 3. The headway of a subject approach vehicle also depends on its vehicle type and its turning maneuver. CONTROL DELAY The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, geometrics, traffic, and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result during base conditions, in the absence of incident, control, traffic, or geometric delay. PLANNING AND DESIGN APPLICATIONS The operational analysis method described earlier in this chapter provides a detailed procedure for evaluating the performance of an AWSC intersection. To estimate LOS for a future time horizon, a planning analysis based on the operational method is used. The planning method uses all the geometric and traffic flow data required for an operational analysis, and the computations are identical. However, many input variables are estimated (or defaults used) when planning applications are performed. The operational analysis described earlier in this chapter is not normally used for design purposes. However, through iteration the analyst can use a given set of traffic flow data and determine the number of lanes that would be required to produce a given level of service. VMv APPENDIX C Appendix B DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. Land Use: Apartment 1 � r r Apartments are rental dwelling units that are located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units, for example quadraplexes and all types of apartment buildings. The studies included in this land use did not identify whether the apartments were low-rise, mid -rise, or high- rise. Low-rise apartment (Land Use 221), high-rise apartment (Land Use 222) and mid -rise apartment (Land Use 223) are related uses. Additional Data This land use included data from a wide variety of units with different sizes, price ranges, locations and ages. Consequently, there was a wide variation in trips generated within this category. As expected, dwelling units that were larger in size, more expensive, or farther away from the central business district (CBD) had a higher rate of trip generation per unit than those smaller in size, less expensive, or closer to the CBD. Other factors, such as geographic location and type of adjacent and nearby development, may also have had an effect on the site trip generation. The peak hour of the generator typically coincided with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic The sites were surveyed from the late 1960s to the 2000s throughout the United States and Canada. Source Numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 34, 35, 40, 72, 91, 100, 108, 188, 192, 204, 211, 253, 283, 357, 436, 525, 530, 579, 583 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 305 Institute of Transportation Engineers Apartment (220) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 86 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 212 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 6.72 2.00 - 12.50 3.02 Data Plot and Equation 7,000 IM" 5.000 c W CL ~ 4,000 d 0 v m 3,000 m d 11 2,000 1,000 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 X = Number of Dwelling units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ----" Average Hate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 6.01(X) + 150.35 R2 = 0.88 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 306 Institute of Transportation Engineers Apartment (224) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 78 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 235 Directional Distribution: 20% entering, 80% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.51 0.10 - 1.02 0.73 uaIa 1'iot an® Cquation 700 600 500 N C u.! a 400 U L } m fa 300 N 4 E- 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 Soo 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.49(X) + 3.73 R2 ` 0.83 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 307 Institute of Transportation Engineers Apartment (220) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 90 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 233 Directional Distribution: 65% entering, 35% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.62 0.10 1.64 0.82 Data Plot and Equation 700 600 500 N 'L) C LL! L W 400 U QD t m m 300 m d 200 100 X. X X. — X I 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 X = Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 0.55(X) + 17.65 700 800 900 1000 1100 ------ Average Rate R2 = 0.77 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 308 Institute of Transportation Engineers Appendix D Traffic Analysis DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc. APPENDIX D HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM Peak (120s cycle) 3: Grapevine Mills Blvd & Grapevine Mills Pkwy. 7/10/2008 Movement -ERU =�'EBL' : =` EBT .= , EBR' '� WBL WBTWC1R »tJBI -NBT " ' NBR "_ ,SBU"` ' SRC `" "SBTX SBR" Lane Configurations if Bvi ++ K vivi +++ ?f Volume (vph) 3 178 , 77 66 147 120 161 33 3353 145 35 68 1107 149 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 _ 4.5 4.0 4.5 - 4.5; 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.9S 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 , 1.00 1,00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 190 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot)< 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770_ 5085, 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.25 0.74 0.80 0.87 0.90 0.88 0.79 0.75 0.94 0.79 0.67 0.85 0.97 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 12 241 96 76 163 136 204 44 3567- 184 52 80 1141 160 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 253 96 76 163 136 204 44 3567' 184 0 132 1141 166 Turn Type Prot Prot Free Prot Free Prot Free Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 7__ 7 4 3 8 5 2 1-; 1 6 Permitted Phases Free Free Free Free Actuated Green, G (s) 7.5 10.5 114.6 6.7 9.7 114.6 3.3 71.9 114.6 7.5 76.1 114.6 Effective Green, g (s) 7.5 10.5 114.6 6.7 9.7 114.6 3.3 71.9 114,6 7.5 76.1 114.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.09 1.00 0.06 0.08 1.00 0.03 0.63 1.00 - 0.07 0.66 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 - 3.0 3.0 ; Lane Grp Cap (vph) 225 324 1583 201 300 1583 99 3190 1583 116 3377 1583 v/s Ratio Prot c0,07 0.03 0.05, c0.04 0.01 c0.70 c0.07 , c0.22; v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.13 0.12 0.10 v/c Ratio 1.12 0.30 0.05 0.81 0.45 0.13 0.44 - 1:12 0.12 1.14'- 0.34 0.10 Uniform Delay, dl 53.6 48.6 0.0 53.3 49.9 0.0 54.7 21.3 0.0 53.6 8.3 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 , 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.` Incremental Delay, d2 97.5 0.5 0.1 21.4 1.1 0.2 3.2 58.1 0.1 125.4 0.3 0.1 Delay (s) _ 151.1 49.1 0.1 74.7 51.0 0,2 57.9 79.4 0,1 179.0 8.6. 0.1 Level of Service F D A E D A E E A F A A Approach Delay (s) 101.0 38.1 75.3 23.4 Approach LOS F D E C fntersectionSummary- HCM Average Control Delay 62.0 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.09 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 114,6 Sum of lost time (s) 22.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM Peak (120s cycle) 6: Int 7/10/2008 Lane Configurations +T* 15 +T* 4 1 T* Volume (veh/h) 0 324 0 0 305 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 352 0 0' 332 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 673' pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 332 352 - 518 684 176 508 684 166 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 332 352 518 684 176 508 684 166 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 : TS 6.S 6.9 7.5 6.5 6,9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 12 2.2 ' 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 cM capacity(veh/h) 1225 1203 441 370 837 448' 370 849 Direction` Lane tf '- 'EB 1 - r fB 2 "- -WB 1 "e -WB 2 " WB 3 " NB 1 SB 1 "': SB 2 Volume Total 235 117 0 221 ` 111- 0 0 0 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.14 0.07 0.00 0.13',' 0.07' 0.00 0.00 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 ` 0,0' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 OA 0,0 0.0 Approach LOS A A Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 12.3% ICU Leve( of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM Peak (120s cycle) 7/10/2008 9: Int Movement-=,.;.;.;. ,°:. ..-.EBL°'.. EBT '- WBT?= WBR:....-SBL 56R ,. ..,,: ..... Lane Configurations ++ +U Volume (veh/h) , 0 324 305 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 352 332 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage';` Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1013 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 332 508 166 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 332 508 166 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM; capacity (veh/h) 1225 495 849 15ifecfion Lane'tr '. EB 1 � EB 2 WB 1 . "WB 2 'SB,1 Volume Total 176 176 221 111' 0 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0' 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.07' 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) OA 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 12.