Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR DOCKET TUESDAY, May 10, 2022 at 5:30 P.M. Hybrid Meeting I. Commission Pre-Meeting (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 5:00 p.m. Location: (CitySpace, 100 5th St NE, Charlottesville, VA 22902 and Electronic/Virtual) II. Commission Regular Meeting Beginning: 5:30 p.m. Location: (CitySpace, 100 5th St NE, Charlottesville, VA 22902 and Electronic/Virtual) A. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS B. UNIVERSITY REPORT C. CHAIR'S REPORT D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA F. CONSENT AGENDA (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) i. Minutes – Regular meeting – July 13, 2021 G. Entrance Corridor Review - Recommendation on SUP for 2005 and 2007 Jefferson Park Avenue and 104 Observatory Avenue (will be discussed with SP22-00001) III. JOINT MEETING OF COMMISSION/ COUNCIL Beginning: 6:00 p.m. Continuing: until all public hearings are completed Format: (i) Staff Report, (ii) Applicant, (iii) Hearing 1. SP22-00001 – 2005 and 2007 Jefferson Park Avenue and 104 Observatory Avenue – Aspen Topco II Acquisitions, LLC (“Contract Purchaser/Applicant”) and Mitchell Matthews Architects (“Applicant’s Representative”) have submitted an application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) for the properties located at 2005 and 2007 Jefferson Park Avenue and 104 Observatory Avenue, identified by Tax Map and Parcels (TMP) 170104000, 170103100, and 170103000 (owners, Norman Lamson, Trustee of the Gadient Land Trust Agreement) (the “Subject Properties”). Pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-420, 34-353(3), and 34-162(a) an application has been submitted requesting increased density from a By-Right 21 Dwelling Units per Acre (“DUA”) to 70 DUA, increased height from a By-Right of 45 feet to 75 feet, a reduction of the rear yard setback from a required 75 feet to 36 feet, and a reduction of the onsite parking by 22% from the requirements stated in Sec. 34-984. The applicant is proposing a multifamily building with 119 units and underground parking. The Subject Properties are approximately 1.71 acres with road frontage on Jefferson Park Avenue, Observatory Avenue, and Washington Avenue and fall within the City Entrance Corridor. The properties are zoned R-3 Medium Density Residential. The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for Urban Mixed Use Corridor which recommends higher intensity mixed use developments up to 5 stories in height, up to 8 stories in height at key intersections and affordable units depending on zoning allowances. Additional information pertaining to this application may be viewed online at www.charlottesville.gov/agenda. Persons interested in the Special Use Permit application may also contact NDS Planner Matt Alfele by e-mail (alfelem@charlottesville.gov) or by telephone (434-970-3636). 2. SP22-00004 – 923 Harris Street – 923 Harris Street LLC (the “Owner”) and Shimp Engineering (the “Applicant”) have submitted an application seeking approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP) for the property located at 923 Harris Street, near the intersection of Harris Street and Cynthianna Drive identified by Tax Map and Parcel (TMP) 350112000 (the “Subject Property”). The property is currently zoned IC Industrial Corridor. The Comprehensive Land Use Map for this area calls for Business and Technology Mixed Use which recommends light industrial/production uses along with allowing for other commercial/residential uses and buildings up to 6 stories in height. Pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-458(b) and 34-480 the Applicant and Owner submitted a request for increased density from a By-Right 21 Dwelling Units per Acre (“DUA”) to 54 DUA. The Applicant is proposing a multifamily building with 7 units and as the Subject Property is approximately 0.13 acres with road frontage on Harris Street, the SUP, if approved, would allow for the construction of the 7 units on the Subject Property. Additional information pertaining to this application may be viewed online at www.charlottesville.gov/agenda. Persons interested in the Special Use Permit application may also contact NDS Planner Brian Haluska by e-mail (haluska@charlottesville.gov) or by telephone (434-970-3186). THE HEARING FOR THIS ITEM WILL BE REPEATED JUNE 2022 DUE TO AN ADVERTISING CONFLICT. IV. COMMISSION’S ACTION ITEMS Continuing: until all action items are concluded. 1. Entrance Corridor Review - 1150 5th Street SW – new convenience store and gas canopy V. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE/ADJOURN Tuesday May 24, 2022 – 5:00 PM Work 5th Street Design and Safety Improvements – session Joint discussion with City Council Tuesday June 14, 2022 – 5:00 PM Pre- Meeting Tuesday June 14, 2022 – 5:30 PM Regular Minutes - August 10, 2021, August 31, 2021, Meeting September 14, 2021, October 11, 2021, October 12, 2021, October 21, 2021, November 9, 2021 Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Manufactured Housing Critical Slope Waiver – Azalea Springs Special Use Permit –1000 Monticello Anticipated Items on Future Agendas Zoning Text Amendments –Off-street parking facilities requirements along streets designated as “framework streets” (initiated May 8, 2018), Site Plan Requirements, Accessory Dwelling Unit, Middle Density zoning and Affordable Dwelling Unit , 12th and Rosser/CH Brown Historic Conservation District (six properties) Rezoning and SUP – 0 Carlton Road Rezoning – 415 10th Street NW, Mount View PUD Preliminary Site Plan - 218 West Market Street Critical Slopes Waiver – Belmont Condominiums Site Plan –Flint Hill PUD, 1223 Harris, Lyndhall Apartments Special Use Permit – Fire Station on 250 Bypass Future Entrance Corridor • 920 E High Street - Comprehensive Sign Plan Request (Sentara) • 1815 JPA - New apartment building (Wassenaar+Winkler Architects) • 1801 Hydraulic Road – revised Comp Sign Plan, revised design review (Hillsdale Place, Riverbend) PLEASE NOTE: THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PRIOR TO THE MEETING. PLEASE NOTE: We are including suggested time frames on Agenda items. These times are subject to change at any time during the meeting. Individuals with disabilities who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in the public meeting may call the ADA Coordinator at (434) 970-3182 or submit a request via email to ada@charlottesville.gov. The City of Charlottesville requests that you provide a 48 hour notice so that proper arrangements may be made. During the local state of emergency related to the Coronavirus (COVID19), City Hall and City Council Chambers are closed to the public and meetings are being conducted virtually via a Zoom webinar. The webinar is broadcast on Comcast Channel 10 and on all the City's streaming platforms including: Facebook, Twitter, and www.charlottesville.gov/streaming. Public hearings and other matters from the public will be heard via the Zoom webinar which requires advanced registration here: www.charlottesville.gov/zoom . You may also participate via telephone and a number is provided with the Zoom registration or by contacting staff at 434-970-3182 to ask for the dial in number for each meeting. LIST OF SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISIONS APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY 4/1/2022 TO 4/30/2022 1. Preliminary Site Plans 2. Final Site Plans a. Center for Christian Studies 128 Chancellor St – April 29, 2022 3. Site Plan Amendments 4. Subdivision a. 201 Montebello Circle (TMP 160017000) - April 19, 2022 b. 105 University Manor (BLA) – April 15, 2022 July 13, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes are included as the last documents in this packet. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT ERB Review of Special Use Permit Request within the Fontaine Avenue / Jefferson Park Avenue Entrance Corridor 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: May 10, 2022 Project Planner: Matt Alfele Date of Hearing: May 10, 2022 Application Number: SP-15-00001 Zoning: R-3 Residential with Entrance Corridor Overlay (Fontaine Ave/JPA; Sub-area C.) Tax Parcels: 17-104, 17-103, 17-103.1 (Note: 17-104 is not within the EC Overlay.) Site Acreage: 1.7 acres (74,531 sq ft) ERB Staff report prepared by: Jeff Werner, AICP, Preservation and Design Planner ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Relevant Code Section Section 34-157 (a)(7). When a property that is the subject of the application for a SUP is within an Entrance Corridor (EC), City Council shall refer the application to the Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB) for recommendations as to whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the district, and for recommendations as to reasonable conditions which, if imposed, that would mitigate any such impacts. The ERB shall return a written report of its recommendations to the City Council. Note: Regardless of the approval or denial of the requested SUP, per Section 34-309, any subsequent development of this site will require design review by the ERB [applying the City’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines (design guidelines)] and approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA). Background The 1.7-acre project site is comprised of three parcels; two (1.5 acres) are within the Fontaine Avenue/Jefferson Park Avenue Entrance Corridor, Sub-area C (Maury Avenue to Emmet Street). The site is the location currently of six (6) residential structures: a c1899, two-story house (converted to apartments), a 1948 single-story house; a 1957 two-story apartment building, a c2000, four-story apartment building, and two c2000, three-story apartment buildings. 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 1 SUP request1 to increase residential density from 21 DUA to 70 DUA. (87 DUA is the max allowed by SUP), will require the following: • Increase building height from 45-ft to 75-ft (101-ft is the max allowed by SUP). • Reduce the rear yard setback from 75-ft (w/25-ft S-3 buffer) to 40-ft (w/25-ft S-3 buffer). • Reduce off-street parking requirements from 200 spaces to 125. Discussion Zoning Requested SUP Comp Plan 2013 EC Vision Rear 75-ft 36-ft n/a n/a Setback Front 25-ft 26-ft n/a 15-ft (min.) Side 20-ft 20-ft n/a 15-ft 5-stories, up to 8 at Height (max.) 45-ft 75-ft 101-ft * 60-ft key intersections Higher intensity mixed High density Density (max) 21 DUA 70 DUA 87 DUA use residential On-site parking 200 125 n/a n/a (min) * w/44 DUA Approx. equivalents: 5-stories = 60-ft. and up 8-stories = 90-ft. Increased residential density Staff comment: No adverse impact on EC. The design guidelines do not address how density, in and of itself, visually impacts an EC. (Whether a building contains 100 small apartments or a single large one, the design review applies the same guidelines relative to scale and design.) Increased height (including massing and scale) Staff comment: No adverse impact on EC; impact(s) of increased height can be mitigated. Note: Following the April 12 deferral, design staff revaluated this request and suggests the increased height will not adversely impact this EC. Importantly, staff’s broader conclusion remains unchanged: The impacts of increased height can be adequately mitigated by application of the design guidelines and addressed during the required ERB design review. EC Guidelines and Comp Plan: • EC design guidelines (adopted 2011). Corridor-specific recommendations for this EC--and sub-area—suggest a 60-feet height maximum for structures on parcels zoned University High Density. • 2013 revisions to the Land Use Map designated the parcels University High Density. 1Mitchell Matthews SUP Application for 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue, dated January 11, 2022: Cover, pages 2 through 37. 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 2 • Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map (adopted 2021): Recommends development as an Urban Mixed-Use Corridor, with a maximum height of five stories, up to eight stories for properties at key intersections. [Note: JPA is not designated a key intersection.] The requested height increase differs from what is recommended for by-right development; however, it is allowed by Special Use Permit and is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which envisions this corridor becoming an area of higher residential density and mixed-use, facilitated by allowing taller and larger structures than the current built form. As presented conceptually, this project is generally consistent with the design guidelines relative to streetscape, site design, and architectural design. This evaluation reflects the City’s vision for this corridor, which is to transform it, not replicate the existing built form. Additionally, during the later design review, application of the design guidelines will further mitigate the impacts of the building’s height, massing, and scale. Perception of a building’s height is a response to its massing and scale--more so than to its vertical or planar dimensions--and is experienced primarily at the pedestrian level. Massing refers to how one perceives a building’s shape and size, its three-dimensional form. Scale refers to the dimensional perception of building within the context of its setting. This perception is further affected by architectural elements, materials, colors, setbacks, and even landscaping. Staff suggests envisioning this project as experienced at the pedestrian level and viewing the site as an urban block bounded by Jefferson Park Avenue Washington Avenue, Observatory Avenue, and the rear setback. The approximately 196-ft by 380-ft block is comparable to other blocks in the City, providing context. (Dimensions are approximate. Illustrations in Appendix.) Location typical block; curb-to-curb Front Side Total Length Area (SF) Downtown Charlottesville 210 256 466 53,760 2005 Jefferson Park Ave 196 380 576 74,480 Rose Hill Neighborhood 350 295 645 103,250 Venable Neighborhood 360 320 680 115,200 Martha Jeff Neighborhood 350 350 700 122,500 Belmont Neighborhood 500 290 790 145,000 Fifeville Neighborhood 800 200 1,000 160,000 10th and Page Neighborhood 800 275 1,075 220,000 Woolen Mills Neighborhood 680 400 1,080 272,000 Facing JPA, the building façade spans approximately 150-feet of the approximately 196-foot wide block. (On Main Street, at the Downtown Mall, buildings generally span approximately 196-feet of the 210-foot wide blocks.) Viewed from JPA, the two, five-story, apartment buildings are separated by a courtyard and sit atop and back from the façade of a two-story, 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 3 masonry foundation. The height, scale, and massing are mitigated by the variation of materials, door and window openings, articulated facades, and street level landscaping, walls and terraces.* Facing Washington Avenue and Observatory Avenue, the building elevations span approximately 310-feet of the approximately 380-foot long block. (The 310-foot elevation is comparable to Memorial Gym (320-ft) and the Culbreth Parking Garage (285-ft). Less than the Water Street Parking Garage (400-ft) and the West Main facades of The Standard (380-ft), The Lark (380-ft), and The Flats (370-ft).) * From the front, NE corner to the back, SW corner the site rises 37-feet. On Observatory Avenue, this allows the masonry foundation to recede into the topography, transitioning the seven-story building to five. On Washington Avenue, the masonry foundation remains visible; however, the wall is articulated, features windows and entrances, and walls and terraces at street level. The building transitions from seven-stories to six; however, at the street level, the elevation of the masonry foundation reads as a two-story building, mitigating the perceived height, scale, and massing of the apartments above.* (* See Appendix for examples of building lengths.) Reduced rear setback Staff comment: No adverse impact on EC. The rear setback is not visible from JPA; reduction will not visually impact the corridor. On-site Parking Staff comment: No adverse impact on EC. The design guidelines address the visual impacts of on-site parking. (Screening, etc.) The on-site parking here will be concealed below-grade and accessed via a single entrance at the NW corner of the site, providing a solution consistent with the design guidelines. Recommendation As demonstrated, the impacts of the increased height are mitigated by design elements [as presented conceptually] and can be further addressed during the ERB’s design review process. The increased height is not prohibited (allowed by SUP) and anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends the increased height and related massing and scale will not adversely impact Sub-Area C of the Fontaine Avenue/Jefferson Park Avenue Entrance Corridor. During that later design review and approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the ERB will consider all design elements; however, staff suggests for the SUP three conditions that will help mitigate the increased height and memorialize desirable elements of the conceptual design. 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 4 • To establish the block-level scale of this project, consideration should be given to dedicating and constructing within the rear setback a multipurpose (bike/ped) path linking Washington Avenue and Observatory Avenue. • Building’s façade and elevations, relative to form, massing, step backs, variation in materiality, and landscaping, shall be generally consistent with the conceptual design presented for the SUP request, • Organization and arrangement of the buildings shall be generally consistent with the conceptual design presented for the SUP request. Public Comments Received See special use permit staff report for comments received. Suggested Motion Finding of no adverse impact: I move to find the impacts of increased building height and related massing and scale can be mitigated during the required design review process and, therefore, will not adversely impact the Fontaine Avenue/Jefferson Park Avenue Entrance Corridor[.] [and, relative to mitigating those impacts, recommend the following conditions for the SUP: …]. (See staff’s recommendations above.) Alternate Motions Finding of adverse impact, mitigation available: I move to find the impacts of increased height and related massing and scale will adversely impact the Fontaine Avenue/Jefferson Park Avenue Entrance Corridor; however, these impacts can be mitigated during the required design review process[.] [and, relative to mitigating those impacts, recommend the following conditions for the SUP: …]. (See staff’s recommendations above.) Finding of adverse impact, no mitigation available: I move to find the impacts of increased height and related massing and scale will--and in a manner that cannot be mitigated during the required design review process--adversely impact the Fontaine Avenue/Jefferson Park Avenue Entrance Corridor. Attachments • Attachment 1: Charlottesville Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines Chapter V: Fontaine Avenue/Jefferson Park Avenue Entrance Corridor (pages 17-19) • Attachment 2: Relevant Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 5 Appendix 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 6 Building façade lengths, for context: • 15th Street NW façade Grand Marc Apartments (5 stories) approx. 450-feet. • Water Street façade Water Street Parking Garage (4 stories) approx. 400-feet. • West Main façade The Standard (5 stories) approx. 380-feet. • 10th Street elevation The Lark (6 stories) approx. 380-feet. • West Main façade The Flats (6 stories) approx. 370-feet. • Water Street facade City Walk Apartments (4 stories) approx. 360-feet • Memorial Gym: (4 stories) approx. 320-ft • 2005 JPA (conceptual): Side elevations (6 stories, mid-block) approx. 310-feet. • Culbreth Parking Garage (3 stories) approx. 285-feet. • Side streets, Downtown Mall: Building wall approx. 235-feet. • West Main facade The Omni (6 stories) approx. 232-feet. • Maywood Lane façade of 1800 JPA (3 stories) approx. 221-feet • Water Street façade CODE Building (8 stories) approx. 215-feet. • 2111 JPA (apartments) front façade (3 stories) approx. 210-feet. • East High Street façade Queen Charlotte condos (4 stories) approx. 200-feet. • Main Street (facing Downtown Mall). Building wall approx. 196-feet. • 1600 JPA west façade South Range Apartments (4 stories) approx. 188-feet • Grady Avenue façade Preston Court Apartments (4 stories) approx. 160-feet • 1815 JPA apartments façade (5 stories) approx. 160-feet • 2005 JPA (conceptual): JPA façade (seven stories) approx. 150-feet • 1600 Monticello Avenue (apartments) (5 stories) approx. 150-feet. • Stadium Road facade Woodrow Apartments (2 stories) approx. 145-feet. • 1830 JPA (apartments) Shamrock Road facade (3 stories) approx. 124-feet. • 1725 JPA (apartments) front façade (6 stories) approx. 100-feet. 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 7 Attachment 1: 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 8 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 9 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 10 Attachment 2. Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines • Chapter I: Introduction o http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793359/1_Introduction_ERB.pdf • Chapter II: Streetscape o http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793360/2_Chapter%20II%20Street scape_ERB.pdf • Chapter III: Site o http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793361/3_Chapter%20III%20Site_E RB.pdf • Chapter IV: Buildings o http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793362/4_Chapter%20IV%20Buildi ngs_ERB.pdf • Chapter V: Entrance Corridors o http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793363/5_Chapter%20V%20Maps %20of%20Corridors_ERB.pdf Design Guidelines relevant to Density n/a Design Guidelines relevant to Height (including massing and scale) Chapter I: Maintain Human Scale in Buildings and Spaces: Consider the impact of building design, especially height, mass, complexity of form, and architectural details, and the impact of spaces created, on the people who will pass by, live, work, or shop there. The size, placement and number of doors, windows, portals and openings define human scale. Chapter IV: Guidelines for Buildings C. Building Mass, Scale & Height 1. Break up the front of a large building by dividing it into individual bays of 25 to 40 feet wide. 2. Use variation in materials, textures, patterns, colors and details to break down the mass and scale of the building. a. Avoid an unmodulated mass b. Use stepped-back height c. Use varied wall surfaces d. Use varied heights with regular width 3. Use building mass appropriate to the site. Place buildings of the greatest footprint, massing, and height in the core of commercial or office developments where the impact on adjacent uses is the least. Follow setback requirements for upper story according to zoning classification of the corridor. 4. When making transitions to lower density areas, modulate the mass of the building to relate to smaller buildings. Heights can be greater if the mass is modulated and other scale techniques are adopted. Reduce height near lower density uses. 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 11 5. Use massing reduction techniques of articulated base, watertables, string courses, cornices, material changes and patterns, and fenestration to reduce the apparent height of a large building. Fake windows and similar details are not appropriate articulation. Floor-to-floor heights of a building can have an impact on the mass of a building. For instance, typical ceiling heights in a residence are 8-9 feet. First floors of office buildings or retail shops can range from 10-15 feet. Upper floors that include residential or office are generally 8-12 feet in height. When actual or implied floor-to-floor heights exceed 15-20 feet on the exterior, then a building may begin to read as more massive than human-scaled. When articulating large buildings, keep these dimensions in mind. Design Guidelines relevant to Setbacks. Chapter III: Guidelines for Sites, D. Building Placement 1. Orient the facade of new buildings to front on the corridor. 2. Limit setback of new buildings according to the zoning of the particular corridor. 3. Limit setbacks at major intersections so that the architecture can help define the area. 4. Use compact building arrangements to reduce the feeling of seas of parking, encourage pedestrian activity and define space. 5. Strive for contiguous building arrangement along the street face, and avoid large breaks between buildings in identified development sites. 6. Ensure that larger developments orient their design to any adjoining neighborhoods and to side streets. 7. Provide breaks in large developments and building masses to allow pedestrian connections between developments. 8. Orient service areas to limit their impact on the development and any neighboring areas. 9. Each side of a corner building that faces a street should be considered a facade of the building for design purposes. Design Guidelines relevant to Parking. Chapter I. Design Principles Mask the Utilitarian: Provide screening from adjacent properties and public view of parking lots, outdoor storage and loading areas, refuse areas, mechanical and communication equipment, and other uses that have adverse impacts. Where feasible, relegate parking behind buildings. Chapter III: Guidelines for Sites, E. Parking 3. Reduce the visibility of residential garages by: a. Not allowing a garage to become the primary architectural feature when a development is viewed from the street, especially for attached housing. b. Placing garages behind the building setback, preferably facing to the side or rear of attached housing. c. Placing garages and parking in the rear with alley access 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 12 Chapter IV: Guidelines for Buildings, E. Facade Organization & Storefronts 3. Secondary entries may be created to allow convenient access from adjacent buildings, sidewalks, parking, bicycle paths and transit stops. Design Guidelines specific to Fontaine Avenue/Jefferson Park Avenue Entrance Corridor (Ref. Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, Chapter V: Corridors, pages 17-19.) Vision statement for Fontaine Avenue/Jefferson Park Avenue Entrance Corridor: This corridor transitions quickly from accommodating highway speed autos to more congested auto, transit, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Foremost considerations are traffic calming, provisions for pedestrian safety, and pedestrian amenities such as sidewalks, landscaping and transit stops. The neighborhood center, Maury Avenue intersection, is currently a bustling, mixed use pedestrian activity area that newer developments strive to emulate. The pedestrian and mixed use characteristics of this neighborhood intersection should not be lost as redevelopment occurs. New mixed use and apartment project design should reflect the character and importance of this major entrance to the City and the University. Historic assets to be protected include the JPA median that formerly accommodated a trolley line, the Fry Spring’s Service Station, and the Oakhurst-Gildersleeve Neighborhood. This corridor is a potential location for public way-finding signage. Recommended General Guidelines for Sub-area: Maury Avenue to Emmet Street: • Put utilities underground that are now located within median • Ensure that off street parking areas are well defined and screened as needed • Design new apartment buildings to break up their large scale and use traditional materials 2005 JPA SUP - ERB staff report (4/27/2022) 13 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER: SP22-00001 DATE OF HEARING: May 10, 2022 Project Planner: Matt Alfele, AICP Date of Staff Report: April 27, 2022 Applicant: Aspen Topco II Acquisitions, LLC (Contract Purchaser) Applicant’s Representative(s): Erin Hannegan with Michell/Matthews Architects & Planners Current Property Owner: Norman Lamson, Trustee of the Gadient Land Trust Agreement Application Information Property Street Address: 2005/2007 Jefferson Park Avenue and 104 Observatory Avenue (“Subject Properties”) Tax Map & Parcel/Tax Status: 170104000, 170103100, and 170103000 (real estate taxes paid current - Sec. 34-10) Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 1.71 acres (74,487 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (Future Land Use Map): Mixed Use Corridor Current Zoning Classification: R-3 Medium-density Residential Overlay District: Entrance Corridor for 2005/2007 Jefferson Park Avenue. No Overlay District for 104 Observatory Avenue Applicant’s Request (Summary) The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit (SUP) pursuant to Code Sec. 34-420, 34-353(3), and Sec. 34-162(a), which allows increased residential density, additional height, and modifications to parking and setbacks. The Subject Properties have street frontage on Jefferson Park Avenue, Observatory Avenue, and Washington Avenue; and a by-right density of 21 dwelling units per acre (DUA). The applicant is looking to increase density to 70 DUA, increase height from a by-right 45 feet to 75 feet, reduce the rear yard setback from the required 75 feet to 36 feet, and reduce the onsite parking by 22% from what is required under Sec. 34-984. The SUP is required in order to accommodate the development being proposed for a 119-unit multifamily building with underground parking. Page 1 of 22 SP22-00001 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP Vicinity Map Subject Properties Context Map 1 Subject Properties Page 2 of 22 SP22-00001 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP Context Map 2- Zoning Classifications Subject Properties KEY - Light Orange: R-2U, Orange: R-3, Orange (lower right) UHD, Purple: NCC, Hatch: Entrance Corridor Context Map 3- Future Land Use Map, 2021 Comprehensive Plan KEY – Brown: Higher-Intensity Residential, Purple: Urban Mixed Use Corridor, Yellow: General Residential Page 3 of 22 SP22-00001 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP Standard of Review City Council may grant an applicant a special permit or special use permit, giving consideration to a number of factors set forth within Zoning Ordinance Sec. 34-157. If Council finds that a proposed use or development will have potentially adverse impacts, and if Council identifies development conditions that could satisfactorily mitigate such impacts, then Council may set forth reasonable conditions within its SUP approval. The role of the Planning Commission is to make an advisory recommendation to the City Council, as to (i) whether or not Council should approve a proposed SUP and if so, (ii) whether there are any reasonable development conditions that could mitigate potentially adverse impacts of the proposed use or development. Section 34-157 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance lists a number of factors that Council will consider in making a decision on a proposed SUP. Following below is staff’s analysis of those factors, based on the information provided by the applicant. For the applicant analysis of their application per Sec. 34-157, see attachment B. (1) Whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood. The properties immediately surrounding the Subject properties are described as: Direction Use Zoning North Single Family Detached R-2U South Multi-Family Apartments (across JPA) University High Density, EC East Single Family Detached and Multi-Family R-3, R-2U, EC Apartments West Single Family Detached and Multi-Family R-3, R-2U, EC Apartments The Subject Properties footprint takes up almost an entire city block and is surrounded by a variety of dwelling types. Directly to the south, across the seventy-foot plus (70+) right of way (ROW) of JPA, are located two multi-family apartments buildings of different sizes. The larger is approximately four (4) stories in height and sits at the highest point of the intersection. Heading northeast along JPA the grade drops and the next structures (multi- family apartments) become only two (2) stories in height. To the north of the Subject Properties (the highest point abutting the proposed development) are moderate single family detached dwellings one (1) to two (2) stories in height. On the eastern side of the Subject Properties the grade rises from JPA heading north along Washington Avenue and the surrounding dwellings are single family detached with heights of one (1) to two (2) stories. This pattern is repeated to the west of the Subject Properties along Observatory Page 4 of 22 SP22-00001 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP Avenue, with the exception of the intersection of JPA and Observatory Avenue where a four (4) story multi-family apartment is located. The uses surrounding the Subject Properties consist of single family, two-family, small multi- family, and moderate multi-family residential as defined by Sec. 34-420. Although commercial and retail uses are within a ¼ mile of the Subject Properties, the overwhelming use type for this location, and surrounding neighborhood, is residential. Within the residential use, the majority of units are rentals, but owner occupied units still exist primarily to the north of the Subject Properties. It should also be noted that although a majority of the dwelling “type” is single family detached, this is only referencing the structure and not the use. Due to the proximity to UVA many of the single family detached units are functioning as small apartments or two-family dwellings. This is a product of bedroom count and allowable unrelated inhabitants per Sec. 34-420. Staff Analysis: The by-right density for the Subject Properties could create a residential development with a maximum of thirty-five (35) units. The proposed SUP would increase that density and would have a maximum unit count of one hundred and nineteen (119). This would be an increase of eight four (84) units over that of a by-right development. Under R-3 regulations, each unit within a residential development can have up to four (4) unrelated persons living in the unit (Sec. 34-420). This would mean a by-right development could have as many as one hundred and forty (140) bedrooms. Although the application materials do not indicate a final bedroom count, page two (2) of attachment B indicates the required parking for the development would be two hundred (200) spaces. This indicates the total bedroom count would be under the maximum allowable of four hundred and seventy-six (476) bedrooms under Sec. 34-420. The most likely final outcome will be a mix of one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom units. The applicant’s Traffic Impact Analysis (attachment E) indicates the bedroom count will be around three hundred and ninety (390). This number will need to be finalized during the final site plan review. The majority of residential developments surrounding the Subject Properties have a unit count from one (1) to ten (10) with more density (over twenty units per dwelling) to the south of JPA (information provided by the City Assessor’s Office). Developing the Subject Properties to a unit count of one hundred and nineteen (119) would create one of the largest multi-family residential developments in the area. Although it is true that comparable