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM Peak (90s cycle) 3: Grapevine Mills Blvd. & Grapevine Mills Pkwy. 7/10/2008 Movement '.. " ' IBU ' -EBI` ' DEBT 'EBR WBt.: WBT WBR- NBL NBT -tdBR 'SBU "; 564`r SBT SBR `- Lane Configurations ,h, vij +* if ++ Mj j +++ +++ Volume (vph) 3 178 77 - 66 ` 147 120 161 33 3353 145 35 68 1107: _ 149 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 45 4.5 4.0 ` 4.5` 4,5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 % 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 ; ` 1.00 0.85 1.00: 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1,00 ,' 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 3433 3539 '' 1583 3433; 3539 1583 ;3433 5085 1583 1770 :' 5085 1583 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539' 1583` 3433`- - 3539 1583 '- - 3433 - 5085 1583 1770 5085' 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.25 0.74 0.80 0.87 0.90 0.88 0.79 0.75 0.94 0.79 0.67 0.85 0.97 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 12 241 96 : 76 ,; 163 136 204 44 - 3567 184 52 80 1141 160_ RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 253 96' 76 163 - 136 204 44 3567 184 0 132 1141 - 160' Turn Type Prot Prot Free Prot Free Prot Free Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 1 6 Permitted Phases Free Free Free Free Actuated Green, G (s) 4.0 7.0 , ` 82.3 ' 6.4 9.4 82.3 23 39.7 82.3 11.2 48.6 82.3 Effective Green, g (s) 4.0 7.0 82.3 6.4 9.4 82.3 2.3 39.7 82.3 11.2 48.6 82.3 Actuated g/C Ratio r 0.05 0109 1.00 `, 0.08 OM 1.00 0,03 0.48 1.00 0.14 0.59 = 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3,0' `3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0' Lane Grp Cap (vph) 167 301 1583 267 404 1583 96 2453 1583 241 3003 1583 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.03 0.05 - c0.04 0.01 - c0.70 c0.07 < 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.13 0.12 0.10 v/c Ratio 1,51 0.32 0.05 0.61 034 0.13 0,46 1.45 0.12 0.55 0.38 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 39.2 35.4 0.0 36.7 33.6 0.0 39.4 21.3 0.0 33.2 8.9 0.0 Progression Factor` 1.00 1.00 ',` 1.00 1.00' 1.00 1:00 1:00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 'c Incremental Delay, d2 260.0 0.6 0.1 4.1 0.5 0.2 3.4 206.7 0.1 2.5 0.4 0.1 Delay (s) ` 299.1 36.0 0A 40.8 341 0,2 42,8 228,0 0.1 35.7 9.3 0:1` Level of Service F D A D C A D F A D A A Approach Delay (s), 186.2 22.5 214.8 103 Approach LOS F C F B HCM Average Control Delay 149.6 NCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 107 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 82.3 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 93.6% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM Peak (150s cycle) 3• Grapevine Mills Blvd. & Grapevine Mills Pkwy. 7/10/2008 } Movementi - - ..:. ,. , EBU""`- �".- EBL " ` .EBT ° ''`EBR-� ": LVBU- "-wBL WBT ° WBR ' NBL "°NBT' N R, . SBU SBL SBT - .. SBE1 Lane Configurations Vi ++ ++ I II +f`+ +++ Volume (vph) 4 59 S0 70: 1 70 50 34 25 891 72 7 131 - 3730; 79 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4,5 4.0 ` 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4,5` 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00'' 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 - 0.85 1,00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot){ 3433: 3539= 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd'`Flow (perm)' 3433- 3539- 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085' 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.50 0.82 0.83 0.80 0.25 0.58 0.83 0.61 0.63 0.80 0.75 0.44 0.86 0.98 0.79 Ad): Flow (vph) 8 72 60 88 4 121 60 56 40 - 1114 96 16 152 3806 , 100 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 80 60 88' 0 125 60 56 40' 1114 96 0 168 - 3806 100 Turn Type Prot Prot Free Prot Prot Free Prot Free Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 3 8 5 2 1' 1 6' Permitted Phases Free Free Free Free Actuated Green, G (s) 5.6 6.4 140.0; 5.9 6.7 - 140.0 3.1 91.7 140.0 18.0 106.6 ` 140.0 Effective Green, g (s) 5.6 6.4 140.0 5.9 6.7 140.0 3.1 91.7 140.0 18.0 106.6 140.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 .` 0,05' 1.00 0.04 0.05 '1A0 0.02 0.66 1.00 0.13 0.76' 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 137 162 1583 145 169 1583 76 3331 1583 228 3872 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.02 c0.04_ 0.02 0.01 0.22 c0.09 cO.75 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.04 0.06 c0.06 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.37' 0.06 0.86 0.36 0.04 0.53 0.33 0.06 0.74 0.98 - 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 66.1 64.8 0.0 66.6 64.6 0.0 67.7 10.7 0.0 58.7 15.8 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00- 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 6.2 1.4 0.1 37.5 1.3 0.0 6.4 0.3 0.1 11.7 11.0 0.1 Delay (s) 72.3 66.3 0.1' 104.2 65.8 0.0 74,2 10.9 0.1 70.4 26.8 0.1 Level of Service E E A F E A E B A E C A Approach Delay (s) 428 70.4 12.1 28.0 Approach LOS D E B C Intersection Suirkmary - NCM Average Control Delay 26.9 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.95 ; Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.0 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM Peak (120s cycle) 3: Grapevine Mills Blvd. & Grapevine Mills Pkwy. 7/10/2008 Lane Configurations 37.4 HCM Level of Service D r, Vi ++ if 109.4 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Nvi ++ ?f viv5 +*+ K N +*+ Volume (vph) 4 59 SO 70 < 1 70 50 34 25 891 72 7 "+ 131 3730 79 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 ' 4.0 ` 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4,5 4.0 4.5 4,5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 100 1.00 0.85 `, 1.00 - - 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00' : 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1,00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770 ! 5085``- 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 SatdFlow (perm) 3433 '° 3539'< 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085`` 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.50 0.82 0.83 0.80 0.25 0.58 0.83 0.61 0.63 0.80 0.75 0.44 0.86 0.98 0.79 Adj. Flow (vph) 8 72 60 88: 4 121 60 - 56 40 1114 96 16 152, -. 3806 100 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 80 60 88 0 125 60 56 40 1114 96 0 ' 168 ,' 3806' 100 Turn Type Prot Prot Free Prot Prot Free Prot Free Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 7 7 4: 3'` 3 8 5 2 1 1 6 Permitted Phases Free Free Free Free Actuated Green, G (s) 3.1 6.0 109.4 ' 4,8 71 109,4 2.3 65.5 109.4 15.1 78.3. 109.4 Effective Green, g (s) 3.1 6.0 109.4 4.8 7.7 109.4 2.3 65.5 109.4 15.1 78.3 109.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0,03 0.05 1.00 0.04 0,07 1.00 OM 0,60 1.00 0.14 032 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 ' 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 97 194 1583 151 249 1583 72 3044 1583 244 3639 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 cO.02 cO.04 0,02 0,01 0.22 c0,09 cO.75 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.04 0.06 cO.06 v/c Ratio' 0,82 0.31 0,06 0.83 0.24 0,04 0.56 0.37 0.06 0.69 ; 1.05 0.06 Uniform Delay, dl 52.9 49.7 0.0 51.9 48.1 0.0 53.0 11.3 0.0 44.9 15.6 0.0 Progression Factor 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1A0 1.00 1.00 1.00 ' 1.00' 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 40.9 0.9 0.1 29.5 0.5 0.0 9.0 0.3 0.1 7.8 28.7 0.1 Delay (s)', 93.8 50,6 0.1'; 81.4 48,6 0.0 62.0 11.6 0.1 S2,8 44.3 0.1 Level of Service F D A F D A E B A D D A Approach belay (s) 463 ,' 54.3 12.3 43.6 Approach LOS D D B D HCM Average Control Delay 37.4 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 109.4 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 95,3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing AM Peak (90s cycle) 3• Grapevine Mills Blvd. & Grapevine Mills Pkwy. 7/10/2008 Lane Configurations 1515 ++ if NVi ++ K vivii +++ if N +++ IF Volume (vph) 4 59- 50 70 1 70 50 34 25 891 72 7 131;' 3730 79 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.0 ti; 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 .' 4.5', 4.5 4A Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00, 1.00` 0.85 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00' 1.00 0.85 1.00; 1.00= 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1;00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539' 1583 ` 3433 - 3539 -, 1583 3433 5085 =; 1583 1770 ' 5085 1583 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm)> 3433 3539 1583' 3433 3539 1583'- 3433 5085 - 1583 1770'- 5085 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.50 0.82 0.83 0.80 0.25 0.58 0.83 0.61 0.63 0.80 0.75 0.44 0.86 0.98 0.79 Adj. Flow (vph) - 8 72 60 88, 4 121 60 56 40 1114 96 16 - 152 _ 3806; 100 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 80 60 88 0 125 60 56 40 1114 96 0 168 3806' 100 Turn Type Prot Prot Free Prot Prot Free Prot Free Prot Prot Free Protected Phases, 7 7 4 3 3 8 5 2 1 1, 6' Permitted Phases Free Free Free Free Actuated Green, 6 (s) 3.2 4.2 79.7 4.4 5.4 79.7 2.2 40.8 79.7 12.3 50.9 79.7 Effective Green, g (s) 3.2 4.2 79.7 4.4 5.4 79.7 2.2 40.8 79.7 12.3 50.9 79.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04` 0.05 1.00 r 0.06 0.07 1.00 - _ 0.03 - 0.51 1.00 0.15' 0.64' 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 10 10 3.0 < 3.0 3.0 - 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 138 186 1583 190 240 1583 95 2603 1583 273 3248 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 _ c0,02 c0.04 0.02 0.01 0.22, c0.09 c0.75 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.04 0.06 c0.06 v/c Ratio 0.58 0.32 0.06, 0.66 0.25 0.04 0.42 0.43 -, 0.06 0.62` 1.17 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 37.6 36.4 0.0 36.9 35.2 0.0 38.1 12.2 0.0 31.5 14.4 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00` 1.001 1,00 1.00 ' " 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00` - 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 5.8 1.0 0.1 8.0 0.5 0.0 3.0 0.5 0.1 4.1 80.9 0.1 DeIay(s) 43.4 37.4 0.1, 44.9 35,8 0.0 41.1 12.7 0.1 35.6 95.3 0.1 Level of Service D D A D D A D B A D F A Approach Delay (s) 25.1 32.2 12.6 SIM Approach LOS C C B F lntersaetIon Summary HCM Average Control Delay 68.7 NCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.08 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 79.7 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 953% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c ' Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Existing PM Peak (150s cycle) 3: Grapevine Mills Blvd. & Grapevine Mills Pkwy. 7/10/2008 Lane Configurations 53.5 HCM Level of Service D Nvi *+ r ativi ++ ?f 15vi +++ 7f N +++ if Volume (vph) 3 178 77 '; 66 147: 120 161 33 3353 145 35 68 1107 149 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) , 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5'' 4,5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4,0 4.5 4.5 ' 4,0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1;00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 100 0.85: Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 ' 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583` Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583'' 3433= 3539 1583 3433 - 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.25 0.74 0.80 0.87 0.90 0.88 0.79 0.75 0.94 0.79 0.67 0.85 0.97 0.93 Ad). Flow (vph) 12 241 96 76 163 136 204 44 3567 184 52 80 1141 - 160 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 253 96 76' 163 - 136 204 44 3567 184 0 132' 1141 160' Turn Type Prot Prot Free Prot Free Prot Free Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 7 7 4 3' 8 5 2 1- 1 6- Permitted Phases Free Free Free Free Actuated Green, G (s) 10.5 11.9 145.9 9.6- 11.0 145.9 4.2 95.0 145.9 11.4 102,2' 145.9< Effective Green, g (s) 10.5 11.9 145.9 9.6 11.0 145.9 4.2 95.0 145.9 11.4 102.2 145.9 Actuated'g/C Ratio 0.07 0.08 ' 1.00 0.07 0.08 1.00 0.03 0.65 1.00 OM 0.70 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 -' 3.0 3.0 - 3.0 3.0 - 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 247 289 1583 226 267 1583 99 3311 1583 138 3562 1583 v/s Ratio Prot cO.07 0.03 ' 0105' cO.04 0.01 cO.70 cO.07 0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 cO.13 0.12 0.10 v/c Ratio` 1.02 0.33 0.05 ';' 0.72 0.51 0.13 0:44 1M 0,12 0.96 0.32' 0.10 Uniform Delay, d1 67.7 63.2 0.0 66.8 64.9 0.0 69.7 25.4 0.0 67.0 8.4 0.0 Progression Factor too 1.00 ' 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00`; Incremental Delay, d2 63.7 0.7 0.1 10.8 1.5 0.2 3.2 41.2 0.1 62.7 0.2 0.1 Delay (s)' 131,4 63.9 ;' 0.1 '- 77,6 66;4 0.2 729 66.6 0.1 129.8 8.7 O,1 Level of Service F E A E E A E E A F A A Approach Delay (s)< 92.7 ' 43;2 63.5 18.9'' Approach LOS F D E B HCM Average Control Delay 53.5 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.01 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 145.9 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 916% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c ,Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 PM Peak Base Plus Site (120s cycle) 3• Grapevine Mills Blvd & Grapevine MillsPkwry. 7/10/2008 Movement .... ;v .-` -: ,'`:'=`EBU" EBL'', EBC EBR = ".: WBG WBT = r WBR NBL' '`'"NBT NWR = SBU - SBL == SBT c.. Lane Configurations Volume (vph) 3 188 99 101 153 160 - 167 92 3487 151 36 71 1151 161 ideal Flow (vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 ` 4.5 4.0" 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 ` 4.5; 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85= Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 ' 1583; 3433 3539 1583 3433 = 5085 1583 1770 ' 5085 c 1583'' Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd'Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583' " 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770< 5085` 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.25 0.74 0.80 0.87 0.90 0.88 0.79 0.75 0.94 0.79 0.67 0.85 0.97 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) ; 12 ;- 254 124, 116> 170 182 211 - 123 - 3710 191 54 : 84. - 1187 - 173; RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 266 124 - 116 170 182 211 123 3710 191 0 138 ' 1187' 173' Turn Type Prot Prot Free Prot Free Prot Free Prot Prot Free Protected Phases' 7 7- 4 3 8 5 2 1 1: 6; Permitted Phases Free Free Free Free Actuated Green,'G (s) 7.5 12.0; 115.2 6.7 11.2 115.2 4.2 71.0 - 115.2 7.5 74.3 ; 115.2; Effective Green, g (s) 7.5 12.0 115.2 6.7 11.2 115.2 4.2 71.0 115.2 7.5 74.3 115.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07'1 0.10:- 1.00 0.06 0.10 1.00 0.04 0.62 1.00 0.07s 0,64s 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 224 369 1583 200 344 1583 125 3134 1583 115 3280 1583 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08> 0.04 0.05 c0.05 0.04 c0.73 c0.08, 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.13 0.12 0.11 v/c Ratio 1.19 0.34 0.07 0.85 0.53 0.13 0.98 1.18 0.12 1.20 0.36: 0,11' Uniform Delay, d1 53.8 47.9 0.0 53.8 49.5 0.0 55.5 22.1 0.0 53.8 9.5 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 - 1.00; 1.00` 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00'< Incremental Delay, d2 120.1 0.5 0.1 27.5 1.5 0.2 75.0 86.3 0.2 147.4 0.3 0.1 Delay (s) 174.0 48.4 0.1' 81.3 51.0 0.2 130.5 : ,108.4 0.2 201.2; 9,8. 0.1: Level of Service F D A F D A F F A F A A Approach Delay (s) 103.3" 41.1 103.9 26.3 Approach LOS F D F C intersection5ummary HCM Average Control Delay 80.9 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.10 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 115.2 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.2% ICU Level of Service; F Analysis Period (min) 15 c;; Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 PM Peak Base Plus Site (120s cycle) 6: Int 7/10/2008 Baseline Synchro7- Report %user_name% Page 2 BL... EBT '. ; 4. EBR..... WBL WBT WBR .. . NBI` NBT, NBR "� SBL SBT'," SBR" Lane Configurations * + +T* if VS Volume (veh/h) 17 337 0 0 317; 99 0 0 0 54 0 9 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0%'' 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 366 0 0 345' 108 0 0 0 59 0 10 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 673;r pX, platoon unblocked 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 vC, conflicting volume 452 366 S 585 855 183 618 802 226 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 439 366 573 844 183 606 790 212 tC,;sngle (s) 4.1 4.1 7,5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 - 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 100 100 100 100 84 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1112 1189 390 292 828 374 314 790 62N...fy63`> NB.1 N4.2 SB1 ..°...DB2 Volume Total "202 183 0 230 222 0 0 59 10 Volume Left 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 108, 0 0 0 10 cSH 1112 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 374 790 Volume to Capacity; 0.02 0.11 0.00 0.14 0.13;' 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 1 Control Delay (s) 0.9 0.0 0.0 OA 0.0 0.0 oA 16.4 9.6 Lane LOS A A A C A Approach Delay (s) ` 0.5 0.0 0.0 15.4 Approach LOS A C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.9% ICU level of Service " A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro7- Report %user_name% Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 PM Peak Base Plus Site (120s cycle) 9: Int 7/10/2008 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 3 Lane Configurations +} +T+ Volume (veh/h) 0 337 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 366 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent. Blockage; Right turn flare (veh) Median; type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1013 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 0 183 Q vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 0 183 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1622 : 789 1084 - Volume Total 183 183 :i 0 0 Q Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0, 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.11 T 0.11 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) ; 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0` 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0; OA Approach LOS A Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 12.6% ICU Level of Service A. Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 PM Peak Base Plus Site (90s cycle) 3: Grapevine Mills Blvd. & Grapevine Mills Pkwy. 7/10/2008 Lane Configurations 118.4 HCM Level of Service F 31% ++ if B'i ++ iF YSVS -+++ Ir aN +f+++ Volume (vph) 3 188 99 101 153 160 167 92 3487 151 36 71 1151;: 161 Ideal Flow (vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) ` 4.5 4.5 4,0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0` Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1,00 1.00 0.85 " 1,00` 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd, Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 ' 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770 ; 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 '' 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085'' 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.25 0.74 0.80 0.87 0.90 0.88 0.79 0.75 0.94 0.79 0.67 0.85 0.97 0.93 Ad). Flow (vph) 12 254 124 116 ' 170' 182 211 123 3710 191 54 84 1187 173 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 266 124 ' 116 170 ` 182 211 123 3710 191 0 138 1187< 173 Turn Type Prot Prot Free Prot Free Prot Free Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 7 7 4 j 3;' 8 5 2 1 1 6- Permitted Phases Free Free Free Free Actuated Green, G (s) 5.5 9.6 83.6 ' 5.5 9.6 83.6 6.9 45.0 83,6 5.5 43.6 83.6 Effective Green, g (s) 5.5 9.6 83.6 5.5 9.6 83.6 6.9 45.0 83.6 5.5 43.6 83.6 Actuated g/C Ratip, 0.07 0,11 1.00', 0.07 0.11 1.00 0.08 0.54 1.00 M7 0.52 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0> 3.0 - Lane Grp Cap (vph) 226 406 1583 226 406 1583 283 2737 1583 116 2652 1583 v/s;Ratio Prot c0.08 0.04-- 0.05 c0.05 0.04 c0.73 c0.08 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.13 0.12 0.11 v/c Ratio" 1.18 0.31 0.07 0.75- 0.45 0.13 -0.43 1.36 0.12 1,19 0.45' 0.11 Uniform Delay, dl 39.0 33.9 0.0 38.4 34.5 0.0 36.5 19.3 0.0 39.0 12.5 0.0 Progression Factor" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 _ 1.00 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 ,' 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 116.0 0.4 0.1 13.2 0.8 0.2 1.1 162.4 0.2 143.3 0.5 0.1 Delay (s) :' 155.1 34.4 0.1 51.6: 353 0.2 37.6 181.7 0.2 182.4 - 13.0 0.1 Level of Service F C A D D A D F A F B A Approach Delays) 90.0 27:1 168.7 27.1, Approach LOS F C F C HCM Average Control Delay 118.4 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.12 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 83.6 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 9&2% ` ICU Level of Service ` F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 PM Peak Base Plus Site (90s cycle) 6: Int 7/10/2008 {� ..,. >,... movement EBL :" .. EBT-' E8R`"WBL�.WBT'.'