developments are located in this area (as it relates to density and height), these developments are located farther north on JPA. For comparison, below are the dwelling unit counts for the larger multi-family residential developments in the immediate area: • 1725 JPA = nineteen (19) units and six (6) stories (DUA of 49) Page 5 of 22 SP22-00001 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP • 1815 JPA = thirty (30) units and four (4) stories (DUA of 47) • 2111 JPA = thirty-four (34) units and (3) stories (DUA of 55) These counts only indicate units and not bedrooms. For a maximum bedroom count the unit count can be multiplied by four (4). Based on the surrounding uses, staff believes the “use” of multi-family residential on the Subject Properties is harmonious with the existing patterns of development. By contrast, staff believes the scale and density of the development is not harmonious with the existing patterns within the neighborhood. (2) Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the request could be in compliance: a. Land Use, Urban Form, and Historic & Cultural Preservation Goal 2: Future Land Use Vision. Guide implementation of the Future Land Use vision contained in this Comprehensive Plan, including support for existing neighborhoods and preventing displacement. Goal 7: Entrance Corridors. Ensure that the quality of development in Charlottesville’s designated Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts is compatible with the City’s requirements and standards, and with the adjacent neighborhood’s historic, architectural, and cultural resources, while allowing for reuse of structures and evolution of uses in these areas. b. Housing Goal 2: Diverse Housing Throughout the City. Support a wide range of rental and homeownership housing choices that are integrated and balanced across the city, and that meet multiple City goals including community sustainability, walkability, bikeability, ADA accessibility, public transit use, increased support for families with children and low0income households, access to food, access to local jobs, thriving local businesses, and decreased vehicle use. c. Transportation Goal 1: Complete Streets Create and maintain a connected network of safe, convenient, and pleasant accommodations for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders, including people of all ages and abilities. Goal 2: Coordination with Land Use & Community Design Page 6 of 22 SP22-00001 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP Improve quality of life and promote active living by reducing automobile use and congestion and supporting multimodal options for safe and convenient travel in conjunction with implementation of the Future Land Use Vision. Goal 4: Parking Supply and Management Provide a balanced approach to parking that supports economic vitality, achieves urban form goals, minimizes environmental impacts, and accommodates pedestrians, bicycles, transit users, and disabled individuals. d. Environment, Climate, and Food Equity Goal 6: Tree Canopy Contribute to the creation, protection, and expansion of robust urban forests. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the request may not be in compliance: a. Land Use, Urban Form, and Historic & Cultural Preservation Goal 3: Balance Conservation and Preservation with Change. Protect and enhance the existing distinct identities of the city’s neighborhoods and places while promoting and prioritizing infill development, housing options, a mix of uses, and sustainable reuse in our community Goal 7: Entrance Corridors. Ensure that the quality of development in Charlottesville’s designated Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts is compatible with the City’s requirements and standards, and with the adjacent neighborhood’s historic, architectural, and cultural resources, while allowing for reuse of structures and evolution of uses in these areas. b. Environment, Climate, and Food Equity Goal 6: Tree Canopy Contribute to the creation, protection, and expansion of robust urban forests. Comprehensive Plan- Staff Analysis: The Subject Properties are zoned R-3 with Entrance Corridor overlay. R-3 consists of mainly medium density residential units with small to medium apartment buildings being the most common use. In this section of the City most development on R-3 lots are by-right and have a density of twenty-one (21) DUA. Some of the larger developments in the area, ones with DUA over 21, were granted SUPs, constructed prior to the current code, or are located within the UHD zoning district. The 2021 Comprehensive Future Land Use Map indicates the Page 7 of 22 SP22-00001 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP Subject Properties remain Urban Mixed Use Corridor. The land use section of the comprehensive plan states the following for Urban Mixed Use Corridor: Description: Higher intensity mixed use development arranged along corridors between employment, commercial, and civic hubs of the City. Form: Respond to existing residential, environmental, historic context. building heights according to context. Height: 5 stories, up to 8 at key intersections, such as intersections of Streets That Work Downtown, Industrial, Mixed Use, or Neighborhood corridors. Use and Affordability: Commercial, employment, residential. Include an inclusionary zoning mechanism to support housing affordability. As presented, the development will be required to provide nine (9) affordable dwelling units on or off site; or pay $493,094.88 into the City’s Affordable Housing fund per Sec. 34- 12 (attachment C). Staff finds the proposed development conforms to the Future Land Use Map as it relates to Description and Use and the general goal of the plan and map as it relates to increasing density along the JPA corridor but would not conform to Form and Height. The application, as proposed, would have seven (7) stories at the JPA and Washington/Observatory Avenue intersections. It is stated that buildings up to eight (8) stories are appropriate at “key intersections” in this district. Key intersections are not called out in any City planning documents, but it is staff’s professional opinion that Washington Avenue and Observatory Avenue would not be categorized as “key intersections” due to existing conditions and level of use. Key intersections for this area would most likely be JPA at Maury Avenue and JPA at Shamrock Road. The applicant is noting that although Washington/Observatory are not “key intersections’, a seven (7) story building at this location would transition from the stated goal of five (5) within the district to a future eight (8) at Maury. Staff finds that design elements being incorporated into the building, such as stepping back the bulk after two (2) stories on the western frontage and additional articulation could make the building feel smaller than seven (7) stories. Staff is concerned with the eastern frontage of the building as it is the tallest portion of the structure due to grade. A five (5) story building would be more appropriate in this location, but the impacts of the increased height can be mitigated during the subsequent design review process and application of the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines. In addition, staff cannot make a full determination on Affordability or Density as those aspects of the land use map are tied to a future zoning code. Page 8 of 22 SP22-00001 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP Streets that Work Plan The 2016 Streets that Work Plan labels Jefferson Park Avenue (JPA) as Mixed Use B typology. Mixed Use B streets are characterized as able to support high levels of walking, bicycling, and transit as they connect important destinations within the City and surrounding county. The Streets that Work Plan recommends a minimum clear zone width of seven (7) feet for sidewalks, which are noted along with a curbside buffer zone (the area between the curb and sidewalk) as the highest priority items in the Mixed Use B typology. The next level (high) priority items for Mixed Use B typology are five (5) to seven (7) foot bike lanes, turn boxes, ten (10) foot shared use paths, and bicycle parking in curbside buffer zoned or on-street. The existing conditions for JPA include a 4.5 foot wide sidewalks with no buffer, on street parking, a marked bike lane, and crosswalk markings over Washington Avenue. As part of the development, per attachment B, the applicant will provide a larger sidewalk (no dimensions given) and additional pedestrian access next to the building. The Streets that Work Plans labels Washington Avenue and Observatory Avenue as “Local”. Local streets are found throughout the city and provide immediate access to all types of land uses. Although local streets form the majority of the street network, there is no specific typology associated with them. This is due in part to the many variations in context and right-of-way width, as well as the community’s expressed desire to replicate as nearly as possible the feel of older local streets that do not meet current engineering and fire code standards. The existing conditions for Washington Avenue are similar to many of the Local streets in the City. No sidewalk exists on the Subject Properties side and only a partial four (4) foot wide sidewalk is constructed on the opposite (eastern) side. This sidewalk starts at the intersection of JPA and runs north for about one-hundred and fifty (150) feet before ending. The conditions are the same for Observatory Avenue, but with a newer four (4.5) foot wide sidewalk on the side opposite (western) to the Subject Properties. This sidewalk also starts at the intersection of JPA and runs north for about one-hundred and fifty (150) feet. On the Subject Properties side a four (4.5) foot wide sidewalk (with no buffer) starts about two- hundred (200) feet from the intersection with JPA and continues north to the end of the Subject Properties. In relation to connectivity, Washington Avenue connects JPA to Stadium Road. Observatory Avenue terminates into a dead-end about three-hundred (300) feet north of the Subject Properties. As part of the proposed development a sidewalk (no dimensions provided) without a planting buffer will be constructed along Washington Avenue and JPA. Along Observatory Avenue a sidewalk (no dimensions provided) with a Page 9 of 22 SP22-00001 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP buffer is being proposed. The development also proposes on street parking for both Washington Avenue and Observatory Avenue. This would be permitted parking but not available to residents and guest of the development (see 4(a) below). Staff Analysis: Based on the application package, staff concludes that the pedestrian network along Washington and Observatory as shown on attachment B, would be consistent with the City’s Streets that Work Plan and would be an upgrade to the existing conditions. It should be noted that any by-right development on the Subject Properties would not require the construction of sidewalks per Sec. 34-1124 as the Subject Properties are not vacant. For JPA staff believes the pedestrian network is not consistent with the City’s Streets That Work Plan. Staff would like to see a seven (7) foot sidewalk with a three (3) foot landscape buffer proposed for JPA. This would address the highest priorities of Mixed Use B Streets for this area. Bike Ped Master Plan The City’s 2015 Bike Ped Master Plan indicates JPA to have “Bike Lanes or Buffered Bike Lanes”. Bicycle lanes are one-way, on-road bike facilities that provide a dedicated space for people bicycling parallel to motor vehicle traffic. Bicycle lines are often delineated with pavement marking stripes and, in some cases, may be fully colored for higher visibility, especially at intersections. Additional striping or hatching between a bicycle lane and vehicular travel lane is recommended to provide a buffer between the person bicycling and the person driving, where roadway widths allow. Bicycle lanes without a buffer require a minimum width of 5-6 feet and bicycle lanes with a buffer require 7-8 feet. JPA currently has bike lanes and nothing in the proposed plan alters this existing feature. No improvements are recommended for Washington and Observatory Avenues within the Bike Ped Master Plan. (3) Whether proposed use or development of any buildings or structures will comply with all applicable building code regulations. Based on the information contained within the application the proposed development would likely comply with applicable building code regulations, but final determination cannot be made until final site plan review. (4) Potential adverse impacts, including, but not necessarily limited to: a) Traffic or parking congestion Traffic Page 10 of 22 SP22-00001 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis (Attachment E) provided by the applicant. The following information is a synopsis of the information provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis. Please see Attachment E for more information. Trip generation information (VPD): The trip generation figures provided by the applicant indicate that a development of off campus student housing apartments will have 1,070 vehicular trips per day. Peak-hour traffic: As shown in the trip generation, the morning peak hour would have 38 trips. The afternoon peak hour would have 53 trips. A mid-day peak would also occur with 84 trips. As this development is targeted toward campus housing, the newest edition of the ITE manual accounts for this different use rather than a normal apartment building as it generally has a different time of day trip generation. Traffic Counts, adjacent streets—The applicant conducted a traffic count study on August 31st, 2021 (background data included in Attachment E). The study found that the existing traffic volumes are as follows: • Jefferson Park Avenue: Approximately 12,000 vehicles per day (ADT) • Stadium Road: Approximately 3,800 vehicles per day (ADT) • Observatory Avenue: Approximately 200 vehicles per day (ADT) • Washington Avenue: Approximately 200 vehicles per day (ADT) At the direction of staff, the applicant did evaluate the intersections most effected by the development to see if the increased traffic would satisfy requirements for additional traffic signals. It was found that signalized intersections would not be warranted. Staff Analysis: The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the provided Traffic Impact Analysis, and found the information provided to be sufficient and appropriate. The proposed development and increased residential density, while increasing traffic on the roadway, will not create an adverse effect on traffic on surrounding City streets. Much of this is due to the redistribution of trips in the “off campus student housing” and the location of the project to UVA and proximity to both CAT and UTS transit options. Vehicular Access The proposed project will only have one vehicular access point off of Washington Avenue to an underground parking facility. Page 11 of 22 SP22-00001 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP Staff Analysis: While in many conditions multiple access points are desirable, for this particular location the traffic engineer has agreed that a singular access point is not only acceptable, but desirable. The building will be close enough to Observatory for fire apparatus to service the building if needed. As Observatory and Washington Avenue are less than 250 feet apart, having a singular access point for the traveling public to have to anticipate vehicles turning in and out is beneficial. Observatory is also a sub-standard roadway and would have difficulty accommodating additional traffic while still maintaining the on-street parking that is currently present. Parking As part of the applicants request to increase density, the applicant is also requesting to reduce the onsite parking by twenty-two percent (22%) of the requirements under Sec. 34-984. Under Sec. 34-984 efficiency, one-bedroom and two-bedroom units need to provide a minimum of one (1) space per unit. Three- and four-bedroom units need to provide two (2) spaces per units. The application materials do not call out a final unit count for each type, but it is indicated studio, one-, two-, three- and four-bedroom units are being considered. If built out to a max of one-hundred and nineteen (119) four- bedroom units, two-hundred and thirty-eight (238) onsite parking spots would be required. With a twenty-two percent (22%) reduction the minimum parking required, in this configuration, would be one-hundred and eighty-six (186). The application materials indicate the final space count will be one-hundred and twenty-five (125). This indicates some of the units will fall under the requirement of only needing one (1) space per unit and not two (2). Under the current plan all parking will be provided under the proposed development with one access point on Washington Avenue. Due to current regulations, the proposed development would not be eligible to obtain on street parking permits in this zone (Zone 1). This means residents and guest of the proposed development would not be allowed to park on Washington or Observatory within the restricted hours setout is Section 15-208: Sunday, 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday, 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. restricted parking areas designated within zone 1 on or after May 20, 2002. Non permit parking is allowed on JPA. Other Modes of Transportation There are several mass transit stops located within a quarter (1/4) mile, including stops on JPA, Shamrock, Fontaine and Stadium that are serviced by both the UTS and the CAT’s free trolly. JPA has bike lanes in both directions that connect all the way to UVA and to West Main Street. The proposed development is also served by a complete (but mostly un-buffered) sidewalk network immediately adjacent to the Subject Properties along JPA but has limited sidewalk along Washington Avenue (see the above Streets Page 12 of 22 SP22-00001 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP that Work and Bike Ped Master Plan sections). The Subject Properties could be served by a system of scooter and bicycle programs due to the proximity to UVA. Staff Analysis: Staff believes a condition should be placed on the applicant to upgrade the existing pedestrian crossing at Harmon Street for residents to have a more manageable way to access all transit options that are being so heavily leveraged in the proposed development. Additional sidewalk along Washington Avenue to connect to Stadium Road, while ideal, is not practical with this project. Staff Analysis: Based on the information provided in the application it appears an increase in density from twenty-one (21) DUA to seventy (70) DUA would not have an adverse impact related to traffic and transportation. The proposed development could have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood as it relates to parking should adequate measures not be implemented. Staff recommends conditioning the applicant work with the City Traffic Engineer to develop a detailed parking plan that is kept on file with the City. Staff Analysis: Staff finds the existing pedestrian circulation plan is not adequate and the sidewalk on JPA should be updated to meet the standards described in the Streets that work Plan. Staff recommends a condition that the applicant provide seven (7) foot sidewalks with a planting buffer on JPA. b) Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment The proposed development will not result in any additional dust, odor, fumes, vibration, or other factors that could also be present with any by-right development. It should be noted that due to the height and density, noise and lighting could be more intense than would be present in a by-right development. Any site plan submitted would need to conform to Division 3 Lighting of the Zoning Ordinance. c) Displacement of existing residents or businesses There are currently six (6) buildings on the Subject Properties totaling seventeen (17) dwelling units. These units would be removed to accommodate the proposed development. The application materials indicate construction would not begin until existing leases expire. With the replacement of the existing units the net gain for the Subject Properties will be one hundred-two (102) units. Page 13 of 22 SP22-00001 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP d) Discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base No discouragement of economic development activities will be associated with the proposed development. The existing rental unit count will be multiplied by seven (7) upon completion. Prior to completion of the project, the Subject Properties would be vacant and not contributing at current levels. e) Undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available The City’s Comprehensive Plan identifies community facilities as fire protection, police enforcement, and emergency response services; public utilities and infrastructure; and public parks and recreation opportunities. Although final determination for capacity and code compliance will take place at Final Site Plan review, each of these departments have reviewed the SUP applicant and determined the development, as proposed, would not have an adverse impact on community facilities. f) Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood This application includes the Affordable Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ordinance Worksheet, which currently identifies a minimum of nine (9) ADUs required pursuant to the gross floor area proposed in excess of 1.0 FAR (per Sec. 34-12. - Affordable dwelling units.). Cash-in-Lieu Payment information is also included on the worksheet. The applicant has indicated they will be pursuing the cash-in-lieu option. The Office of Community Solutions offers the following comments as to this application: • preference that on-site affordable dwelling units be provided for City residents (not students) with this project vs. cash-in-lieu payment • "affordable dwelling units" means dwelling units that are affordable to households with incomes at not more than 80% of the area median income and that are committed to remain affordable for a term of not more than thirty (30) years • A marketing plan on how to market the designated affordable units shall be provided to the City’s Office of Community Solutions • When completed and occupied, owner shall provide an annual report on affordability compliance to the City on a template provided by the City’s Office of Community Solutions Page 14 of 22 SP22-00001 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP The table below shows the 2022 HUD guidelines for Fair Market Rent. If this application is approved, the FMR will be based on the HUD guidelines for the year that the Certificate of Occupancy for the unit is issued. Eff 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 2022 HUD FMR 1,024 1,063 1,264 1,562 1,959 Monthly cost includes tenant-paid utilities g) Impact on school population and facilities Because housing is open to all, there is a possibility that families with children could take residence here. Therefore, some impact could be created on school population and facilities. h) Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts The subject property is not within any of these design control districts. i) Conformity with federal, state and local laws, as demonstrated and certified by the applicant Based on the information contained within the application, the proposed development would likely comply with applicable federal and state laws. As to local ordinances (zoning, water protection, etc.), it generally appears that this project, as detailed in the application, can be accommodated on this site in compliance with applicable local ordinances; however, final determinations cannot be made prior to having the details required for final site plan and building permit approvals. Specific Z.O. requirements reviewed preliminarily at this stage include massing and scale (building height, setbacks, stepbacks, etc.) and general planned uses. j) Massing and scale of project The building being proposed has a footprint of approximately fifty-one thousand two hundred (51,200) square feet and will take up the entire block between Washington Avenue and Observatory Avenue. The height of the building will be seventy-five (75) feet as measured per Sec. 34-1100 and Sec. 34-1200 but could appear taller from JPA and shorter from the back of the Subject Properties. The application materials indicate the building will be five (5) stories of apartment over two (2) stories of underground parking. This makes the building seven (7) stories as viewed from JPA and five (5) stories as viewed from the back of the Subject Properties. In the application renderings, the apartments are configured in a “U” shape above the underground parking. This Page 15 of 22 SP22-00001 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP configuration makes the overall development appear as two (2) buildings and breaks up the massing as viewed from JPA. The front setback will be just over twenty-six (26) feet with side setbacks of twenty (20) feet. The rear setback will be thirty-six (36) feet. The maximum height allowed in this zoning district is one-hundred and one (101) feet with a Special Use Permit and a DUA of forty-four (44) or above per Sec. 34-353(b)(3). Buildings in the R-3 zoning district are measured by feet and not stories. This conflicts with the 2021 Future Land Use Map as “Height” is measured in stories for this land use designation. Should the Subject Properties be developed by-right, the max height allowed would be forty-five (45) feet. Another characteristic of the R-3 zoning districts is side yard setbacks are calculated based on the height and density of the building. But this is only applicable for side setbacks “not” adjacent to ROW or considered “corner lots”. For corner lot setbacks, the required distance is a set twenty (20) feet and is not altered by the height and/or density of the building per Sec. 34-343(a). The development as presented would meet side and front setback requirements. Sec. 34- 343(b)(4) requires a seventy-five (75) foot setback from any multifamily development with a DUA of forty-four (44) and above when adjacent to a low density zoned district. The proposed development is adjacent to a R-2U lot which is considered low density. As part of the SUP the applicant is requesting to modify this requirement to make the rear yard setback thirty-six (36) feet. Staff Analysis: This section reflects staff’s analysis as it relates to Massing and Scale for the SUP. For more detailed information on design and how the proposed development could impact the Entrance Corridor, see the ERB Staff Report. Also, it should be noted that the final design of the proposed development is subject to review by the Entrance Corridor Review Board and to date that application has not been submitted. According to the City’s Future Land Use Map the JPA corridor is anticipated to go through a significant change in the coming years based off the stated goals of the plan. These goals include more “intense” mixed use developments within five (5) and eight (8) story buildings. Although this is the vision for the corridor, the neighborhood directly impacted by the proposed development is still mainly a mix of one (1) and two (2) story residential dwellings. Staff is concerned with the impact such a large building could have on these properties. Staff believes some of the massing has been broken up by arranging the apartment units in a “U”. This makes the building look like two (2) smaller buildings sitting on a pedestal from a pedestrian perspective on JPA. Staff would like to see the seven (7) story section of the building that is located at the corner of JPA and Washington Avenue pushed back or articulated more in order to scale back the massing Page 16 of 22 SP22-00001 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP at that intersection. In general, staff does believe the massing and scale of the development as it relates to JPA will activate the street and create an inviting pedestrian experience. Staff’s biggest concern with the massing and scale relates to the portion of the building that abuts the low density residential zoned district. The application materials (attachment B) indicate the five (5) story section of the building will only be twenty (20) feet taller than max by-right height of any future building to the north thirty-five (35) feet. There is currently one (1) two-story building and one (1) three-story building within approximately thirty-six (36) feet of the property line. This is the same setback the application is requesting for the new development. See insert below: In addition, below is a view of the existing two-story building (far left) as seen in relation to the existing low density residential unit (far right) from Washington Avenue. Page 17 of 22 SP22-00001 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP As is evident, the existing two-story unit is already taller than the existing low density structure. Staff is concerned three (3) additional stories on the Subject Properties could create an inappropriate transition to that existing structure. Should that property be redeveloped in the future, the height difference would only be twenty (20) feet. Staff believes the twenty-five (25) foot S-3 planting buffer will offer protection and it may be appropriate to incorporate a privacy fence too in some areas. This would be addressed at final site plan review. Staff would like to see the building step-back after two-stories or see the grade lowered on the back end of the Subject Properties to ensure a better transition to the low density district if posable, but staff would be satisfied with large mature evergreen trees and screening buffering the twenty-five (25) feet from the property line. Staff is less concerned with the massing along Washington Avenue as an existing four and one half (4 ½) story building already sits in close proximity to the street. Although the proposed building replacing this structure will be larger, the improved streetscape, setback, and articulation will mitigate the impact. Although the existing buildings along Observatory Avenue (on the Subject Properties) are not as tall as the one on Washington Avenue, staff believes the improved streetscape, setback, and articulation will mitigate the impact of the proposed five (5) to seven (7) story building. Page 18 of 22 SP22-00001 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP (5) Whether the proposed use or development will be in harmony with the purposes of the specific zoning district in which it will be placed; The Subject Properties are currently zoned R-3 with Entrance Corridor (EC) overlay. The purpose of the multifamily residential zoning district is to provide areas for medium- to high-density residential development. The basic permitted use is medium-density residential development; however, higher density residential development may be permitted where harmonious with surrounding areas. Certain additional uses may be permitted, in cases where the character of the district will not be altered by levels of traffic, parking, lighting, noise, or other impacts associated with such uses. R-3 consists of medium-density residential areas in which medium-density residential developments, including multifamily uses, are encouraged. The entrance corridor overlay district (EC) is intended to implement the comprehensive plan goal of protecting the city's historic, architectural and cultural resources, by ensuring a quality of development compatible with those resources through design control measures. The purposes of this article are to stabilize and improve property values; to protect and enhance the city's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the city from tourism; to support and stimulate development complimentary to the prominence afforded properties and districts having historic, architectural or cultural significance; all of the foregoing being deemed to advance and promote the health, safety and welfare of the general public. Staff Analysis: Staff finds that although the Zoning Ordinance does not define “medium- density, Sec. 34-420 indicates any density up to eighty-seven (87) DUA is appropriate in the Page 19 of 22 SP22-00001 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP R-3 districts. Nothing within the SUP application would conflict with the district regulations. Additional information on the EC is provided under the ERB Staff Report. (6) Whether the proposed use or development will meet applicable general and specific standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, or other city ordinances or regulations; and Based on the information contained within the application, the proposed development would likely comply with applicable local ordinances. However, final determinations cannot be made prior to having the details required for final site plan and building permit approvals. (7) When the property that is the subject of the application for a special use permit is within a design control district, city council shall refer the application to the BAR or ERB, as may be applicable, for recommendations as to whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the district, and for recommendations as to reasonable conditions which, if imposed, that would mitigate any such impacts. The BAR or ERB, as applicable, shall return a written report of its recommendations to the city council. The Subject Property is located within an Entrance Corridor Overlay, where the final design of the proposed development is subject to review by the Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB). Public Comments Received Community Meetings Required by Sec. 34-41(c)(2) The applicant held a community meeting on December 7, 2021 and was well attended by twelve (12) members of the public. A recording of the meeting can be found at the below link. https://transcripts.gotomeeting.com/#/s/9e98af90f4404d2dd2a2a7d7cca2cfaff77ec76ae4c36d 12fdfbebefe6788c32 Staff has received a number of emails and phone calls (attachment D) expressing concerns with the development. Below is an outline of these concerns: • Lack of on street parking: Observatory and Washington already deal with a lack of on street parking that impact everything from trash pick up to blocking driveways. • Parking will be inadequate for the development and impact the surrounding neighborhood. • The scale of the building will be much larger than any of the surrounding buildings. • The project will place too much density in one location. • The development will remove existing trees that are part of the urban forest. Page 20 of 22 SP22-00001 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP • Students living in the development will still have cars and not walk and take the bus everywhere. • Visitor parking is not accounted for. • The new development will create too much impervious surface and not be environmentally friendly. • The setback should not be reduced. Any comments received after the completion of this staff report will be directly sent to Planning Commission and City Council. Staff Recommendation Staff finds the applications meets general standards three (3), five (5), and six (6) and with reasonable conditions the application would meet standards two (2), four (4), and seven (7). The application does not meet standard one (1). Recommended Conditions Should Planning Commission recommend approval to City Council, Staff recommends that following conditions be included: 1. Up to seventy (70) dwelling units per acre (DUA) are permitted on the Subject Properties. 