= 1NBRN3t-faBT NBR�`"SBL "SBT "'SBR Lane Configurations *T'T+ T Volume (veh/h) 17 337 0 0 317 -_ 99 0 0 0 54 - 0 9 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 366 0' Or 345 108 - 0 0 0 - 59 0 10 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage' Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 673 pX, platoon unblocked vC,'conflicting volume 452: 366; 585 855 183 618 802 226 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 452 366 585 855 183 618 802 226 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1; 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2' 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 ' 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 100 100 100 100 84 100 99 cM capacity(veh/h) 1105 1184`- 384 289 828 368 311 777 Direction Lane t' ... �... �,x.........:.E8 NB 2 °`.:SB SB 2- rc Volume Total 202 183 0 ` 230 222 0 0 59 10 Volume Left 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 Volume Right 0 0-' 0, 0 108 0 0 0 10 cSH 1105 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 368 777 Volume to Capacity 0.02 - 0.11. 0.00 -0.14; 0.13 0.00 0,00 0.16 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 1 Control Delay (s) `: 0.9 0.0 0.0' 0.0; 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 9.7 Lane LOS A A A C A Approach Delay, (s) 0.5 0.0 - 0.0 15.6 Approach LOS A C Interseci(on Summa . G Average Delay 1.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user name° Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 PM Peak Base Plus Site (90s cycle) 9: Int 7/10/2008 Lane Configurations ++ +T+ V Volume (veh/h) 0 337 - 0 0 b 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% : 0%'- Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 366 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1013 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 0 183 0 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 0 183 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3,5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1622 789 1084 Direction- Lane # � EB 1:.. ' : EB " WB 1 " WB 2' "SB 1 ° VolumeTotal 183 183 0 `. 0'' 0 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0, cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00' Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 010 0.0 0.0 0.0- Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary ,...-.,. Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 12.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 PM Peak Base Volumes (150s cycle) 3• Grapevine Mills Blvd & Grapevine Mills Pkwy 7/10/2008 EB U. Mavemnt "`=,",' �. EBL '-. . EBT EBR WB .wBL' `WBT ' : wBR NBL .NBT ;:.: ;NBR �."SBU.. SBL," ` ', SBR Lane Configurations tivi ++ Vi ++ if vivi T+T ri *SBT +T+ if Volume (vph) 3 178 77 66 147 120 161 33 3353 145 , 35 68 1107 149 ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.0; 4.5 4.5, 4.0 4.5 4,5 4.0 4.5 : 4.5 4.0` Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85'; 1.00 1.00 0.85_ 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85' Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 Satd, Flow (prot) `' 3433 3539 1583 ; : , 3433, _ 3539 , - 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085:- 1583 Flt Permitted 0.9S 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 '' 3539' 1583'' 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770 ' 5085" 1583_ Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.25 0.74 0.80 0.87 0.90 0.88 0.79 0.75 0.94 0.79 0.67 0.85 0.97 0.93 Growth Factor (vph) 104% < 104% 104% 104% 104% , 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% r 104% 104% 104%>_ 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 12 250 100 79 170 142 212 46 3710 191 54 83 1187 167 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0- 0` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; - 0- 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 262 100 79 170 142 212 46 3710 191 0 137 1187 167 _ Turn Type Prot Prot Free Prot Free Prot Free Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 1 6 Permitted Phases Free Free Free Free 1 Actuated Green, G (s) 10.5 11,8 146.1 9.9 11.2 146.1 4.3 95.9 146.1 10.5 102.1 146.1 Effective Green, g (s) 10.5; 11.8, 146.1 9.9 11.2 146.1 4.3, 95.9 146.1 10.5 ; 102.1 , 146.1; Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.08 1.00 0.07 0.08 1.00 0.03 0.66 1.00 0.07 0.70 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 - 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5' Vehicle Extension (s) 10 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 247 - 286 1583 233 271 1583 101 3338 1583 127> 3554- 1583 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.03 0.05 c0,04 0.01 c0.73 c0.08 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.13 0.12 0.11 v/c Ratio 1.06 0.35 0.05 0.73 0.52 0.13 0.46 1.11 0.12 1.08 0.33 0.11 Uniform Delay, dl 67.8 63.5 0,0 66.8 64.9 0.0 69.7 25.1 0.0 -- 67.8 - 8.6 -_ 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 74.2- 0.7 0.1' 10.9 1.8 0.2 3.2 55.0 0.2 102,5 0.3, 0.1 Delay (s) 142.0 64.3 0.1 77.7 66.7 0.2 73.0 80.1 0.2 170.3 8.9 0.1 Level of Service F E A E E A E F, A F A A Approach Delay (s) 98.9 43.3 76.2 22.7 Approach LOS F: D E C HCM Average Control Delay 62.6 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.05 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 146.1; Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 PM Peak Base Volumes (120s cycle) 3: Grapevine Mills Blvd. & Grapevine Mills Pkwy. 7/10/2008 -► '`i it "� AL, •t\ � /� l-4 \I. � 4.1 Movement ' EBU'� � EBL :, EBT =` EBR WBI2 11467 WBR NBL NBT ' ' NBR ' SBU `5 " SBL SBT = SBR " Lane Configurations Nvi TT K �Ivi TT ?f vivii T+T i ah +++ Volume (vph) 3 178 77 ± 66 ' 147 120 ; 161 33 3353 145 35 68 1107 - 149 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 45 45 4.0 4,5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1,00 0.85 1.00' 1.00 -0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 ;, 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583`' 3433' - 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 - 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539' 1583 3433 3539' 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 - 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.25 0.74 0.80 0.87 0.90 0.88 0.79 0.75 0.94 0.79 0.67 0.85 0.97 0.93 Growth Factor (vph) 104% 104% 104% 104%s 104%, 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104%; 104%- Adj. Flow (vph) 12 250 100 79 170 142 212 46 3710 191 54 83 1187 167 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 262 100 79 170 142 212 46 3710 191 0 137 1187 167 Turn Type Prot Prot Free Prot Free Prot Free Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 1 6 Permitted Phases Free: Free Free Free Actuated Green, G (s) 7.5 10.7 114.8 6.7 9.9 114.8 3.3 71.9 114.8 7.5 76.1 114.8 Effective Green, g (s) 7,5 10.7 114.8 6.7, 9,9 114.8 3.3 71.9 114.8 7,5 76.1 ' 114.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07 0.09 1.00 0.06 0.09 1.00 0.03 0.63 1.00 0.07 0.66 1.00 Clearance Time (s) ;' 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4,5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 224 330 1583` 200 305 1583 99 3185 1583 116 3371 _ 1583, v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.03 0.05 c0.04 0.01 c0.73 c0.08 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0,05 c0.13 012 0.11, ; v/c Ratio 1.17 0.30 0.05 0.85 0.47 0.13 0.46 1.16 0.12 1.18 0.35 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 ` S3.6 48.6 0.0: 53.6: 49.9 0,0 54.9 21.4 0.0 53.6 8.5 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1116 0.5 0.1- 27.5; 11 0.2 3.4 78.0 0,2 140.3 0.3-, 0.1' , Delay (s) 167.2 49.1 0.1 81.1 51.1 0.2 58.3 99.4 0.2 193.9 8.8 0.1 Level of Service F D A` F` D A E F A F A A Approach Delay (s) 110.5 40.2 94.1 24.8 Approach LOS F D F C Intersection Summary" - HCM Average Control Delay ` 74.7 HCM Level of Service` E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.13 Actuated Cycle length (s) 114.8 Sum of lost time (s) `; 22.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 PM Peak Base Volumes (90s cycle) 3• Grapevine Mills Blvd. & Grapevine Mills Pkwy. 7/10/2008 f --V 4., 1 Lane Configurations Nvi ++ ?f 2M ++ if vivi +++ K N +++ F Volume (vph) 3 178 77 ; 66 147 120 161 33 3353 145 35 68 1107 149 ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total lost time (s) 4.S ` 4.5 r 4.0< 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0; Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00: 1.00 ; 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 _ _ 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 ; 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) : 3433 3539 , 1583; 3433 _ 3539. 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770'- 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0,95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd"Flow (perm) 3433" 3539'` 1583 3433 - 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.25 0.74 0.80 0.87 0.90 0.88 0.79 0.75 0.94 0.79 0.67 0.85 0.97 0.93 Growth Factor (vph) 104% 104%s 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% - 104% 104% 104%, Adj. Flow (vph) 12 250 100 79 170 142 212 46 3710 191 54 83 1187 167 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0, 0'. Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 262 100 79 170 142 212 46 3710 191 0 137 1187 167 Turn Type " Prot Prot Free, Prot Free Prot Free Prot Prot Free; Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 1 6 Permitted Phases Free Free Free Free; Actuated Green, G (s) 5.5 7.3 85.4 7.7 9.5 85.4 2.4 46.9 85.4 5.5 50.0 85.4 Effective Green,g (s) 5.5, 7.3- 85.4` 7.7 9.5 85.4 2.4 46.9 85.4 5.5 50.0' 85.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.06 0.09 1.00 0.09 0.11 1.00 0.03 0.55 1.00 0.06 0.59 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 ,, 4.5, 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 221 303 1583 310 394 1583 96 2793 1583 114 2977 1583 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.03 0.05 c0.04 0.01 c0.73 c0.08 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05' c0.13 0.12 0.1T v/c Ratio 1.19 0.33 0.05 0.55 0.36 0.13 0.48 1.33 0.12 1.20 0.40 0.11 Uniform Delay, d1 40.0. 36.7 0.0 37.2 35.1 0.0 40.9 19.3 0.0 40.0 9.6` 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 119.8 0.6 0.1, 2.0 „0.6 0.2 3.7 150.3 0.2 148.3' 0.4 0.1. - Delay (s) 159.7 37.4 0.1 39.2 35.7 0.2 44.6 169.6 0.2 188.3 10.0 0.1 Level of Service :' F: _ D A< D D A D F- A F A' A' Approach Delays) 103.4 22.5 159.9 25.3 Approach LOS F C F C tnferseciion5ummary � HCM Average Control Delay 113.4 ' HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.09 Actuated Cycle length (s) 85.4 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 97.1% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 AM Peak Base Plus Site Traffic (150s cycle) 3: Grapevine Mills Blvd. & Grapevine Mills Pkwy. 7/10/2008 Lane Configurations 42.6 HCM Level of Service D !II ++ if 144.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 N% ++F. ?t' vivii +++ If is +++ ?r Volume (vph) 4 67 87 132 0 1" 73 61 35 41 -' 927 75 7 136 3879 84 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) , 4.5 4.5 ; 4.0 '; " 4,5 4.5 ' 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Fri: 1.00 1.00 0.85 '` 1:00 1.00 &85 100 1.00 0.85 1.00 " 1.00` 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 `J 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 ' 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770' 5085 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.25 0.74 0.80 0.87 0.25 0.90 0.88 0.79 0.75 0.94 0.79 0.67 0.85 0.97 0.93 Adj, Flow (vph) 16 91 109 `' 152 4 81 69 44 55 986 95 10 160 ' 3999 90 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 107 109 152 0 " 85 69 44 55 986 95 0 170 ` 3999 90 Turn Type Prot Prot Free Prot Prot Free Prot Free Prot Prot Free Protected Phases ' 7 7 4 ;; 3' 3 8 5 2 1 1` 6 Permitted Phases Free Free Free Free Actuated Green, G (s) 7,0 10.8 '.' 144.0, 4.5 8.3 144.0 3.1 92.3 144,0 18.4 107.6: 144.0 Effective Green, g (s) 7.0 10.8 144.0 4.5 8.3 144.0 3.1 92.3 144.0 18.4 107.6 144.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.05 0,08 1.00: 0.03 0.06 1.00 0,02 0.64 1.00 0.13 0.75 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension '(s) 3.0 3.0'' 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0- 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 167 265 1583 107 204 1583 74 3259 1583 226 3800 1583 v/s Ratio Prot ; c0.03 c0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.19 00.10 c0.79, v/s Ratio Perm 00.10 0.03 0.06 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.64 ' 0.41 0.10 0.79 034 0.03 0.74 0,30 - 0.06 0.75> 1.05 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 67.3 63.6 0.0 69.3 65.2 0.0 70.1 11.5 0.0 60.6 18.2 0.0 Progression Factor; 1.00 1.00 ,; 1.00 ', < 1100 1100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00` 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 8.1 1.0 0.1 32.1 1.0 0.0 32.7 0.2 0.1 13.2 30.8 0.1 Delay (s)'< 75,4 64.6 ' 0.1 101.4 66.2 0.0 ; , 1018 11.8 0.1 73.8 , 49.0 - 0.1 Level of Service E E A F E A F B A E D A Approach Delay(s) 41.1 '; 66.6 15.2 49.0 Approach LOS D E B D HCM Average Control Delay 42.6 HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0,96 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 144.0 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro7- Report %user_name% Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 AM Peak Base Plus Site Traffic (150s cycle) 6: Int 7/10/2008 EBT"" EBR' ; WBL'` :` WBTWB41- NOL NBT NBR. SBL <.-- SBT Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h) 3 190, 0 0 164 26 0 0 0 100 0 18; Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 207 0 0 178 28 4 0 0 109 0 '; 20 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage; Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 673 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 207 207; 322 420 103 302 405 103 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 207 207 322 420 103 302 40S 103 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 i5 6.5 6.9 7.S 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 83 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1362 1362x; 594 522 932 626 532 932 WB 3,,,," .:.NB 1 NB 2 SB'l ' ` -.: SB 2 ,-.. ... . , .:."... - ,.. �.. Volume Total 107 103 0 119 88 0 0 109 20 Volume Left 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 0 Volume Right 0 0`' 0; 0 28 0 0 0 20 cSH 1362 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 626 932 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.06 r ` 0.00 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 Control Delay (s) 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 8.9 Lane LOS A A A 8 A Approach Delay (s) 0.1 0.0 0.0 11.5 Approach LOS A B Intersection Summa . -.. Average Delay 2.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.6% - ICU Level of Service_ A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro7- Report %user name% Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 AM Peak Base Plus Site Traffic (150s cycle) 9: Int 7/10/2008 —} .4— *, b. 4 Lane Configurations ++ +T+ V Volume (veh/h) 0 193 182 0 ' 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0%' Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 210 198 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None , Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1013 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 198 303 ; 49 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf,voI vCu, unblocked vol 198 303 99 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8' 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1372 665 938 Volume Total 105 105 132 66 _ 0' Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0' Q cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity; 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.04 ` 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.01 Lane LOS A Approach' Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 8.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 AM Peak Base Plus Site Traffic (120s cycle) 3' Grapevine Mills Blvd & Grapevine Mills Pkwy. 7/10/2008 Lane Configurations 5V5 -TIT- F aIt lrlr 1, 11111 TTT t' a TTT r' Volume (vph) 4 67 87': 132 1 73 61 35 41 927 75 7 ;; 136 3879' 84 ideal Flow (vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s)' 4.5 4.5 4.0" 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 "1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) ' 3433 3539 1583; 3433 3539 1583 " 3433 5085 -, 1583 1770 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd Flow (perm)' 3433 3539 1583'` 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770`' 5085 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.25 0.74 0.80 0.87 0.25 0.90 0.88 0.79 0.75 0.94 0.79 0.67 0.85 0.97 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 91 109 s` 152` 4 81 69 44 55 986 - 95 10 ;' 160 = 3999, 90 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 107 ' 109` 152`- 0 85 69 44 55 986 95 0 170 3999 90 Turn Type Prot Prot Free Prot Prot Free Prot Free Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 7 7 i 4 3 3 8 5 2 1 '` 1 6 Permitted Phases Free Free Free Free Actuated Green,'G (s) 7.3 8.8'` 111.81 5.2 6.7 - 111.8 3.3 72.3 111.8 7S 76.5 111.8 Effective Green, g (s) 7.3 8.8 111.8 5.2 6.7 111.8 3.3 72.3 111.8 7.5 76.5 111.8 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.07: r 0.08 1.00 0.05 0.06 1.00 0.03 0.65 1.00 0.07 0.68 1,00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 ' 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 224 279 1583 160 212 1583 101 3288 1583 119 3479 1583 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 c0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.19 c0.10: c0.74 v/s Ratio Perm WAD 0.03 0.06 0.06 v/cRatio 0.48 0.39- 0.10; 0S3 0.33 0.03 0.54 0.30 0.06 1.43,' 1.15' 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 50.4 49.0 0.0 52.1 50.4 0.0 53.5 8.7 0.0 52.2 17.6 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00: 1.00 > 1.00; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00; 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 1.6 0.9 0.1 3.4 0.9 0.0 5.9 0.2 0.1 234.4 71.0 0.1 Delays) 52.0 49.9 0.1r 55.5 51.3 0.0 59.4 8.9 0.1 286.5', 88.7 0.1 Level of Service D D A E D A E A A F F A Approach Delay (s) 29.9<: 41.7 10.6 94.7 - Approach LOS C D B F HCM Average Control Delay 72.9 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.04: Actuated Cycle Length (s) 111.8 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group ' Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 AM Peak Base Plus Site Traffic (120s cycle) 6: Int 7/10/2008 Movement' : `EBL EBT" EBR ",-'WBL" "'WBR N61." NBT NBR SBL SBT ' SBR ` Lane Configurations * + V5 +T+ Vi Volume (veh/h) 3 190 0 0 164 26 0 0 0 100 0 18 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 207 0 0 ` 178 28 0 0 0 109 0 20 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None', Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 673 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 207 207' 322 420 103 302 40S 103 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 207 207 322 420 103 302 405 103 tC, single (s) 4.1 4,1 7.5 6.5 6.9 75 6,5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2 3S 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 83 100 98 cM capacity(veh/h) 1362 1362; 594 522 932 626 532 932 D(rection'Lane# '` £81 � "` ,EB2 "W61.' � :� W132: WB3 "� N81 . NB2 `,S81 - SB 2- .... Volume Total 107 103 0 119 88' 0 0 109 20 Volume Left 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0 1' 28i 0 0 0 20 cSH 1362 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 626 932 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.06 0,00 0.07 0.05 0.00 0,00 0.17 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 Control Delay (s) 0.3 0,0 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0' 0.0 0.0 12.0 8,9 Lane LOS A A A B A Approach Delays); 0,1 0.0 0.0 11,5 Approach LOS A B Average Delay 2.