2. Modification of rear yard setback to thirty-six (36) feet with a twenty-five (25) foot S-3 buffer. 3. A new seven (7) foot sidewalk with three (3) foot curbside buffer shall be constructed along Jefferson Park Avenue in accordance with the City’s Streets That Work Plan. 4. The applicant will work with the City’s Traffic Engineer to develop a Master Parking Plan for the site. This plan will be kept on file with the City and may be updated or altered from time to time with authorization of the City’s Traffic Engineer. The plan shall indicate how the developer will distribute available parking spots on site, how potential residents are informed of their parking opportunities, and any possible offsite parking arrangements for residents, etc.… 5. The pedestrian crossing of JPA at Harmon Street will be upgraded to provide safer access to transit options. The applicant will work with the City’s Traffic Engineer to determine appropriate improvements. 6. The rear setback will include a twenty-five (25) foot wide S-3 buffer with mature trees and shrubs at time of planting. As a S-3 screening buffer is only ten (10) feet wide per code, additional trees and shrubs may be required to create an adequate buffer. Staff will determine appropriate screening in line with this condition at final site plan review. Page 21 of 22 SP22-00001 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP Suggested Motions 1. I move to recommend approval of this application for a Special Use Permit in the R-3 zone at 170104000, 170103000, and 170103100, collectively 2005/2007 Jefferson Park Avenue and 104 Observatory Avenue to permit additional density with the following listed conditions. a. The six (6) conditions recommended by staff b. [alternative conditions, or additional condition(s)….list here] Or 2. I move to recommend denial of this application for a Special Use Permit in the R-3 zone at 170104000, 170103000, and 170103100 collectively 2005/2007 Jefferson Park Avenue and 104 Observatory Avenue to permit additional density. Attachments A. Special Use Permit Application B. Special Use Permit Narrative and supporting documents C. Affordable Dwelling Unit Ordinance Worksheet D. Public Comments E. Traffic Impact Analysis Page 22 of 22 Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment B 2005 JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE C H A R L O T T E S V I L L E , V A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION M I T C H E L L M AT T H E W S A R C H I T E C T S JANUARY 11, 2022 Attachment B REQUEST FOR INFORMAL REVIEW OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUESTS (LISTED BELOW) AND ENTRANCE CORRIDOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS INTRODUCTION: 2005 JPA is a proposed multi-family residential development on Jefferson Park Avenue. The project consists of residential units over parking and is situated in close proximity (walking distance) to the University of Virginia’s central grounds. The project is within an entrance corridor. LOCATION: 2005, 2007 Jefferson Park Avenue and 104 Observatory Avenue, an assemblage of 3 lots, with frontage on Jefferson Park Avenue between Observatory Avenue and Washington Avenue. ZONING: The property is currently zoned R-3 in the City of Charlottesville. PROPOSED USE: Multi-Family Residential SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: A Special Use Permit (SUP) is being requested for: 1) Additional Density: Allowable by right: Up to 21 DUA Allowable by SUP: Up to 87 DUA. PROPOSED: 70 DUA 2) Additional Height: Allowable by right: 45’ max Allowable by SUP: Up to 101’ (44-87 DUA) PROPOSED: 75’, from average grade plane 3) Rear yard setback reduction: Required: 75’ (for 44-87 DUA), with a 25’ S-3 buffer PROPOSED: 36’, with a 25’ S-3 buffer 4) Parking reduction: Required: Studios, One and Two Bedroom Apts: 1 space PROPOSED: 22% reduction in required spaces Three or Four Bedroom Apts: 2 spaces (125 spaces after allowable reductions) 200 spaces JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOLLOWS. REFER TO SECTION 1 (page 6) FOR INFORMATION ON THE SURROUNDING CONTEXT. REFER TO SECTION 2 (page 14) FOR ANALYSIS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN VISION FOR THIS AREA THROUGH THE LAST FEW DECADES. REFER TO SECTION 3 (page 24) FOR ILLUSTRATIVE INFORMATION EXPLAINING THE PROPOSED PROJECT. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Architects & Planners 2 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B 1. Whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with The project allows for an amenity space at street level for potential density is desirable, promotes a more sustainable city. existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood: conversion to future commercial use – while still fitting the definition The proposed multi-family residential project is harmonious with the of an ancillary consumer service business, allowable within R-3 Chapter 6: Transportation: existing patterns of use in this neighborhood – residential, predominately zoning. This will create a compatible condition that both meets current The proposal will allow students to live in easy walking distance to student rentals. The neighborhood is coincident with Census Tract 6.0, zoning, the 2013 comprehensive plan’s goal of a mix of uses within both UVA and nearby commercial areas (the Corner and Fontaine)— which is characterized by 93% of the current dwellings being renter- walking distance of residential that encourages small businesses, as well as in close proximity to a bus stop - helping to minimize the occupied and 79% being non-family household types. The proposed and the future vision outlined in the ongoing comprehensive plan use of private automobile transportation. project is also consistent with the goals of the current zoning ordinance, work. and recently approved projects on Jefferson Park Avenue. This project Goal #1: Complete Streets Observatory Avenue and Washington promotes a sustainable community – making efficient use of the land and Goal #7: Entrance Corridors This proposed project will be a quality Ave will both benefit from increased pedestrian infrastructure as a placing carefully designed student housing in close proximity to UVA. We development along one of the city’s most frequented entrance result of this project. Jefferson Park Avenue is already a multi-modal anticipate that the scale, material choices and detailing of this proposed corridors. Street trees and other landscape elements will enhance through corridor with sufficient pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular residential building will strengthen the character of Jefferson Park Avenue the streetscape and contribute to the urban design. infrastructure to accommodate this project. and the whole JPA neighborhood. Chapter 5: Housing: Goal #2: Coordination with Land Use & Community Design 2. Whether the proposed use or development and associated public The proposed redevelopment of 2005 JPA will increase the The proposed development will increase pedestrian safety on all facilities will substantially conform to the city’s comprehensive neighborhood’s housing stock in a location that can both support three adjacent streets by minimizing vehicular access points – an plan: The redevelopment of 2005 JPA conforms to both the current and increased density and that has been earmarked by the City for improvement over current conditions. All parking will be on site and previous comprehensive plans in the following areas: increased residential use. Specifically, it will increase purpose-built hidden from view below grade, lessoning the existing pressure for student housing, which will decrease the pressure on single-family on street parking and assisting in the creation of a more pedestrian Chapter 4: Land Use: residential neighborhoods that are increasingly being populated by friendly environment. Ample on-site bicycle storage facilities will be This stretch of Jefferson Park Avenue is commonly considered student rentals, such as the adjacent Fry’s Spring Neighborhood, provided. a student housing corridor between UVA / UVA Hospital and the or the growth and expansion experienced on other sides of Fry’s Spring / Fontaine Ave Neighborhood Commercial area. It is the University, into the Lewis Mountain and the 10th and Page predominately vehicular oriented and classified in the Streets that neighborhoods. Displacement within established neighborhoods 3. Whether proposed use or development of any buildings or structures Work typology as Mixed Use B, the equivalent of West Main Street, and affordability issues across the city are directly related to the will comply with all applicable building code regulations: The Millmont Street, Cherry Avenue, and University Avenue. It is a multi- historical lack of student housing supply. structures and site will be designed to comply with all applicable building modal street that supports higher density development projects. The code regulations. vitality of the street comes from its intensity of use for transportation Of utmost importance is an increase in city housing stock alongside – thus its designation as an Entrance Corridor. A wide range of the equitable impact of such development. Placing increased height residential densities and diverse architectural styles currently defines and reasonable residential density in a predominately student rental its character. JPA embodies the evolution of off-campus student neighborhood, along a transit oriented corridor, supports the city’s housing around the University of Virginia. It is currently a corridor goals and vision. that is evolving, as expected. The ongoing comprehensive plan re- write currently envisions it as an urban mixed-use corridor, defined Not only will this residential project add to the city’s existing housing as higher-intensity mixed-use development linking employment, stock, it will also trigger the affordable housing ordinance, supporting commercial and civic hubs. This project bridges between the current affordable housing throughout the city. ordinance and the future vision of the corridor, by contributing to the establishment of a vibrant, engaged sense of place that can be This residential building expands the diversity of housing choices replicated along Jefferson Park Avenue - one of a walkable, people- in this area of the city, thereby balancing offerings with other areas focused, urban project that aids the city in its supply of housing such as along the West Main Street corridor, or Millmont Street. stock. Increased density in close proximity to UVA, where increased 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA SUP REVIEW CRITERIA: SECTION 34-157 Architects & Planners 3 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B building is a U-shape – with the open end facing JPA. This arrangement 4. Whether the proposed use or development will have any potentially e. Undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to creates two narrow residential wings projecting towards the street, one adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, or the community the community facilities existing or available; The proposed extending farther than the other – reducing the massing and scale of in general; and if so, whether there are any reasonable conditions of population and intensity of use are consistent with those anticipated the project along the JPA streetscape. At the more prominent corner approval that would satisfactorily mitigate such impacts. Potential under the current zoning designation and under all previous and of the site, at Washington Avenue, a vertical expression denotes both adverse impacts to be considered include, but are not necessarily current versions of the Comprehensive Plan. No adverse effects the primary, street-level pedestrian entrance, as well as the primary limited to, the following: to the existing or available community facilities are expected. The amenity spaces within. This vertical massing is carved away at the top project will likely have a positive effect of restoring detached single- floor to create an outdoor terrace. a. Traffic or parking congestion; The project is located near the family housing units within nearby neighborhoods like Fry’s Spring, to University of Virginia’s central grounds; given this proximity, it is their intended occupancy as single-family households. The request of The scale of the project is comparable to other projects along Jefferson anticipated that residents would not commute daily by car, but would 70 DUA is below the maximum available (87 DUA) under an SUP for Park Avenue, albeit with a more engaging streetscape and a more predominately walk. The project’s parking enters from Washington this zoning district. urban or contemporary form and aesthetic. The scale of the project Avenue, which is a through street between JPA and Stadium Road, changes relative to the elevation change across the site. The scale as opposed to Observatory Avenue, which is a dead end. Similarly, f. Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the is consistent with the Urban Mixed Use Corridor zoning description the project is near the commercial area at the intersection of JPA neighborhood; The proposed development will comply with the – calling for 5 stories up to 8 along key neighborhood corridors Extended, Fontaine Ave, and Maury Ave, providing convenient walk- affordable housing ordinance via the cash contribution option. The designated in the Streets that Work plan (such as JPA). At the western able services and dining options nearby. The site is also located site does not currently accommodate affordable housing – all units are façade, adjacent to R-2U zoning, the proposed project is 5 stories in along the free trolley line, with an existing stop approximately a block market rate; therefore no committed affordable housing units will be height – consistent with the comprehensive plan height designation away. JPA has significant bike infrastructure in place and the project lost. for the adjacent zoning designation – Higher-Intensity Residential. will provide ample on-site bicycle storage facilities. The project is asking for a parking reduction to balance market demand with actual g. Impact on school population and facilities; While the units are Overall, the proposed massing and scale of the proposed project spaces provided. All of these conditions will limit the potential traffic planned to be market rate rental units and available to the general is consistent with the current ordinance and the recently approved and parking congestion. public, given its proximity to UVA, it is anticipated that students, comprehensive plan. possibly young professionals and/or employees at the medical school b. Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors, and hospital will primarily occupy the units. It is expected that the 5. Whether the proposed use or development will be in harmony with which adversely affect the natural environment; No activities project will have minimal to no impact on the school population and the purposes of the specific zoning district in which it will be placed: are anticipated that will adversely affect the natural environment. All facilities. The proposed use will not change from its current use. The development exterior lighting will comply with the city’s dark sky ordinance. The is in harmony with the purposes of the zoning district, which calls for same functions currently on site will continue on site. h. Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic medium-density residential, including multi-family. districts; The proposed project is not within a conservation or historic c. Displacement of existing residents or businesses; This project district. No individually protected properties exist on this site. The 6. Whether the proposed use or development will meet applicable replaces 17 current residential units with 119 units – creating an project is within an entrance corridor overlay district and ERB review general and specific standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, overall gain of 102 units. Construction will not begin until all leases will be required. subdivision regulations, or other city ordinances or regulations; and occupancies for current tenants have terminated. The proposed use is identical to the current use. This development is i. Conformity with federal, state and local laws, as demonstrated within the city’s allowable uses, density (with SUP), and height (with d. Discouragement of economic development activities that may and certified by the applicant; The proposed project will conform to SUP) provided for in this zoning district. The property is located within an provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base; 2005 JPA all applicable federal, state, and local laws. entrance corridor overlay district and is subject to review by the Entrance will not discourage economic development, but rather will contribute Corridor Review Board. An application will be submitted to the ERB at a to the vibrancy of a mixed use area along JPA, providing patrons to j. Massing and scale of project. From the street, the building massing future date. nearby commercial establishments. It will help spur the development originates with a two-story base along Jefferson Park Avenue, which and investment in this area by providing a residential population base disappears into grade along the two side streets due to the substantial in need of additional goods and services. (37’) elevation drop across the site. Above this, the massing of the 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA SUP REVIEW CRITERIA, CONTINUED Architects & Planners 4 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B (1)   A site plan when required by section 34-802 of the City Code; provided as an attachment. (2)   A written disclosure of the information required by section 34-8 of the City Code and, if the applicant is not the owner of the property, written evidence of his status as (i) the authorized agent of the property owner, or (ii) a contract purchaser of the property whose application is with the permission of the property owner; provided in the application. (3)   For developments including any non-residential uses, and developments proposing the construction of three (3) or more single- or two- family dwellings, the applicant shall provide a completed low-impact development (“LID”) methods worksheet; provided in the application. (4)   For applications proposing the alteration of the footprint or height of an existing building, or the construction of one (1) or more new buildings: (i) a building massing diagram and (ii) elevations; See accompanying graphic materials. (5)   Information and data identifying how many, if any, existing dwelling units on the development site meet the city’s definition of an “affordable dwelling unit” and whether any such existing units, or equivalent affordable units, will remain following the development; Existing units on site do not meet the city’s definition of “affordable dwelling units”. Existing units will be replaced for a net gain of 102 units. (6) Other supporting data sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the purposes and standards of this Zoning Ordinance, including, without limitation, graphic materials that illustrate the context of the project as well as information and data addressing the factors set forth within section 34-157 above. See accompanying graphic materials. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA SUP APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS: SECTION 34-158 Architects & Planners 5 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B EXISTING CONDITIONS SECTION 1 The project site is located on the southeastern side of the City, within blocks of the University’s Central Grounds. It is situated in the middle of the JPA neighborhood, which is predominately renter occupied according to both recent census data and GIS records. The site is one block away from a commercial node, at the intersection of Maury Avenue and Jefferson Park Avenue. The project spans between two sides streets, Observatory Avenue - a dead end, and Washington Avenue, a through street between JPA and Stadium Road. The site has only one continguous parcel or neighbor to the rear, which is renter occupied. Nearly all parcels across the bordering streets - JPA, Observatory Ave and Washington Ave, are renter occupied, less two - along Observatory Avenue. The existing zoning of R-3, approved in 2009, stretches the length of JPA, on the northwest side, while University High Density was designated for the opposite side of the street and R-2U stretches behind to Stadium Road. Existing conditions along JPA are varied. Newer projects range in scale from SECTION 1: five to nine stories facing JPA. These projects have limited engagement with the street, presumably due to topographic challenges. Similarly, the 2005 JPA TABLE OF CONTENTS & SYNOPSIS site drops 37’ across the site. VICINITY MAP NEIGHBORHOOD MAP LOCATION MAP RENTER OCCUPIED MAP ZONING SUMMARY CONTEXT PHOTOS SURVEY 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA SYNOPSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Architects & Planners 6 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B UN IVE RS ITY AV E UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA WES TM AIN ST CITY LIMITS RA ILR OA D UE EN AV OAD RK LR RAI PA SO N E R EFF J 2005 JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA VICINITY MAP Architects & Planners 7 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B D. T. YR ET S GB EM M RU THE CORNER 20 MIN. WALK THE ROTUNDA UVA SOURCE: https://censusreporter.org/profiles/14000US51540000600- SCOTT STADIUM CITY LIMITS census-tract-6-charlottesville-va/ 10 MIN. WALK UE EN AV RK PA N SO ER F F LR OAD JE RAI JPA NEIGHBORHOOD & CENSUS TRACT 6.0 2005 JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE FRY’S SPRING NEIGHBORHOOD 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA NEIGHBORHOOD MAP Architects & Planners 8 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B AD STADIUM RO FREE W T AS HI NG TO N AV EN FREE UE OB T UE SE E N RV M 2005 JPA AV AT AU RK O RY PA RY ON AV S ER AV E FF NU E E NU J E E FREE T OAD ILR RA FONTAINE AVENUE 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA LOCATION MAP Architects & Planners 9 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B OAD STADIUM R W AS HI NG N TO AV E N OB U E N SE U E E AV RV RK AT M A SITE P O AU ON RY RY S ER AV A FF E E NU J VE NU E E OAD ILR RA FONTAINE AVENUE RENTER OCCUPIED COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL UNIVERSITY 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA RENTER OCCUPIED AND OTHER USES Architects & Planners 10 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B Location 2005 Jefferson Park Ave. Area 1.711 acres (74, 531.16 SF) Zone R-3 UNIVERSITY OF Residential Units up to 21 DUA (by right) VIRGINIA 22 - 87 DUA (by SUP) Parking Two bedroom apt. or smaller: 1 space Three or Four bedroom apt.: 2 spaces Height 45’ (max) (by right) 80’ (22-43 DUA, by SUP) E 101’ (44-87 DUA, by SUP) U EN AV R K Setbacks PA 26.35’ (average of neighbor- (front) ing properties) N O E RS Setbacks F A D 20’ (corner, both sides) J EF IL RO (side) RA Setbacks 25’ min. (rear) 50’ (22-43 DUA, adjacent to low density residential) 75’ (44-87 DUA, adjacent to low density residential) (25’ Type S-3 buffer, above 21 DUA) 2005 JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE Overlays Entrance Corridor 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA ZONING SUMMARY Architects & Planners 11 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 2 6 7 8 SITE 3 10 9 4 1 8 9 10 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT PHOTOS - JPA CORRIDOR Architects & Planners 12 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B ADE GR P IN RO ’D 37 Y:\904\48530-Aspen Heights\DWG\48530-V-XPSURV_ALTA.dwg | Plotted on 8/13/2021 1:02 PM | by Joe Medley 'ALTA / NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY' OF THREE PARCELS OF LAND COMPRISING 1.711 ACRES FRONTING JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE, WASHINGTON AVENUE, 37’ DROP IN GRADE ACROSS SITE & OBSERVATORY AVENUE ( > 3 STORIES) 37' v1 BEING TAX MAP PARCELS 17-103, 17-103.1, & 17-104 IN THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / CITY M AT T H E W S VA SURVEY EXISTING CONDITIONS 13 OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, Charlott es v ille VA A r cJuly Date: h 28, i t e2021 ct s Scale: & P lASa SHOWN nners Sheet 2 of 2 J.N.: 48530 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 Drawn by: DWJ © 2021 Checked by: JCM LAST REVISED: Aug. 13, 2021 Attachment B SECTION 2 C O M P. P L A N T R E N D S Additional justification for height and density (SUP REQUEST): Comprehensive Plan Trends 2001 - PRESENT along West Main Street, no significant, new, purpose- built student housing has been created in close proximity The comprehensive plans of the past 20 years show to Central Grounds, even as expectations for it to occur the community’s expectation for increased density along the JPA corridor have grown. and height along the JPA corridor, specifically serving the residential needs of UVA students, as The 2013 Comprehensive Plan modified the zoning in demonstrated by the exhibits in this section. the JPA neighborhood to increase its density. Rather than UHD, R-3 and R-2U spanning east to west Two decades ago, in the 2001 Comprehensive Plan, between the railroad and Stadium Road, the entire area neighborhoods identified the conversion of single-family was designated as High-Density residential. This vision owner occupied residential homes to rental units to eliminated the different designation between the 2005 accommodate the increasing demand for student rentals JPA site and the adjacent parcel to the rear. as problematic. The Neighborhoods also identified locations closest to UVA as preferable by students. The The 2018 draft land use maps continued this trend, planning commission identified higher density along treating the entire cross section of the neighborhood transit corridors as preferable. as the same residential density - east to west, north to south, less the commercial area at the intersection of The 2003 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map shows Maury and JPA and extending west along Fontaine. SECTION 2: the same conditions as the present zoning. The recently approved comprehensive plan returns to TABLE OF CONTENTS & SYNOPSIS The 2011 Housing Survey shows a density of housing a vision of a higher density or intensity corridor - albeit 2001 COMP PLAN CONCERNS units congregated 1) in the Venable neighborhood - both with the same designation on either side of JPA and 2003 COMP PLAN LUM behind the Corner and along Madison Avenue, 2) along with the addition of a mixed-use condition rather than 2011 HOUSING SURVEY MAP JPA, and 3) at public housing sites. Additions to this map solely residential. The adjacent parcel to the rear, is 2013 COMP PLAN LUM have been made based on incomplete data of known a different designation (higher-intensity residential), 2018 COMP PLAN FLUM (DRAFT) 2021 COMP PLAN FLUM (DRAFT) built or under construction projects, showing the last with a suggested height of 5 stories. The 2005 JPA 2021 COMP PLAN INFO (DRAFT) decades’ progress of additional housing units. While site is designated as Urban Mixed-use Corridor 2016 STREETS THAT WORK projects along West Main Street have garnered lots of and suggests height may range from 5 to 8 stories. 2021 COMP PLAN INFO attention locally, multi-family residential projects have Upon implementation (via a zoning update) of these generally been dispersed across the city’s medium to anticipated changes, the heights and densities of the high intensity zoning districts. Other than the projects two designations become more similar. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA SYNOPSIS OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRENDS Architects & Planners 14 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS FROM 2001 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Architects & Planners 15 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B 2005 JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA 2003 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP Architects & Planners 16 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B Housing Units Number of Units on Parcel £ No Units 29 KNOWN ADDITIONAL £ US PROJECTS SINCE 2011 1 Unit 2 Units 3 - 10 Units £ Route 250 £ 11 - 50 Units 51 - 240 Units £ St et m Em Rd Rio 2005 JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE Pr e sto nA 2011 Land Use and Housing Survey and the 2010 US Census ve The housing unit count from the survey and the same count from the Decennial census were within 0.66% of each other, despite the very different methodolo- West M ain S gies used. The 2011 survey counted 19,062 units and the 2010 Census counted t Dow ntow High St nM 19,189 units. Most of the variation is accounted for in neighborhoods around the all University of Virginia. ve e ry A k Av Cher ar Ma nP rke rso Number of Units per Block Je ffe tS t 0 - 10 Units Av 11 - 30 Units St on 5th t S M 31 - 60 Units o ntic ello 4 Av 61 - 100 Units e 100 - 220 Units 221 - 447 Units 64 6 64 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA HOUSING UNITS, SOURCE: 2011 HOUSING SURVEY, WITH UPDATES Architects & Planners 17 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B GREENFI BR PA EN RK RD TW EA W ND BROO ST COURT MYER OO LA OO BR OR E DS NO DR S DR OO PL D D KD STM FIEL GL OW RTH TT ELDS WE KMER OD R NO £ ¤ RO £ ¤ IN 85 1 BE RD 63 H WO COUR LA A GH RT D RW 4 MO KE ROSLYN E ¤ £ A IDLE A DR 743 HE IC M BIX NT FO LE RO AD ROSLYN T NG KC AR HA ON ER A 63 £ IA ¤ RE RO OAD TR D M GT M T R 1 EY ST GE CT LN RK BS FOREST LN TIN RID SP N AD DR M BE D IVY RIN REDING HU RO RIDGE DR LA R G LA TON CO KE ST UR LANE T TE FORE RO BR RA NN DR IS BIN COU IG M DR RO BL HT BRIER HIL RT E A F OOD CT CE D LA IE W GENERAL LAND USE PLAN EN M L R K PL LAMBS ROAD O LD KE ID WOODLAKE FA OO WILLIA OV A D O GREEN D PR DR VE RO BR PL IVE W TOWNW RO PL RAIN DR MSBU DR HE SLY WIL TREE £ ¤ 43 CO ROAD IG N DM SNOWD HT 7 LS EN DR MM SR W ER DOMINION DR HIL DRIVE E RG D BL PL E ON WEALTH BIR AC RIO AN FO HO RIO CO NA D LIB E P UR M GL CT KIN LN E CT O DR RO SE OA RT S A L D AS KS Y DE TT R ON CT SP AD N CT PU S LN TO RIN RIN CT K S OW D G TT DR TIN KR PL TE DR IV HE G PU OA HAD RD E N TIN RO OO RD IT HU HIL BL WES S LLIN BR RD RD WYNRIDGE DR LIC LS JPA DELLWO EA D TFIE CO RD £ G WESTF ¤ ST 65 RD OL E AU ER WYNRIDGE LN W UR 7 AK ED LD S DR LD EF T PL RD LV RID OR OD IE IELD FIE BE HY LD M CO GE MIN T E OL D MALL DR H H UR CH ROAD LT RT MINOR NS BROOK SA CIR EA ALBERT EE NO RIDGE L QU DR W WHITEWO CTOR CT KNIGH N UR N DS T CT O OD RD CT CO TO T ROAD M EY X M IER ASHL SU EXETER SA CO FORE DR EM BR CT ST TH PR AN M WEAL CIR LE DR CT TE CH CIR ON BL C HILL SDA R WALDEN CT W VD HLA CT COMM K CT ATHA ES OA ND EE SUMERSET TO TF GE W N S OAK CT NE TR CORRIDOR A LN OR M CT IE MANCHESTER CT PINE GE GREEN LA LD K PE GR OA YT E CRITT ARBOR ON EN DR BR RD FREE IE LD NDS RD CREST DR R STATE DR IE RD EF CHLA W AK BOWLES LN RD 29 ES W E E TF L R IV TE IE RT D £ ¤ DR LD 743 BRAN RD RR H TU ON LT NO RD EL RD RD N EA £ N ¤ EE RT GD L GREE GAZE L W K W RO HIL R H NBRIE RD EE BO TE N LN 65 G TIN W TO R O CT L FOUNTA E LN AD CT R CR 4 E PE M IN IDG R DR ST ROSE M N GE A NN EL E DR E CT CO CH HU CT ARBO L WAY D A E L E RTR RT R GL OLI OR R IR IV WE L CT E O TU PIN EL ST DR ST INGB AD PA GN GA WAKE GE BA RR E PL R DR CO TE FIELD EN W UE ME IV RR HAV HU MA MILL PARK AP TE LIS I U DR MOCK PS TS V AC CT CT E BIL RT HO SA CH LT NT MILLST AV VERM DR PL A PE KS PL US ONE SE TM RIVER CO IRA PL MO T ST TON R AIL RO LN IC O KERRY ED REYNARD RE CT E LN LN RIV TR DR AD MA DENIC E ER TR OLD FOR D PEBBLE CREEK CT IN RIE AS GE DIS GE RD R OA YW CH RID DR EXT BR PL K E EN PL ER RD S OL RA D DA MICH OD HILLWO LINE G BL CA AN RIV S CT AEL N GASO LO LN A K MIN U RD UR NN MON BR FF IDGE RD PL BR O N SOLO KB SE O Y DU ER ALLE SE WILSON HO DR O MIN N ING AC RIV CT OK BO URN PL LE OL BLACKB BL WO 2005 JEFFERSON ND E RD WAY Y LN OLD SALEM OD STURBR DR DR ST CT E ST WOOD DR APARTMENTS IV ER TR G INGLE DR KERR EE REE RD EA NBRI OP PK N HILL TER RD ST AY T N RD DR ES LO L DR ZA R OOD RC N COURT GREE W M N BA RD HUNTWOOD LN TO LE R N W SA CO IO DR BE RA LE INGLEW YO TO SH Y DR KIN RIE R DR L RK LO KE DRIVE ROA TAR LINE EL KS FA ES DR TOWN MO GE IV N G BY E RY H SE E DU CO IR IN NB CHAR N DR NT OR X U SO E WILLIAM CT L ER US W D RD URT NB INDIA RD WENDOV HIL KIN FO EE AN £ ¤ 6 DY ROAD G T GE DA DR DR PEND RD BA AN UR 65 G LANE TER RD SW LETO RD LIN AN M GR CO R N MEAD PARK COUR JAME TN FO DA COUR T BR RD OA UIL AN N PARK AVENUE CE G DE KS DR BUNK STOW GU KE OW WEST ST L CK AD LM DR ER T NW TON DR S O EA O E HILL BROO AD L ST R O T HY D DR DA O ME LN RD RO LN N DR D BENNING S D L DR CHARLOTTE DR O KY HIL LN ST O E R EM HIE W CIR K RD HW TE AU RIC AD MIC RT IN LD G NO O LIC IN EE ER KIN E S R GE WA MID IE AV TM RD HO HF HT OR G IST YN N AD GE L ES RO SM VIC T IT EA ID ER Y T L DL JOH ER O SM AY K VE DR UR DR AL LE R W ST RD IT R R FR AD DR C ES H PA WO CO L ED D LE AU OO FIE HOLLY VA EX DRIVE EN K N OD RIC DRIVE LE CIR KENW FD LE N H EY E AR OO £ LD E W ¤ HU H AY C K CT PA G INE CLI EEN HIG C IT R R CIR LE RID T AV K 631 TO DYW W S CT ST LE R CIR LLY W. GR HURS KE R T RD BR HO RD SU NE ES H BRAN CT E EA ST GE N CT EN CO ER DR RK RD DO RH ER N W T K DR OW RID UR BA T DR WA A A CA W BL N AS RT Y YO RU ST WOOD AR RT KE R IM S NC ER HAM AD T CROSSING RA R RN W AY T DR EN LN AT CH LA SC VIC ER W C KENW ME MO EN LN RD ER KS GRE N LO CT OOD TO RIV Y VALLITH RT EY R IO AL CO ON RIA GB CO RD DA DR PEN PARK MER BY-PASS LN G KE PETERSON UR N RD N PK X RD CE FOXB N CO FO RU T Y ROOK TO DAIR WY ¤ £ ¤ LANE EX BELFIELD LOOP £ 29 GR PL 250 PIN M EA OV TOWNE WILLO ET DO E LN WDALE RD O W RD LANE P BR EY E OO CT SP GROVER CT GEL IV K DR O NASH DR D TT O A RID RD CT R CIR CT SW D IRY R PET DA R O LE BLUE NER VE O RD ON UM D CO CT BY-PASS PE CR RD HIT AR ON NN FAULCO ST RD RD W RY LN PA TT DR T HE DS C GENT £ R ¤ SU GE EAF E KL E S OAKL NG HIR 250 SIA N AN DR T RID STONE HE AR RD ON LANE BU ES Y DR D SEYMOUR RD N UR DR RIDG EL CH CK D ID DM LIN T LISB BRUC P VEGA SQ RD IE ON G M LE R TO ER E AV G PRESCELLY PL OO S SS RE AR G CT SA UE E R D E W BY L LM TO BR EN HIL IS BL W Y MA ME RU E STON G ROSE HILL N IL CA OO LE DR RU ST G M RO AF LBO M BY £ LN DRIVE ¤ KW DR BR W LN A D LILI LN CIR ES OO 601 D AY IDG CIR UR W DR TV BL AL FIE ST PEYT E IE VD OL ON NE LD RK E W HO D PL OX RV FORD DR OOD RD HARROW RD PA RD IV DR AM FARM RD AG LM Y CO RD RD HA IVE RO P GH AD RD RD CIR ELE NE NES ES IVY W IN RO WA E PLYMO E CK FO R AD Y OX ST IV MASON UTH R BU IV ST AV UR HO DR WIL RT TE LN DR ES CO E DR PL RD O E CR DW LB W EL U T BUS WELLFORD IN PARKER IZ STONE OXFORD L E ST AB O RD AL HERNDON R SHERWOOD RD M FIELD LN OLD FE ON RUTLED ET R OD SE IVY RIE RD PL MA ND W GE AVE H FRANKLIN £ R RM D ¤ RD ST N N RD S AV DO OL RD SS AL FE RO 250 DR E E IE LA