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 AM Peak Base Plus Site Traffic (120s cycle) 9: Int 7/10/2008 M%vement . .... ..:. .... ... �: ` ....� " EBL: :�.. EBT ' ,"� WBT :" 1NBR SBL .,.ry-SBIt Lane Configurations ++1t +T+ 'Pt Volume (veh/h) 0 193 182 0( 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade '; 0/ 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 210 '` 198 0' 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Mediantype None ` None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1013' pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 198 303 99 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 198 303 99 tC single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) : 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM'capacity (veh/h) 1372 665 938 Direction Laner'. E&1 Volume Total 105 105 132 66' 0 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 VoIumelRight 0 0 _`_ 0 0,' 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.06 0.08' 0.04 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.0 ' 0.0 Approach LOS A intersection Summary �... .,. . Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity, Utilization 8.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 AM Peak Base Plus Site Traffic (90s cycle) 3_Grapevine Mills Blvd. & Grapevine Mills Pkwy. 7/10/2008 Lane Configurations AI ++ rr Bvi +} ?f vivi *♦* ?F h +++ ?f Volume (vph) 4 67 87 >' 132 1 73 61 35 41 927 75 7 136 3879 84 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) , 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 i 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 ' 1A0 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 '< 1.00 0,85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 3539 " 1583 " 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085`; 1583 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd'.Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 ` 3433 3539 1583 '` 3433 5085 " 1583 1770 5085 ' 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.25 0.74 0.80 0.87 0.25 0.90 0.88 0.79 0.75 0.94 0.79 0.67 0.85 0.97 0.93 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 91 109 152; 4 81 69 44 55 986 95 10 ; 160' ., 3999 90 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 107 109 152 ' 0` 85 69 - 44 55 - 986 95 0 170 3999 90 Turn Type Prot Prot Free Prot Prot Free Prot Free Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 3 8 5 2 1 1 6; Permitted Phases Free Free Free Free Actuated Green, G (s) 3,0 6.3 80.6 ; =- 3.0 6.3 - 80.6 2.2 40.9 80,6 12.4 51.1 - _ 80.6 Effective Green, g (s) 3.0 6.3 80.6 3.0 6.3 80.6 2.2 40.9 80.6 12.4 51.1 80.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.08 '; 1,00 ; 0.04 0.08 1.00 0.03 0.51 1.00 0.15 0.63 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 ` 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 128 277 1583 128 277 1583 94 2580 1583 272 3224 1583 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 c0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.19 - c0.10 c0.79 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.03 0.06 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.84 0.39 0.10 ; 0.66 0.25 0,03 0.59 0.38 0,06 0,62 1.24 0.06 Uniform Delay, d1 38.6 35.3 0.0 38.3 34.9 0.0 38.7 12.1 0.0 31.9 14.7 0.0 Progression Factor' 1.00 1.00 1,00' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00,' 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 35.3 0.9 0.1 12.2 0.5 0.0 9.0 0.4 0.1 4.4 111.0 0.1 Delay (s) ' 73,8 363 0.1 50.5 35.4 0.0 47.7 12,6 0.1 36.4 125.7 0.1 Level of Service E D A D D A D B A D F A Approach Delay (s); 32.3 34.0 13.2 119.5 Approach LOS C C B F intersection Summary;.... .,. HCM Average Control Delay 91.0 HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.13 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.6 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c ;:Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 AM Peak Base Plus Site Traffic (90s cycle) 6: Int 7/10/2008 Movement E81'" � EBT :' EBR ::'WK" - `"WBT -: WBR NBL NBT � � NBR . "SBL: !SBT ' `� SBR Lane Configurations *'"T. Volume (veh/h) 3 190 _ O r 0 164 26 0 0 0 100 0 18 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 3 207 0', 0 178 28 0 0 0 109 0 20 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None ; None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 673 pX, platoon unblocked vC,conflicting ,volume 207 207' 322 420 103 302 405 103 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2,'stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 207 207 322 420 103 302 405 103 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2; < 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.S 4.0 3.3 , p0 queue free % 100 100 100 100 100 83 100 98 cM capacity (veh/h) 1362 13626 594 522 932 626 532 932 Direction Lane`#. -. ,v - . EB 1 - EB 2, ` , WB 1` <: WB 2 NB 1 _ NB 2 SB,1 SB 2 Volume Total 107 103 0 119 88 0 0 109 20 Volume Left 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 0 Volume Right 0 0'; 0, 0' 28 0 0 0 20 cSH 1362 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 626 932 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0,06; 0.00 0.07; 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.02 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 Control Delay (s)' 0.3 0.0' 0.0' 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 _' 0,0 12.0 8.9 Lane LOS A A A B A Approach Delay (s) 0.1 ` 0:0 0.0 11.5 Approach LOS A B In mar Average Delay 2.8 Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.6% ICU Level of Service; A, Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 AM Peak Base Plus Site Traffic (90s cycle) 9: Int 7/10/2008 .# --I, *— 4" Lane Configurations ++ +U Y Volume (veh/h) 0 193 182 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 210 198 0 0' 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1013 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 198 303 99 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2,'stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 198 303 99 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8i 6.4 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1372 665 938 u,W8, :SB1i....:_, �. Volume Total 105 105 132 ' 66 , 0`` Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0_ Volume Right 0 0 0 0 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.06 0.08 ' 0.04 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 : 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s): 0.0 0.0 0.0; Approach LOS A Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 8.7% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 AM Peak Base (150s cycle) 3• Grapevine Mills Blvd & Grapevine Mills Pkwy. 7/10/2008 "WBU' WBL 'WBT WBR �"NBL'; "NBT" ":'`RIBR -... 'SBU "'SBL' SBT SBR Lane Configurations + Volume (vph) 4 59 50 70< 1 70 50 34 25 891 72 7 ` 131 3730 79 Ideal Flow (vphpi) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.0` 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5; 4.5 4.0 Lane Util, Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 " 1.00' 0.85 ` 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3433 < 3539 1583 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085,. 1583 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd°Flow (perm) 3433 3539' 1583 3433 '-'3539 1583 - 3433 5085 1583 1770' 5085' 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.50 0.82 0.83 0.80 0.25 0.58 0.83 0.61 0.63 0.80 0.75 0.44 0.86 0.98 0.79 Growth Factor (vph) 104% 104%s 104% 104% 104% 104% 104°% 104% 104% 104% . 104% 104% 104%, 104% - 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 8 75 63 91 4 126 63 58 41 1158 100 17 158 3958 104 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0' 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 83 63 91 0 130 63 58 41 1158 100 0 175 3958 104 Turn Type Prot Prot Free Prot Prot Free Prot Free Prot Prot; Free Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 3 8 5 2 1 1 6 Permitted Phases Free Free Free Free Actuated Green, G (s) 4.8 6.5 140.1 5.5 7.2 140.1 3.1 91.6 140.1 18.5 107.0 140.1 Effective Green, g (s) 4.8 6.5 1401'; 5.5; 7.2 140.1 3.1, 91.6, , 140.1 18.5 107.0 _ , _ 140.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.03 0.05 1.00 0.04 0.05 1.00 0.02 0.65 1.00 0.13 0.76 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.S 4.5 4.5 4.5, 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 118 164` 1583 135 182 1583 76 3325 1583 234. 3884: 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.02 c0.04 0.02 0.01 0.23 c0.10 c0.78 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06' 0.04 0.06 c0.07 v/c Ratio 0.70 0.38 0.06 0.96 0.35 0.04 0.54 0.35 0.06 0.75 1.02 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 66.9 64.9 ' 0.0 67.2 64.2 , 0.0 67.8 10.9 0.0 58.6 - 16.5: 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 17.3 ' 1.5 - 0.1 65.7 1.1 0.0 7.2 0.3 0.1 12.3 i 19.5 0.1 Delay (s) 84.2 66.4 0.1 132.9 65.3 0.0 75.0 11.2 0.1 70.8 36.0 0.1 Level' of Service F E A; F E A_ E B A E D: A Approach Delay (s) 47.2 85.2 12.3 36.6 Approach LOS 6, F B D [ntersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 33.8 HCM Level of Service C HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.99 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 140.1 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15' c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 AM Peak Base (120s cycle) 3: Grapevine Mills Blvd. & Grapevine Mills Pkwy. 7/10/2008 Lane Configurations air, ++ if V5 ++ ?f V1 Ti +++ if is +++ it Volume (vph) 4 59 50 70 1 70 50 34 25 " 891 72 7 131 3730 79 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 ' 4.0 4.5 - 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 ': 1.00 1.00 0,85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 - 1.00; 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd, Flow (prot) `, 3433 3539 1583 _ 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 - 1583 Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow (perm) 3433 3539 '.' 1583''' 3433 - 3539 1583 3433 - 5085 1583 1770 ` 5085 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.50 0.82 0.83 0.80 0.25 0.58 0.83 0.61 0.63 0.80 0.75 0.44 0.86 0.98 0.79 Growth Factor (vph) 104% 104% 104% 104% - 104% 104% 104% 104% 10494. 104% 104% , 104% 104%: 104% 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 8 75 63 91 4 126 63 58 41 1158 100 17 158 3958 104 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 `, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0`. 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 83 63 91 0 130 63 58 41 1158 100 0 175 3958 104 Turn Type Prot Prot Free Prot Prot Free Prot Free Prot Prot,- Free Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 3 8 5 2 1 1 6 Permitted Phases Free' Free Free Free Actuated Green, G (s) 4.1 6.0 109.2 4.5 6.4 109.2 2.3 65.2 109.2 15.5 78.4 109.2 Effective Green, g (s) 4.1 6.0 109.2 4.5 6.4 109.2 2.3 65.2 109.2 15.5 78.4 109.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.05 1.00 0.04 0.06 1.00 0.02 0.60 1.00 0.14 0.72 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 s 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 , 45 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 129 194 1583; 141 207 1583 72 3036 1583 251 3651 -> 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 cO.02 cO.04 0.02 0.01 0.23 c0.10 cO.78 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.04 OA6 cO.07 v/c Ratio 0.64 0.32 0.06 0.92 0.30 0.04 0.57 0.38 0.06 0.70 1.08 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 ' 51.8 49.7, ' 0.0 ; 52.2 ; 49.3, _ 0.0 53.0 11.5 0.0 44.6 15.4 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 10.5 1.0 0.1 52,6 0.8 0.0 9.9 0.4 0.1 8.2 414 - 0.1 Delay (s) 62.3 50.6 0.1 104.8 50.1 0.0 62.9 11.8 0.1 52.8 58.8 0.1 Level of Service E D A` F D A E B A D' E' A Approach Delay (s) 35.3 66.9 12.5 57.1 Approach LOS D E B E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 47.0 HCM Level of Service ' D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.03 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 109.2 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user_name% Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 AM Peak Base (90s cycle) 3• Grapevine Mills Blvd & Grapevine Mills Pkwy 7/10/2008 Lane Configurations Bvii ++ if t5Vi ++ if vivi ++* ?f N +"++ ?F Volume (vph) 4 59 50 70 1 70 50 34 25 891 72 7 131 c 3730; 79 ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5r 4.0 4.5 45 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 ` 4.5 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 '` 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 ` 1.00, 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1,00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd: Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583': 3433 3539 1583 - 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd' Flow (perm)` 3433 ' 3539 1583' 3433 3539 1583 3433 '- 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.50 0.82 0.83 0.80 0.25 0.58 0.83 0.61 0.63 0.80 0.75 0.44 0.86 0.98 0.79 Growth Factor (vph) 104% 104%- 104% 104% 104%; 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% _ 104% 104% 104% Adj. Flow (vph) 8 75 63 91 4 126 63 58 41 1158 100 17 158 3958 104 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 ', 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0-; 0; 0' 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 83 63 91 0 130 63 58 41 1158 100 0 175 3958 104 Turn Type Prot Prot Free > Prot Prot Free Prot Free Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 3 8 5 2 1 1 6 Permitted Phases= Free(, Free Free Free Actuated Green, G (s) 3.1 5.6 80.5 4.4 6.9 80.5 2.3 40.0 80.5 12.5 50.2 80.5 Effective Green, g(s) 3.1 5.6' 80.5' 4.4 6.9 80.5 2.3 40.0 80.5 12.5 50.2 80.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.04 0.07 1.00 0.05 0.09 1.00 0.03 0.50 1.00 0.16 0.62 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5'. 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5; 4.5; Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 132 246. 1583' 188 303 1583 98 2527 1583 275 3171 1583 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.02 c0.04 0.02 0.01 0.23 c0.10 c0.78 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06' 0.04 0.06 c0.07 v/c Ratio 0.63 0.26 0.06 0.69 0.21 0.04 0.42 0.46 0.06 0.64 1.25 0.07 Uniform Delay, d1 38.1 35.5- 0.0 37.4 34.3 0.0 38.4 13.2 0.0 31.9 15.2' 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1;00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 9.0 0.6 0.1 105 0.3 0.0 2.9 0.6 0.1 4.8`: 114.5 0.1 Delay (s) 47.2 36.0 0.1 47.8 34.6 0.0 41.3 13.8 0.1 36.6 129.6 0.1 Level of Service D D A: D C A D 8 A D F- A Approach Delay (s) 26.1 33.5 13.6 122.6 Approach LOS C C B F;; .. Intersection5ummartr ...... , , ... ..:- HCM Average Control Delay 91.6 ' HCM Level of Service F HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.12 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.5 Sum of lost time (s)`' 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.3% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 PM Peak Base Plus Site (150s cycle) 3: Grapevine Mills Blvd. & Grapevine Mills Pkwy. 7/10/2008 Lane Configurations WN ++ F aNvii ++ ?r "'i""i +++ ?r A +++ ?r Volume (vph) 3 188 99 101 "- 153 160 167 92 3487 151 36 71 1151 161 - Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.0 ` 4.5 4,5 4.0 4,5 - 4.5 4.0 4,5 4.5 -' 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 '; 1.00" 1:00 0.85 "1,00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd: Flow (prot) 3433 3539 1583 `; 3433 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770 5085 1583: Fit Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3433 3539 1583 3433' 3539 1583 3433 5085 1583 1770 '< 5085 1583< Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.25 0.74 0.80 0.87 0.90 0.88 0.79 0.75 0.94 0.79 0.67 0.85 0.97 0.93 Ad), Flow (vph) 12 254 124 116 176 ` 182 211 123 3710 191 54 84 1187 ; 173 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 266 124 116 170' "182 211 123 3710 191 0 138 '' 1187 173 Turn Type Prot Prot Free Prot Free Prot Free Prot Prot Free Protected Phases 7 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 1 6 Permitted Phases Free Free Free Free Actuated Green, G (s) 10.5 13.4 146.9 9.9 12.8, 146.9 9.4 95.1 146.9 10.5 '- 962 ` 146.9 Effective Green, g (s) 10.5 13.4 146.9 9.9 12.8 146.9 9.4 95.1 146.9 10.5 96.2 146.9 Actuated g/C Ratio - 0,07 0.09 1,00 0.07 - 0.09 1.00 0.06 , 0.65 1.00 0.07 0.65 1.00 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0' 3.0 3.0- 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 245 323 1583 231 308 1583 220 3292 1583 127 3330 1583 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08 0.04, ; 0.05 , - c0.05 0.04 _- c0.73 C0.08 0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 c0.13 0.12 0.11 v/c Ratio < 1.09 0,38 0.07 0.74 0.59 0.13 0.56 1.13 0.12 1M - 0.36 0.11, Uniform Delay, dl 68.2 62.9 0.0 67.2 64.5 0.0 66.7 25.9 0.0 68.2 11.4 0.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1M 1,00, 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 - Incremental Delay, d2 82.2 0.8 0.1 11.5 3.0 0.2 3.1 61.6 0.2 105.0 0.3 0.1 Delay (s) ` 150.4 616 ' 0,1' , 783 67.6 0.2 69.8 87,5 0.2 173.2 113 0.1 Level of Service F E A E E A E F A F B A Approach Delay (s)': 94.7 45.7 82.8 25.3 Approach LOS F D F C HCM Average Control Delay 67.5 HCM Level of Service E HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 1.07 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 146.9 Sum of lost time (s) 18.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.2% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15 c - Critical Lane Group Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 1 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 PM Peak Base Plus Site (150s cycle) 6: Int 7/10/2008 Moveptent �:..: ". EBC" ` "� "6dT- '! EBR -.' . �:" WBC WBR Lane Configurations Vi +T+ Volume;(veh/h) 17 337 0 0 317 99 0 0 0 54 0 9 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Grader 0% 0% _ 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 18 366 0 0'( 345 108 0 0 0 59 0 10 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage; Right turn flare (veh) Median type None - None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 673 pX, platoon unblocked 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 vC, conflicting volume 452 366 585 855 183 618 802 : 226 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 398 366 534 810 183 568 755 167 tC, single (s) 4.1 4.1 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 2.2` " 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 p0 queue free % 98 100 100 100 100 85 100 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 1133 1189; 410 301 828 392 324 830 DirecCkan Lane#` EB - 1`:.i ` €B 7�-`'„ WB -,1 �' �:�:= WB2 -� -WB`3'�-`�'`, NB - � NB2 -, -� SB -1 ��SB 2 Volume Total 202 183 0 230 222 0 0 59 10 Volume Left 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 Volume Right 0- 0 0 0 108 0 0 0 10 cSH 1133 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 392 830 Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.11- _ 0.00 0.14; - 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.01 Queue Length 95th (ft) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1 Control Delay (s) ;' 0.9 OA 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 15.8 9.4 Lane LOS A A A C A Approach Delay (s) 0.5 0.0 0.0 _ 14.9 Approach LOS A B intersection SUrnrna �. Average Delay 1.