RUGBY CT PRESTON G NE RO RD BEEC R VE AN RUGBY TA Y LOCUST YD LN CT LA AVE HW AD IV FA RD NE G R AVE T E LN OO ME KENSINGTON CO N AVE ELE DR D RIED LN ED LA T SS R O RR LO LN RD LE ST EMME G O TE EW IN R T P ST LN CU E DR W ROBINSON AV CU LOCU CO W WESTWOO FERN O AY ST WOODS RD O RU D RD S OD CT ME DER S D G DE S D STILLF ID LN L LE AN ST LL DR BY CK WO RR PL VE HO E UN AR BL CIR LO LN EW CIR WIL TE Y PL HARDWOO GREENWAY ROSSER IV E AIR N E HEM CH HB RD ON AV CABELL AVE D RA AMHERST AUGUSTA PARK ST WOOD ER ER CL AL AVE AR E W NS AD SIT AVE AN ST AS ST COMMON UTH NO PL CT ND TT T D BARB M PE T RTH EX Y PL ST ID OO N EM BU VE ROSE HILL DR CO E ER DR SO LO W BLV AVE AR ER GL ED E WEST CIR A DW NLA SH RN O AV E GE AV TR AMHER RIV D E C TU O C H SM AV EE CT ¤ BYPASS ST ILL LE LL BIR £ UR S CIR BE LN N ST E RD ST X IT MEADOW S LAM TO PL CA RD Y BIR 250 AV ALL RD H LE TR CT ES RE MADISON CT BETH RD TRIPPER IS AC DW KELSEY AR RR PR AVE AVE ST LC TW KS CM CT OOD SH ST H O NS WAY IV AVE ON HIL DA C U YM M AL ST AN £ Y ST MAR GR ¤ VIS ST C DIS LIE ELL ST AN WOOD RO AD LN D M T Y LO AV TIN 20 MA LE EX SIT Y AL E CA R ROAD AD LIE AR CO B D WA L G D CA PA HO M ER RIV IN TS NW LA LN RK NE AV ST RD ES LL HE ON UN M IV H AN BO Y E NR ILL T ELK N AV BE LA ER ST IF UN RD P ST YA AN AN NA E DR RD CY AV CO SW LN TH ROSSER SA TH RO RD GO ST C VE DR H NT E NW ST R IV LN EY 16TH RM LE E DO ET MIN AVE E TH HA CO H IA E ST KENT CR N ST MIDM 10 RLT C T MA BR OR N ST NC LY GE DE ON ON AV NA N 13TH AV LEWIS RD ON ST L SPRI E AV OR E OR CU E W AV 17TH SA ER AL GG G AV CARR D L ONT KL E E EA 12TH LN VE N ST BE MT CIR HIL VE CAM ST IR LL AC ST LOUDON EV RD A ST VIRG LEWIS R RD TIN RIV CL IEW 15TH UIRE ST KE TH MTN INIA ) S LN E (unopen NEL LN 1/2 RV ST AR SE O S T AVE ST 14 ROAD AVE IL RD RO ISTA BO D S LN Y LATR BERT M G ST RE RO ST FAUQ 10 UNIV SO AV ST GB AR R HIL OBE DA NO SO LYO OT E OR ON CT N FO TE LE ST CT AN DR C RD THOM LN NS N L WE ER ST RT AV PR LE R T R RU AR SON ST CT ST DIS CELL N M HW LA ST E D RD ST LN O BYPASS LE ES ND D T M RIV AV CIR O LO A EM JO ST NORTHW UN PE MA RO BE O O ST CO EMME HN E NG IS AN TO D OOD EVER CIR NIA G IVE CHAN ST AL DE 13TH RR H GREE RR ED D SADL MO RD RS R 9T N E WOO N 11TH SO E £ ER WINE AR ¤ WB T DR £ Y AVE NW ¤ N AV HA ITY TIR DR N IN CK E RA 20 29 ST CELL PO GTO PAO DRIV YCASTL OL PARK Y ST PA ELLIE IN E PL JA ST O MB E LI LN E Mc GE CIR M ES D AV AV MINOAVE AV NC ST MO H ST RE ST ST WINE RIV XIN CO RTO HA 8T CIR R IR E Y SE ST HA N Z LE ON N ER CU Mc A EAST PA ST MALCOL EL ST W AV E RV LN LE CL R AR CO LAW DA BONN 1ST ST KW RD M NE ST O WAL ES ST VI EW EY N LO IR RM AY ST E LE M CRESCE £ DR KE ¤ ST NE WERTL H PAG E GR CT BE R LL RD RL ICK NT W NT AV AND ST E ST FARIS A 1421 10T VA DR RU IL AL DR CE PARK ALTA ST A N ST E H ST ST MO CIR LO A S CH MO AV NW HA PO E T ST RD PL AZ RE W £ NT ¤ K PLA DR 13 ST RD AV TA 2ND IC CIR HE RIC LLY Y DR Y ST E P O ST RS 250 12 ST RM DR DG AL 12 1/2 NEW LL SY AV AV D S MO ST E T Mc CO HM CA ST HO H R ST KE 10 1/2 TA HO HIG MO E 7T WA YLO TIRE HS RE H O DR E 'S AVE W M MAP R IG ND AV T ORE HO IE ST EH BROW ST MO PRESTON AIN USE ST E LE ST SP RD N ST VE ST ST NG WHITEH S JEFF ST ST T RO CIN DUKE 4TH AVE BEND EAD LE H O T ER PARK ELSO ST A JEFFERSON 8T MA EVEL SO AP AD DR LE GR OR M ST OLD ST GIL ST EAM RK N ST BLVD E ST TN E M 5TH ST ET E CIR OAKHURST 11TH O ST 7TH ST AV OE LN CR 8 TH E HIGH SP OS STEW DR LA ST D CIR NE COMMER JEFF SO 6TH R AVE £ OA M TE N CT DR ¤ CE ST ERSO RO ER UT ST RD AN ST AY R RIDG ST BROW ST ET ESTE IW T PS H 250 W S TE WAL N ST MONR ST ETH 2S AN ART PA NE S ST ST NR ST O H UG KE O GILDERSLEEVE LITT E ST MAI SNL NT IVER A ER ST R SQ N JE ELL PLZ NC 2ND N ST TO AV 9 1/ VA DR LE LI PA VA 6TH R DON PELL ST 7TH HIG LA 1ST WOOD ST P IN RO MAL MA NA DELE S LK T LL TIB CRIS ST H HS 2ND LLE 9TH ST L ST 9T VAN SO WA T EY RO CA ST 3RD C ON ST ST ST BRAN ADCT NOVA E 7TH DO UT TER ER DR E AV H 4TH M RO E ST 13TH LN ST AD KING H GROV ST ALD 5TH M T ST AR 10T RD AY CHE ST SO RM 12TH ST HS KING BO ME 10TH W T JONE SEA RRY CIR R UT N O HS FA VA 4T HIC SPRI CHEL SO LA O GA WATE HA AVE ST STADIUM U BL F F DIC H NE D CIR LL DR RR R FA ST ST KM E EA 11T ETT RM 13TH IRW EY ST KE W VE ST S ST ST ES RIVER OB ST GL ST MAURY AN NG RD AS ST /2 PANT MIMOSA T N ELM AY MA ST KING ON CA ER T OA OU 61 H 2ND A K S ST ST ST HIN PATO APPLETREE TH RK PIEDMONT AVE N CT 6T 4TH ST ER CL TE RR R ST TH ST E ST ST ET N BA ST H ER CH GT AVE A OPS R OL GROV AVON BINGL VA T PL OLM 12 M 5T R S RK EXT ST E RD PRICE ON DR KE R EY PIN GRAVES ST TE SA ON N LTON NUNL TO ON E ST PE PA MIMOSA ST VER KER KM ST ST AK VA ISH AVE D RY CT E AR LE TIC AV T ST SH OA LL SH VY HANO HIN NS ES TERR OR AV CH E EV E DAVID FIF E ON ST EY AM TO LITTL AV T1 DRIV GRAV EL E RD CIS DR UL RS FRAN NA MA E ST ROCK E 8T ST WAY GE OA RD ST S AV FE H Y VE ST K BO LO TON FONTAINE AVE HILL ST WA DR AS JEF OD BE 16TH AV OM RID E LM /2 D TH ST ST LA M ST GO PIEDMONT AVE NT ON 71 OR IR E ST MONPELIER R FOREST HILLS AVE R ST LEWIS PLATEAU FA R KE T RD CH TF AL ST UG CARL FA D HU ST RA STC LLY BA EXT TODD AVE VE ITY UR SUMM ES D T ST ST HE RS E EN DO RD CT A ST NU BROA AT IVE CENTER 1ST AV YC RR WILLIS C N CH HO UN EL LN S AVE BA ST E ¤ £ E CE 18TH UR RD O R RK YS RD E 782 AV AVE ER LIO NO RA ROBERTSON AVE AV W G WESTERLY SD T EL W O MA E F RU BO GA ST ALE IT ST NT RID MY PA RRIS RD ES LIF DR AK IDE IE LA LL SS RT UR TT ST NUT FA ST CE HIGHLAND SP IN LE OL IN R AV ERV AVE IV CIR YE RC LE BE ST TTE G ST LN LA E RS AVE AL E E RR AV MO RG ST AV C L AV DR FOREST IA RO E R U ST ST ING BL AVE ET RIV AVE MA E E RAYMOND T EXT TU DA RY E E BR C E EN IDGE BU RK RIV NG TRAILRIDGE K CH AV LA D RN HE NA BR ET IBLI ER CR BAIN ST 2N HIL EP NK RD N IM JEFFERSON ST ST B RD EE RY BU YO E AVE STR FO AV UL LIN E ET AV K MO E ST L DE ST RD CA SH RD ER M RA ST ST G ST N NT H CT RE RE RL RD E H AM N RR RO LIN CH 6T AR AV ST AV S TO PE WA ER AV KS RO EA RIB EL RD LEONARD AC ST TM RO RAND ST UTH E NA X TR LE CR E 1ST VE TU OS D ST LIO MARCHANT ST B BR N CK SO AN C S ST EST IN FT OAD VE DA RD SO PL TT ST ON TO PR AN AV MON N BA S MID WAY O MORG SUNSET N E OR M AV OLPH MON E AV H LA ST ILE GE T LT ALT S NG IL ST RL DR E E ND PA UNR E TE RA KH 5T YR ITH L ST AV RIA ST U AV RD ET RID EL R IS IAN RA ID A CT RK IN D ST IS E MA CA D ST AV HAM OR SM IN ON TA IE VIL E NO IN CLE TO LOOP AV RID EH ST DR HA R ST LA LN RL SO G AN CT EN E VELA IER ST U ICK BIN N E GE ST M EY GE ID PIR RO RD ME CA NO IA G RO VIN ND PT MASON L AV RID C EU L AVE HUNTL C E BRUNSW KLA E E O E B TA AV RD ST K DANBURY WATERBURY RO S N G AV IL GREENWICH HILL ND E RA LA RD RD RO S PA ST AD CR AVE WO MONTICELL CA T VIL ST E AV CT BL IN W LO R BAYLOR AV ETT SA RK E ST WIL E N K OD EK RD HIG LN ST DR DARIE PA RR RO ON EL IC HLA DR T DU U IN LA E RD SE LIN HARTFORD ID LA ST RLY ND CIRRK N TE LYNN ER DR RD BA WOODFOLK TO AV K IC ON PL PA RSO RD UN AV RO FL ND AVE PL YLO EH E AN MILFORD ROAD RO AN U EA S O NT CT AC R GE EN R FR TER C FE AVE DR KL O MO E ROYS PL MO GE EN RAYMOND BR DR MO SELE AN F NT PA AV OO R CE JE CLEV L DA E DR Y KW AV AT VE D K LN K E ST PAR ELAN IN CREE DE DR OO IV E ES DR D AV RD N MOOR E W EN D CLY ST MANILA E RIO LN ALL E ON E ST MA CT DR RIVES K OR ST CO R N ST ST EE TE O CIR ST LN OW NAYL ET AD O CR IN R U ST LL DR AVE LT E EN PO G O BL SA YE AV PL SLATE RIA ST IS R AV E UR E IEW ST HARR CS DG TH E S PL GR IAN ES NA X FIF K OL D HB LO CH IM PL AVE RD LINDEN WEL ID HART Y D RO OL GR RO RIST R ROAD VISTA MILL MANS U QUARRY RD NC ME GE CT CIR IS KEYS RR LE TROOST BELLEV EL E RD MO PL DR HA LID KNOLL A § IG ¦ ¨ DR DR N LY CHANDLERS NT MC H PL TO EAS CT PL AV ST 64 LLIA DR LEY D TONE ALE HIL E TOWLER ST MONTE OO SE SH T VIE PL COURT MO MTN D BR FL OO W OL V EA DR K IE IN ST LN A NG ST W W PL M MID T PE CAME LO LO DLE DR PP NE SHAS ET TO ER AZAL N TA CT FIELDING E CT LN KE RE LN E PL DRIVE £ ¤ BIL GARDEN RD ST § ¦ ¨ 780 O NE BE CE ER 64 M DR NT HARRIS LA IN CAMELLIA Y E RO CREEK RO QU IV H A D 5T DR GLEN XT AVE E DR ST SC ON £ ¤ AR 781 BO § ¦ ¨ AV UG MIC H 64 TA VE HIE WY DO RN R DR EGE D N LN CA COLL PK AVE EXT MANSFIELD RD RT ST £ ¤ LN ER 1 HA PL CT 63 OOD ON INW MOUNTA LOCKSLEY RS RO TERR FE AD COUNTRY EF SUNSET GREEN APTS J AS £ ¤ OM 780 £ ¤ CO U LD TH NTR Y STREET EXT 631 FIE CIR £ ¤ 20 µ RD GR 5TH W IN PIN E EN LE RD EH CT 53 Land Use UR VIL BROOK AD S RG RO T TS OA U STAGECOACH HB OT K C ESIDE N HIL LAK SOUTH W LY HILL AVE OO SC DRIVE Low Density Residential Park or Preserved Open Space L D DR D OL CT High Density Residential Public or Semi-Public Neighborhood Commercial ** Denotes property not subject to the City of Charlottesville's municipal authority Mixed Use Business and Technology Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Map adopted as part of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan by Charlottesville City Council on August 19, 2013. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA 2013 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP Architects & Planners 18 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B D R A F T Stonefield FEB. 2018 Meadow Creek Valley Greenbrier NOV. 2018 Greenbrier Park R ek iv re C an ow na d ea Ri M ve r Meadowcreek Gardens & Disc Golf Walker Charlottesville High School Pen Park Greenleaf YMCA Park M McIntire ea Barracks Road ow d Shopping Center Park C re ek Northeast Park Washington Park Jackson P. Murray Burley Schenk's Greenway Venable The Rotunda and Lawn Burnley- Downtown Moran Mall Maplewood UVA Hospital Pantops Cemetery Ri va n Jefferson n School aR ive Meade r Park Buford Tonsler Oakwood Park Cemetery Forest Hills Park Riverview Downtown Belmont Park Clark Johnson Belmont Park Fry's Springs Jordan Rives Park Park Quarry Park eek sCr ore Jackson-Via Mo k ee 2005 JEFFERSON Azalea Park Mo r or es C 5th St. Station PARK AVENUE City of Charlottesville Land Use ² Comprehensive Plan 2018 2005 JEFFERSON Park and Preserved Open Space General Land Use Plan School Cemetery PARKLAND AVENUE 0 0.5 1 1 inch = 1,000 feet STW Typology 1:12,000 on 24"x36" Mile Downtown Mixed Use B NOVEMBER USE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSED Map By: NDS, City of Charlottesville 12/06/2017 Data Source: City of Charlottesville Planning Commission and This product is for general information only and shall not be used for design, modification, or construction. Industrial Neighborhood A City of Charlottesville SDE 12/06/2017 There is no guarantee of completeness or accuracy. Projection Information: Lambert Conformal Conic, NAD83, Virginia State Plane South The City assumes no liability arising from use of this product. Mixed Use A Neighborhood B 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA 2018 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP DRAFTS Architects & Planners 19 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B On the next page, you can view Future Land Use Map a version of this map with parcel RESIDENTIAL boundaries. Ri o Limited commercial uses allowed in all residential districts, to be further described in the Zoning Rd 2005 . Ordinance. Zoning tools will regulate affordability and maximum allowable development for all Click here to view . Rd G re categories and will consider demolition disincentives, as feasible. e ill precedent examples nb JEFFERSON rH rie da rD Description An Ce for residential and gu r. Hy sR r. D dr General Residential: Allow for additional housing choice within existing residential d. PARK AVE. d. ok e au mixed-use categories. hi s R ro lic ic ht b M neighborhoods throughout the city. ig ow Rd . He ead General Residential (Sensitive Community Areas): Allow for additional housing choice, M Ken woo d and tools to mitigate displacement, within existing residential neighborhoods that have Ln. high proportions of populations that may be sensitive to displacement pressures. (Note: Grove Rd. The boundaries for these areas should evolve during the zoningupdate process, as . et t St .N Ln. Me lb Gentry described on page 25 of the Comprehensive Plan.) Ba n St Em lmo r ra A . ourn Rd il rli c m Medium Intensity Residential: Increase opportunities for housing development M ks ng y to gb Rd e n including affordable housing, along neighborhoods corridors, near community amenities, Ru . Bl Rd. vd . r employment centers, and in neighborhoods that are traditionally less affordable. ne ar W Rugby Higher-Intensity Residential: Provide opportunities for higher density, multi-family d. Ave. wy W. yR Westwood Pk hn focused development. Incentivize affordability and increased intensity to meet Affordable . gb Rd. Rose Hill Dr . Ru Jo Housing Plan goals. Iv y Rd Ca MIXED USE NODES AND CORRIDORS . . Rd W lh ats ou an o n rm nA St Neighborhood Mixed Use Corridor: Neighborhood-scaled mixed use areas arranged ve . t. de . kS Al along corridors that support existing residential districts. . r St 25 Pa 0- is Pr . ve BY rr . es Rd Ha Neighborhood Mixed Use Node: Compact neighborhood centers that encompass a mix of tA e. to P W Av n r us ve U . Av t. N Rd E ni c land uses arranged in smaller scale buildings. on Ri e. N Lo ve ire Po hS gt r St. p si nt lar xin ty cI 10t St 2nd Business and Technology Mixed Use: Light industrial and production uses, with other M Av . Le Wes Hig e. tM ain S hS commercial and residential uses (where appropriate). t. Ma rke t. High St. t St Urban Mixed Use Corridor: Higher intensity mixed use development arranged along . . ve . ve Wa A ter eA k corridors between employment, commercial, and civic hubs of the city. St. r Pa ad Ch n so 9th St. SW Me er Urban Mixed Use Node: Urban mixed use districts that support community housing, er ry ff Av Je employment, and commercial development. e. e. E. Ma Av Fontaine Ave. Ext. Ch rke es Mo tS ap de Downtown Core: A primary, central mixed use activity hub for the city. y Av e. nt t. ea ke rsi rr ice Che llo St. e e. Av Riv . Av OTHER CATEGORIES St e. JPA Ca ling rlt h ib on 5t Str t. Av eS Open Spaces and Parks: Includes both public and private spaces e. Monticello Rd Ell dg Cle iot vel tA Ri a nd ve St. Cemetery: Includes both public and private cemeteries Ave . . on Av Civic: Includes governmental buildings . is Rd . Education: Charlottesville City Schools and Non-City Schools Harr Ave. Linden UVA: Properties owned by the University of Virginia October 5, 2021 Draft Map Stream Buffer: 100’ buffer With October 12 Planning City of Charlottesville Boundary and Urban Development Area Commission Text Amendments 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA CURRENT 2021 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP Architects & Planners 20 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B 8/24/2021 42 Mixed Use Corridors NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE CORRIDOR Neighborhood mixed use areas arranged along corridors that support existing residential districts. Mixed Use Corridors Mixed/ Business Use Corridors & Tech / URBAN MIXED USE CORRIDOR Higher intensity mixed use development arranged along corridors that link the employment, commercial, and civic hubs of the city. Business & Technology BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY MIXED USE Neighborhood Urban Neighborhood Mixed Use Corridor Mixed Mixed Use Use Corridor Corridor Light industrial and production uses as well as Commercial, employment, residential Commercial, Commercial,employment, employment,residential residential. Active Commercia Ligh (including small multi-unit and live-work unit (including small multi-unit and live-work unit USES USES additional commercial and residential uses (where ground floor uses groundbus floo buildings). Active ground floor uses. buildings). Active ground floor uses. Act appropriate). Neighborhood character. Respond to existing Neighborhood character. Respond to existing Respondenvironmental residential, to existing RespondRec to FORM FORM residential, environmental and historic residential, environmental and historic hum 2005 JEFFERSON and historic context and historic context context PARK AVENUE Up to 5 stories, general average of 3 stories. Up5to 5 stories, stories, general up to average 8 at key of 3 stories. intersections (such Upup 5 stories, HEIGHT HEIGHT Highest buildings at intersections or at sites Highest buildings at as intersections ofintersections or at sites Downtown, Industrial, as intersect with larger land areas with larger Mixed land Use, or areas Neighborhood corridors in the Mixed Use, Streets That Work plan) Streets Tha 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA CURRENT 2021 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Architects & Planners 21 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE IS IDENTIFIED AS A MIXED USE B STREET 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA 2016 STREETS THAT WORK PLAN Architects & Planners 22 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B ADJACENT DESIGNATION 8/24/2021 39 Residential HIGHER-INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL Neighborhoods and sites for multi-unit housing. Incentivize affordability and increased intensity to meet Affordable Housing Plan goals. Multi-unit housing (13+). May include large USES and/or smaller-scaled buildings. Limited ground floor commercial uses encouraged. All residential categories: compatible with existing residential and historic neighborhood context. Highest FORM building heights according to context. Zoning tools will define building form and neighborhood compatibility criteria for development (e.g., lot coverage, topography, parking, etc.) HEIGHT Up to 5 stories. 