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.9% ; ICU Level of Service;` A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2010 PM Peak Base Plus Site (150s cycle) 9: Int 7/10/2008 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 3 Movement ,..;• ri"- "„EBL U.... EBt- WBT `--..�WBR� ""SBL > .. SBR .. Lane Configurations ++ +U V Volume (veh/h) 0 337 0 0 _ 0, 0 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 366 0 0 0 0 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage' Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft) 1013 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 0 183 0 vC1, stage 1 cont vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 0 183 0 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 100 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 1622 789 ; 1084 DTrection�Lanett"-' EBI.,- EB2- W SB1=- Volume Total 183 183 0 0': 0' Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Right 0 0 0 0' 0 cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0,11 0.00 0.00: 0.00 Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 Control Delay (s), 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0' 0.0 Lane LOS A Approach Delay (s) OA 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summaryy Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 12.6% . ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7 - Report %user name% Page 3 BUTCH VAS! HOPPER ADDITION c/o MRAhE Illy L.P, 19.789 ACRES VOLUME 15476, PAGE 328 �/ 1 D.R.T.C.T. TRACT 1 LAND USE; BOUNDARY LIME — -- — MULTI—FAMILY '' f AGREEMENT _ _ _ ®� _ VOLUME 7 83, PACE 386 f ,, _ _ — — -- = _= = _= = _ D.R.T.C.T. t r -- —— 02-1� / Iti, aPeepTrash Compactor Prop. t , Carport IN, Y/Wason Prop. Access Gate � .. F ---I n DWI Proposed 6 ca 9 G Lafid Use Lot Area lboW BuNkg Aram Building -. a . Lot Coverage; Floor No. of I Bedroom Units No. of 2 Bedroom Units NO. Of 3 Badrbom units 16W Units Hum Proposed Parking ftft RbiqWliod ° 6 g:. 940wo Parking AocesafWe a - II A666"10 PoMhg Provided Tbnd6tn PaIProvided t a} ?q allowstory7 41 ih wit to exceed 39 feet in hAot Y m a� I SE NUMBE a 1 - s M Taill b=4 ' I I,'�l + r i $.'iiEDLEGALDala?- O Ell A _ re I N a 9 t fib � �$ a $ � a a � :� • :F a a a� ,a R{ •. � P w of ,,::a4r. <a a p_ a e a :• ar a :,a r w a, „. �! a w k a .. 1 ei _ t 'a - , _ MEET R.0� sProp. !� > , Pr a tf p' Existing Median_", - �J/' ���..t � � � Eye. Lift Turn Lane 'ti{EpL4J�9E 12-429., 'PAGE X313"' - -_ -_. :�' � : __ — O eA tee DrR.T=+C.TF - F�f C .WR '"4 1\ for an Apartment Complex. Transition —547— V is to create a Lot And Easments �a = 0 i AM qw Proposed 6 ca 9 G Lafid Use Lot Area lboW BuNkg Aram Building -. a . Lot Coverage; Floor No. of I Bedroom Units No. of 2 Bedroom Units NO. Of 3 Badrbom units 16W Units Hum Proposed Parking ftft RbiqWliod ° 6 g:. 940wo Parking AocesafWe a - II A666"10 PoMhg Provided Tbnd6tn PaIProvided t a} ?q allowstory7 41 ih wit to exceed 39 feet in hAot Y m a� I SE NUMBE a 1 - s M Taill b=4 ' I I,'�l + r i $.'iiEDLEGALDala?- O Ell A _ re I N a 9 t fib � �$ a $ � a a � :� • :F a a a� ,a R{ •. � P w of ,,::a4r. <a a p_ a e a :• ar a :,a r w a, „. �! a w k a .. 1 ei _ t 'a - , _ MEET R.0� sProp. !� > , Pr a tf p' Existing Median_", - �J/' ���..t � � � Eye. Lift Turn Lane 'ti{EpL4J�9E 12-429., 'PAGE X313"' - -_ -_. :�' � : __ — O eA tee DrR.T=+C.TF - F�f C .WR '"4 1\ for an Apartment Complex. Transition —547— V is to create a Lot And Easments TAOULATION CHART ViES MQUIREP (IS1.15 INCHES) 64 3" CALIPER TREE a 63.W TMES EES FROVIPED 64 TO, LARGE TRESS 0" CALnIQ MIK) rREES (3"CALIFER MIN) FA I Molt ........... PLANT PALETTE Live Oak tus virgintana), C ar Elm (almus crassifolfa), 8hmard Red, Oak (ardif), Our Oak (Owcus macrocarpa), ftld Cqpress (TaxodGum distichA), Southern Magnolia fMagnolia gran diffora), Pecam (Carga 1111noensfis),Chinese Ftstadilo (Platacia chimensts), Eastern :Rsd Cedar Ouniperus, virginlana), Llanpraas:(Cuprmsoparfa ksgiandr). SMALL TFEE - 311 caliper min1mum, sPacrna as 6-hown Yaupon HolIq (11I' ex vom[toria), Deaert Willow (Chilopels llwar[Q, Mexican um (Prunus maxicana), Redbud (Clards cafladenals) LAFrjE/SCREEN SHRUB - D gallom minimum (W" hot#* minimum), 31 on center Dwarf SurFor Ho cormAa BurFordtl -na , Cagera i T` is Comps -at Ela gnus' (la gam' macro Ila 'EbbenjO, Nandtha (Nand[na d ti )j Wellis R Stsven's Holiq file x Nellie R. Stevens), Dwarf Wax Myrtle Ngrica, Variegated Privet (Ll gustrum lucfdum Varlegata'), Abelia (Abolia grand- Iflora), Tome Sage f Laucophg1lum frutescans 'Compactum'), Sea Gram Juniper (Junipwa it is I&m drew), Blue Point Juniper eJuniperus chinansis, ' Blue Point), Loropetalum (Loropetalum fa ns DWA W SHRUB - 3 galton minimum, 2' on center Dwarf Taupom 1 1g Elle vomitorta Nona'), Dwarf Indian Hawthorn (Raphloleptal Thdfaa)o, Carissa HoIN (Ilex corrmta 'Carlssal), Compaat Nandina (Nandina domesti ca 'COmp4ct4,1.,#15 Anthong Waterer Spin ea (Spirama x bumulda 'Antho1� WatamWA, 5arbarrg f Berbarts thobargil), Feed Yparaloe parviflora), Juniper (Juniperu-s 6p.), Dwart Ab iia (Aballa !arandiflora 'Edward Gouchw). OWUOCOVER - 411 pot minimum, 12" to IV' on oenter Asian Jasmine (Tradw1ospermum astaircum), I.Irfope (Ortopis mubaart) M, otjc[o _ Grass (Ophfob ogan J4pontc=), FUrple Untercreeper (BjoVu6 fortwel 'Coloratus'), Horiagauckle (Lonlcwa japontc:a 'Atropurpurea), Juniper (Juniperus ap), English Ivq (Had- era helix). EXISTING TRIE15=6 NUMMM Sim 4"M AW LRE aw 0 LIVE OAK .5- 0 4 s LIVE OAK, &5. r 1483 LIVE OAK-,, 0 4131 HAGKf5-5RRY- 51, 0 5,04 WHII=58" G�l - -- 0 B� P24r5—H (MT) 0 506 C141 IMEWD 0 5n FUR 0 510 11b, (MT) 0 511 0 Ec 2s, 0 543 0 5�0 '041715 MULI! i� .- ViES MQUIREP (IS1.15 INCHES) 64 3" CALIPER TREE a 63.W TMES EES FROVIPED 64 TO, LARGE TRESS 0" CALnIQ MIK) rREES (3"CALIFER MIN) FA I Molt ........... PLANT PALETTE Live Oak tus virgintana), C ar Elm (almus crassifolfa), 8hmard Red, Oak (ardif), Our Oak (Owcus macrocarpa), ftld Cqpress (TaxodGum distichA), Southern Magnolia fMagnolia gran diffora), Pecam (Carga 1111noensfis),Chinese Ftstadilo (Platacia chimensts), Eastern :Rsd Cedar Ouniperus, virginlana), Llanpraas:(Cuprmsoparfa ksgiandr). SMALL TFEE - 311 caliper min1mum, sPacrna as 6-hown Yaupon HolIq (11I' ex vom[toria), Deaert Willow (Chilopels llwar[Q, Mexican um (Prunus maxicana), Redbud (Clards cafladenals) LAFrjE/SCREEN SHRUB - D gallom minimum (W" hot#* minimum), 31 on center Dwarf SurFor Ho cormAa BurFordtl -na , Cagera i T` is Comps -at Ela gnus' (la gam' macro Ila 'EbbenjO, Nandtha (Nand[na d ti )j Wellis R Stsven's Holiq file x Nellie R. Stevens), Dwarf Wax Myrtle Ngrica, Variegated Privet (Ll gustrum lucfdum Varlegata'), Abelia (Abolia grand- Iflora), Tome Sage f Laucophg1lum frutescans 'Compactum'), Sea Gram Juniper (Junipwa it is I&m drew), Blue Point Juniper eJuniperus chinansis, ' Blue Point), Loropetalum (Loropetalum fa ns DWA W SHRUB - 3 galton minimum, 2' on center Dwarf Taupom 1 1g Elle vomitorta Nona'), Dwarf Indian Hawthorn (Raphloleptal Thdfaa)o, Carissa HoIN (Ilex corrmta 'Carlssal), Compaat Nandina (Nandina domesti ca 'COmp4ct4,1.,#15 Anthong Waterer Spin ea (Spirama x bumulda 'Antho1� WatamWA, 5arbarrg f Berbarts thobargil), Feed Yparaloe parviflora), Juniper (Juniperu-s 6p.), Dwart Ab iia (Aballa !arandiflora 'Edward Gouchw). OWUOCOVER - 411 pot minimum, 12" to IV' on oenter Asian Jasmine (Tradw1ospermum astaircum), I.Irfope (Ortopis mubaart) M, otjc[o _ Grass (Ophfob ogan J4pontc=), FUrple Untercreeper (BjoVu6 fortwel 'Coloratus'), Horiagauckle (Lonlcwa japontc:a 'Atropurpurea), Juniper (Juniperus ap), English Ivq (Had- era helix). EXISTING TRIE15=6 NUMMM Sim 0 4"M AW LRE aw 0 LIVE OAK .5- 0 4 s LIVE OAK, &5. 0 1483 LIVE OAK-,, 0 4S3 0 *�4 0 455 aOTTONX01: 0 4S(o ca JJ)O10P--- 3-5 0 4131 HAGKf5-5RRY- 51, 0 5,04 WHII=58" G�l - -- 0 B� P24r5—H (MT) 0 506 C141 IMEWD 0 5n FUR 0 510 11b, (MT) 0 511 0 Ec 2s, 0 543 0 5�0 '041715 MULI! i� .- 13" 0X51 0 552 -A 0 UPS (MT) 0 501 M $ k1LO58C t T (MT) 0 brO Ry - 51 0 5-63 (G' (MT) 0 Uri -.1-51.MT) 0 0 56-a T8XA57',MULQ8RfV- 0 569 VIXA'$'� 'M: Lei= UR... Y' lUR �V(MT) 0 TE57� 0 511 TEkA5:M1L5ERRY,- _)0,' (MT) 0 7 1512 t -1 1 — tXAS11ULSERRY. 5151 -(MT) 0X73 TESSI,MULBERRY' CMT) 0 :!514 XAV'MULSEFW - (MT) 0 1515 TEXA-5 MULSERRY . 0 3-16 7EXAS;:M!188W� i 0 E711 TEXAS,,-,MULL115-KF--R—Y, 0 515 a 5-g - 0 B115 0 5W 1 TE. iiUL�E di.54 (11T) 0 502TO�5 U P MLL1115,551R,"T 0 1583 Tr=-XA5,.,MUL5ERRY -P-V 0 :E,&4 RERCULE& QL15� 0 lex&5 0 M51 O�WKF F 6. r 0 565 - � �A, :�Mj,,C ELM, . 6' 0 5al� 0 &542215' 2 0 & 5 ro -HA rz _R MAINTENANCE IF VIM& NO NUMMIR Tsm Type Tper, siz TRES TYPE TFEE SIZE d DATE: 11/18/08 PLANNI �D ZONING-GOMMUSSION HA DATE: DATE: 1111,8108 6 Mr it!r—t.?a WAO, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Mr pg - MW la Ajal--,w4oA COMPOSITION SHINGLES CEMENT SHINGLES DECORATIVE WOOD BRACE ,4" TRIM :BRICK ROW:L-OCK STONE VENEER 5"TRIM /ATICO)"N 42 12. .41 u -41 WAINSCOT 4" TRIM BRICK ROW'LOCK DRIC;4. VENEER