2005 JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA CURRENT 2021 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Architects & Planners 23 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B UNITS 119 units SECTION 3 DESIGN SITE AREA 1.711 Acres DUA 70 DUA (SUP REQUEST) STORIES 7 stories at JPA, 5 stories adjacent to R-2U zoning BUILDING HEIGHT 75’, from average grade plane (SUP REQUEST) PARKING 125 spaces provided Justification for rear yard setback reduction (SUP REQUEST): PROPOSED We are seeking a reduction in the rear yard setback As suggested by planning staff, the project investigated from 75 feet to 36 feet. This request is based on the the application of the West Main East zoning regulations following argument that contends a setback of 75’ on the proposed building site with regard to the rear yard is grossly excessive, disproportionate, and obsolete setback adjacent to a low-density residential district. under today’s view of (and vision for) this evolving The WME regulations require a 20’ minimum rear yard neighborhood. Strict adherence to the Ordinance in setback along with a bulk plane requirement and a 10’ this instance seems contrary to the intent originally Type S-1 buffer. Height is limited to 52’. In comparison, envisioned - to protect single-family homes, and is in the proposed design would have a 36’ setback, and be conflict with the long-held belief by City planners and approximately 56’ tall adjacent to the R-2U zoning. The others that reasonable increased density adjacent to project would be under this hypothetical bulk plane – the University is preferable and beneficial. The intent utilizing the WME zoning requirements of a 20’ setback, of the Ordinance was to separate single-family, owner- and using the adjacent R-2U height of 35’. Refer to the occupied homes from multi-family residential buildings. conceptual section provided in this section. This is no longer the case in this neighborhood where only the smallest vestiges of single-family, owner- Finally, if the city’s zoning re-write implements the SECTION 2: occupied residences remain. This is overwhelmingly a comprehensive plan work, the adjacent zoning district TABLE OF CONTENTS, PROJECT neighborhood of student rentals that continues its slow will no longer be low-density. The adjacency created will DATA & JUSTIFICATION OF REAR transition to increased density, more pedestrians, and be 5 stories maximum on the adjacent site to 5-8 stories YARD SETBACK REDUCTION more efficient land use where a 75-foot setback is not on this site – with both anticipating higher-intensity SITE PLAN necessary. residential. MASSING DIAGRAM (PERSPECTIVE) MASSING DIAGRAM (SECTION) For this project, the zoning ordinance requires a rear In conclusion, the 75-foot setback requirement is an STREETSCAPE PLAN yard setback of 75’ due to the property’s adjacency to anachronism no longer appropriate for this evolving STREETSCAPE PERSPECTIVE a low-density residential district and based upon the neighborhood. STREETSCAPE PERSPECTIVE project’s proposed density (Sec. 34-353 (b)(4)). The STREETSCAPE PERSPECTIVE adjacent property has been a student rental for decades. Given, the compatible uses, we propose height as the governing metric of the setback requirement. 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA PROJECT DATA & JUSTIFICATION OF REAR YARD SETBACK REDUCTION Architects & Planners 24 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B 515 520 505 525 510 WASHINGTON AVENUE PROPERTY LINE 503 510 507.66 509.5 509.66 509.5 510 JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE 529 510 20’ setback 509.66 510 509.85 525 525 530 510 505 510 36’ PROPOSED setback PROPERTY LINE 26.35’ setback PROPERTY LINE 539 75’ setback 25’ buffer 510 535 510 20’ setback 519.5 525 523 539 540 PROPERTY LINE 513 540 OBSERVATORY AVENUE 525 SCALE: 1" = 30' 2005 JPA SITE M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA 2005 JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE SITE PLAN Architects MITCHELL / MATTHEWS © 2021 & Planners 25 01.11.2022 ASPEN HEIGHT S PARTNERS All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 ARCHITECTS & PLA NNERS © 2021 SK-153 Tuesday, December 7, 2021 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 434-979-7550 Attachment B & COMP PLAN HEIGHT OF 5 STORIES ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT (35’) UNDER EXISTING R-2U ZONING PROPERTY PROPERTY LINE LINE M E AL C OR 55’ +/- ZO R PLANTI PE LK THE E SETBACK BU P O NINGW Y H 75' REQUIRED REAR SETBACK MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE UNDER SUP 36' 26' PROPOSED SETBACK REQUESTED BUILDING ENVELOPE WITH SUP MAX. HEIGHT 20' JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE 101' proposed REQUESTED building 55' HEIGHT beyond 75' 35' 35' 25' ∆ GRADE TYPE S-3 AVG. GRADE 37' BUFFER PLANE 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA COMPARISON TO BUILDABLE ENVELOPE UNDER A SPECIAL USE PERMIT Architects & Planners 26 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B OBSERVATORY AVENUE WASHINGTON AVENUE T D RAF S N G RES ESIG GE PRO LL IN D CHAN STI T TO U B JEC S 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA ELEVATION JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE Architects & Planners 27 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B T D RAF S N G RES ESIG GE PRO LL IN D CHAN STI T TO U B JEC S 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA ELEVATION OBSERVATORY AVENUE Architects & Planners 28 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B T D RAF S N G RES ESIG GE PRO LL IN D CHAN STI T TO U B JEC S 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA ELEVATION WASHINGTON AVENUE Architects & Planners 29 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B OBSERVATORY AVENUE WASHINGTON AVENUE T D RAF S N G RES ESIG GE PRO LL IN D CHAN STI T TO U B JEC S 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA ELEVATION REAR Architects & Planners 30 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 5 Attachment B 510 509.5 20’ setback 20’ setback Elevated terrace / COURTYARD 509.66 523 509.85 507.66 510 WASHINGTON AVENUE POOL OBSERVATORY AVENUE 519.5 26.35’ setback 509.66 510 513 510 PROPERTY LINE 503 JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA ENLARGED STREETSCAPE PLAN / ROOF PLAN Architects & Planners 31 510 505 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B T D RAF S N G RES ESIG GE PRO LL IN D CHAN STI T TO U B JEC S 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA PERSPECTIVE JPA & OBSERVATORY AVENUE CORNER Architects & Planners 32 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B T D RAF S N G RES ESIG GE PRO LL IN D CHAN STI T TO U B JEC S 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA PERSPECTIVE LOOKING ACROSS JPA Architects & Planners 33 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B T D RAF S N G RES ESIG GE PRO LL IN D CHAN STI T TO U B JEC S 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA PERSPECTIVE JPA & WASHINGTON AVENUE CORNER Architects & Planners 34 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B T D RAF S N G RES ESIG GE PRO LL IN D CHAN STI T TO U B JEC S 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA PERSPECTIVE JPA STREETSCAPE Architects & Planners 35 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B T D RAF S N G RES ESIG GE PRO LL IN D CHAN STI T TO U B JEC S 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA PERSPECTIVE JPA STREETSCAPE Architects & Planners 36 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 Attachment B T D RAF S N G RES ESIG GE PRO LL IN D CHAN STI T TO U B JEC S 2005 JPA M I T C H E L L / M AT T H E W S Charlott es v ille VA PERSPECTIVE OBSERVATORY AVENUE PARTIAL STREETSCAPE Architects & Planners 37 01.11.2022 All grades, counts and quantities are approximate and will change as design proceeds. 434.979.7550 © 2021 S:\103\48530-JPA_Aspen_Heights\DWG\Sheet\SUP\48530-103-C1.0 SITE CONTEXT PLAN.dwg | Plotted on 3/14/2022 4:10 PM | by Kim Roeser LEGEND BUS STOP FONTAINE RESEARCH PARK FONTAI NE AVE EXT SLAUGHTER REC CENTER PROJECT LOCATION AL DE RM AN RD HILL DINING ROOM UVA OBSERVATORY JEFFERSON PARK AVE MC CO RM IC K RD ST STADIUM AD I UVA SCOTT J UM E BEACH CLUB F FRY'S SPRING RD FE AQUATIC AND RS O FITNESS CENTER N P A RK AV E Attachment B .25 MI. 10 MIN. EMM E T ST S BARRACKS ROAD SHOPPING CENTER UVA LIBRARY .50 MI. 15 MIN. UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA THE LAWN .75 MI. 20 MIN. WES 0 T MA IN ST 300' NAD 83 SCALE 1"=300' HOSPITAL MALL UVA UNIVERSITY 600' DOWNTOWN THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. CHARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 TEL 434.295.5624 FAX 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION ASPEN HEIGHTS (2005 JPA) DATE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA SCALE JOB NO. C1.0 DRAWN BY SHEET NO. 1" = 300' 48530 T. BRIGHT T. BRIGHT CHECKED BY DESIGNED BY B. CICHOCKI SUP SITE CONTEXT These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP. Attachment B MHS TOP=498.42 INV IN=479.67 8" PVC (SW) INV OUT=479.59 8" PVC (NE) TEL 434.295.5624 FAX 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 REMOVE SD INLET/ W GRATE S THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE TOP=514.79 CHARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE INV IN=512.74 12" RCP (NW) INV OUT=512.69 12" RCP (SE) MHS 10" TOP=512.05 REMOVE SD INLET/ W GRATE INV IN=509.25 8" CLAY (SW) INV IN=507.50 8" PVC (NW) P TOP=516.65 OH APPROX. LOCATION OF 8" DI WATERLINE INV IN=514.60 8" PVC (SW) CL 16' (W) INV OUT=507.45 8" PVC (SE) REVISION DESCRIPTION SWL INV IN=514.55 8" PVC (DS) GARAGE DOOR SAN SWL INV OUT=514.50 12" RCP (SE) FFE=516.50 12" DI OHP DWS OHP OHP OHP EP OHP MHS W WP OH OHP OHP OHP OHP P W W W OHP OH TOP=528.49 OHP W INV IN=525.19 6" PVC (SW) W EP OH REMOVE METERS AND P WASHINGTON AVENUE W OHP W IINV OUT=523.86 8" CLAY (NW) ABANDON AT MAIN (TYP.) 35' R/W 8" DI OHP W DB. 93, PG. 60 (EXCEPTION 9) OHP REMOVE REMOVE S REMOVE AND REPLACE ADA OHP REMOVE OVERHEAD LINE CONC. STEPS CONC. STEP SAN SAN CURB RAMP W CL 16' (W) SAN OHP AND POLE SERVING 2 TREADS 1 TREAD SAN S MHS P PK NAIL (S) SAWCUT (TYP.) OHP 2 RISERS GARAGE DOOR OH EXISTING BUILDING G P OHW 3 RISERS TOP=502.01 YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. OHP FFE=515.54 EP G 2" PE ' G G G G INV IN=499.71 8" PVC (SW) OHP REMOVE AND REPLACE CURB 67.24 12" RCP 12" RCP DWS INV IN=498.71 8" PVC (NW) "E S36°15'36"E 256.13' 31'28 REMOVE IRON (F) CONC. INV OUT=496.66 10" CLAY (NE) S51° 8" W FIRE HYDRANT TO REMAIN 6" PVC APPROX. LOCATION OF 8" OUTFALL PIPE (DAYLIGHTS) SAN SAN 8" SAN S S43°26'28" E EP REMOVE INV=523.40WOOD WALL ASPH. CONC. ASPH. 8" REMOVE SD INLET/ W GRATE X 15" DEC 63.40' ASPH. EP 8" PVC IRON (F) TOP=512.57 X OHP REMOVE JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE INV=528.60 1.0' 2.0' 15" DEC U FRAME SHED 16.0' CL 16' (W) 20.0' 17.0' 1.9' INV IN=510.37 8" PVC (DS) SAN 8" HOLLY STONE WALL 18.4' X 30" RCP #110 INV IN=509.47 12" RCP (NW) X REMOVE 15.3' REMOVE GARAGE DOOR CL SINGLE 8.8' REMOVE X 8.8' IRON (F) 4" CLAY GRILL (2) FFE=518.50 DOOR (2) INV OUT=508.17 30" RCP (SW) TRENCH DRAIN CONC. STAIRS 3 STORY 31.2' INV=527.81 15.5' 14" PINE 5 RISERS / 6 TREADS REMOVE X CL SINGLE 2ND FRAME / VINYL X X DATE CONC. 32.2' 24" PINE (2) S52°24'24"W 104.10' 30" MAPLE REMOVE DOOR REMOVE FLOOR BUILDING ANDDECK 4.4' CL SINGLE 14" PINE REMOVE WOOD WALL FFE=527.00 ASSOCIATED DOOR CL SINGLE X W CONC. STEPS FFE=527.03 6" PVCSTAIRS, DOOR REMOVE SIGN AND REMOVE APPURTENANCES, OHP 6 TREADS REMOVE SHRUBS CL SINGLE INV= 30" POPLAR CONC. SWK CONC. STEPS 6" PVC REMOVE STORM PIPES AND RETURN TO OWNER (TYP.) X 7 RISERS DOOR WALLS, 522.9 ETC.9 FFE=527.03 5 TREADS / 6 RISERS FFE=527.02 INV=5 23.54 81.3' 6" PVC STRUCTURES (TYP.) X DATE CONC. SWK REMOVE C . INV=522.45 D 10/04/2021 AC EP AC CONC. SWK AC WOOD FENCE GRAVEL N 2ND FLOOR DECK 8" 30" DEC TMP 17-104 AC CONC. CO AC REMOVE APPROX. LOCATION OF 12" DI WATERLINE SAN HT=8' CONC. GRAVEL CITY PID 170104000 (6 SPACES) REMOVE 1.5' X 1.5' 14.5' CL SINGLE WOOD WALLS WOOD WALLS WOOD WALLS MHD TOP=525.02 X X NORMAN LAMSON, TRUSTEE OF THE DRAWN BY 10.0' (9 SPACES) COLUMNS 10.0' INV IN=521.27 8" PVC (DS)15" PINEGADIENT LAND TRUST AGREEMENT K. ROESER (TYP) DOOR REMOVE WOOD STEPS WOOD STEPS X FFE=541.38 8 TREADS / 9 RISERS INV OUT=509.33 30" RCP (NE) DATED JANUARY 3, 2005 OHP 8" DEC 8 TREADS / 9 RISERS DESIGNED BY REMOVE 7.9' 11.5' REMOVE DB. 1011, PG. 397 CONC. WALL X UNABLE TO WOOD STEPS ZONED: R-3 W COVERED BRICK PATIO CL SINGLE MEASURE INV. REMOVE TO 2ND FLOOR DECK K. ROESER CONC. DOOR 1.247 AC. (SURVEYED) FFE=541.38 WOOD STEPS 8 TREADS / 9 RISERS REMOVE REMOVE TO 2ND FLOOR DECK BRICK CHECKED BY 10" DEC 26.0' #2005 3'X3' 8 TREADS / 9 RISERS COLUMNS REMOVE REMOVE X CONC. STEPS 47.9' 8" DEC COLUMNS MHS 2 STORY 12" REMOVE STONE S B. CICHOCKI X EP (TYP) 3 TREADS / 4 RISERS SWL SWL CONC. STEPS COLUMN X TWIN 177.69' FRAME TOP=507.84 REMOVE MAPLE X 2 TREADS / 3 RISERS OHP CONC. SCALE TMP 17-105 CONC. STEPS XIRON (F) FLAGSTONE SWK X XX X X INV IN=503.36 8" PVC (SW) 4.5' 12.4' CL SINGLE INV OUT=503.33 8" CLAY (NE) CITY PID: 170105000 2 TREADS REMOVE DOOR BUILDING AND 1" = 20' 4' BENJAMIN T. & SENEM K. WARD IRON (F) 3 RISERS ASSOCIATED 15" DEC FLAGSTONE SWK FFE=541.83 IRON (F) SE CORNER X 22.5' INST. NO. 090002917 AT 92.13' APPURTENANCES, STAIRS, CONC. SWK OF STONE N51°22'45"E CL SINGLE REMOVE N36°40'40"W 109.89' N36°47'39"W 108.89' REMOVE WALLS, ETC. CL SINGLE CONC. STEPS W #116 WASHINGTON AVE. STONE COLUMN X X DOOR DOOR 8 TREADS REMOVE REMOVE COLUMN FFE=541.83 FFE=541.73 BRICK CONC. STEPS (COR) 12" DEC 9 RISERS COLUMNS 5 TREADS / 6 RISERS 92.10'CONC. SWK REMOVE REMOVE REMOVE 28.8' CONC. STEPS 8" SAN REMOVE WOOD STEPS 17.2' WOOD STEPS TO 4" CLAY OHP 4 TREADS TO 2ND FLOOR DECK 2ND FLOOR DECK INV=531.39 30 TREADS / 31 RISERS 13 TREADS CL SINGLE DOOR 5 RISERS REMOVE 20" (A) 31.7' REMOVE 14 RISERS (A) FFE=536.32 4" CLAY PINE BRICK WALL TMP 17-103 INV=529.22 X CL SINGLE REMOVE CITY PID 17010300 CO TMP 17-103.1 These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not X CONC. SWK CONC. X AC 4' 4' DOOR NORMAN LAMSON, TRUSTEE OF THE 94.33' CONC. NC CL SINGLE DOOR FFE=513.01 STEPS CONC. GADIENT LAND TRUST AGREEMENT EP 5 TREADS . 34.3' 57.9' (B) CL SINGLE CL SINGLE 32.2' X REMOVE CONC. STEPS CL SINGLE TMP 17-103.1 6 RISERS DATED JANUARY 3, 2005, AS AMENDED W FFE= FFE= DOOR REMOVE (9 SPACES) RS CL SINGLE DB. 1011, PG. 397 BRICK PATIO 24.1' DOOR 10" DEC 2 TREADS / 3 RISE OHP S52°41'07"W DOOR 538.73 538.71 S50°39'44"W FFE=528.99 #2007 HAND 24.3' 4' DOOR CL 16' (W) FFE=540.28 #104 RAILS ZONED: R-3 60.0' 60.1' ASPEN HEIGHTS (2005 JPA) SUP EXISTING CONDITION & DEMO PLAN CL SINGLE 2 STORY 29.1' #108 CL SINGLEDOOR FFE=521.53 0.236 AC. (SURVEYED) SAN GARAGE DOOR REMOVE BUILDING REMOVE BUILDING CONC. 1 STORY X 4' DOOR AC BRICK AND ASSOCIATED 3 STORY CL SINGLE AND ASSOCIATED 39.3' REMOVE CURB (TYP.) APPURTENANCES, FRAME / VINYL 40" MAPLE #106 AC BRICK DOOR 16.5' APPURTENANCES, REMOVE BUILDING FFE=536.35 40.3' 3 STORY CL SINGLE (B) 39.3' X 5.0' STAIRS, WALLS, ETC. 41.4' STAIRS, WALLS, ETC. AND ASSOCIATED CL SINGLE REMOVE P 8.0' CONC. SWK DOOR TMP 17-103.1 OH CL 16' (W) CL SINGLE FRAME / VINYL REMOVE FFE=521.54 DOOR APPURTENANCES, CONC. FFE=521.57 CITY PID 170103100 EP STEPS 16.0' GARAGE DOOR DOOR CONC. CONC. STAIRS, WALLS, OHP REMOVE P 6 TREADS NORMAN LAMSON, TRUSTEE OF THE FFE=537.16 FLAGSTONE REMOVE OH ETC. 2' 7 RISERS X 26.4' 32.4' CONC. HAND REMOVE GADIENT LAND TRUST AGREEMENT REMOVE LIGHT POLE (TYP.) 10" BIRCH (2) REMOVE SIDEWALK W STEPS RAIL GRAVEL WOOD FENCE 4.4' DATED JANUARY 3, 2005, AS AMENDED X X CL 7' (W) REMOVE 2 TREADS BRICK 31.7' CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA HT=6' AC AC INST. NO. 202200000918 AC (TRASH ENCLOSURE) CONC. STEPS 3 RISERS STEPS GARAGE 5 TREADS / 6 RISERS 8" DEC REMOVE SAN X WOOD FENCE 4' REMOVE 6 TREADS CONC. ZONED: R-3 EP 8" P 10" BIRCH (4) DOOR GRAVEL P WOOD FENCE X OH HT=8' 7 RISERS OH 0.228 AC. (SURVEYED) X HT=8' X 165.32' X XS37°19'40"E X X CL 7' (W) GARAGE DOOR X IRON (F) CATALPA N37°18'15"W 110.04' IRON (F) N37°18'15"W 105.40' PK NAIL (S) OHP OHP GRAVEL IRON (F) UG P OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP EP S:\103\48530-JPA_Aspen_Heights\DWG\Sheet\SUP\48530-103-C2.0-EXIST.dwg | Plotted on 3/14/2022 4:11 PM | by Kim Roeser EP REMOVE REMOVE AND REPLACE REMOVE SIGN AND BLOCK WALL G G G EP G G 2" PE G G W SAN SIDEWALK AND SAN CURB RETURN TO OWNER (TYP.) W SAN SAN REMOVE OVERHEAD G SAN HP SAN S SAWCUT (TYP.) SAN SAN LINES SERVING EXISTING SAN OHP O PARCELS TO BE CONSOLIDATED. SAN OHP P SAN limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP. OHP BUILDINGS SAN OH SAN S INTERNAL PROPERTY LINES TO P OH OHP BE REMOVED. W W RWSA 16" W W '16" CVL' W W W W W W EP RWSA 16"W W W W EXISTING OHP TO REMAIN (TYP.) HP EP CVL O MHS TOP=535.76 EXISTING OHP TO REMAIN (TYP.) INV IN=531.81 8" CLAY (NW) INV OUT=531.66 8" CLAY (SE) OBSERVATORY AVENUE MHS TOP=513.69 40' & VAR. WIDTH R/W INV IN=508.39 8" PVC (SW) EXISTING POLES TO REMAIN. INV IN=508.49 8" CLAY (NW) SWL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT INV OUT=508.34 8" PVC (NE) EP THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. SWL LEGEND: X REMOVE TREES/SHRUBS REMOVE ASPHALT REMOVE CONCRETE 83 REMOVE HARDSCAPING D NA JOB NO. REMOVE BUILDING SCALE 1"=20' 48530 SHEET NO. SAWCUT 0 20' 40' C2.0 Attachment B MHS TOP=498.42 INV IN=479.67 8" PVC (SW) INV OUT=479.59 8" PVC (NE) TEL 434.295.5624 FAX 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 S THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE CHARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE MHS 10" PROPOSED WATERLINE TOP=512.05 CONNECTION INV IN=509.25 8" CLAY (SW) INV IN=507.50 8" PVC (NW) P OH APPROX. LOCATION OF 8" DI WATERLINE INV OUT=507.45 8" PVC (SE) REVISION DESCRIPTION SWL SAN 20' SIDE SETBACK (CORNER) SWL 12" DI OHP DWS OHP OHP OHP EP OHP MHS W WP OH OHP OHP OHP OHP P W W W OHP OH TOP=528.49 OHP W INV IN=525.19 6" PVC (SW) W EP OHP WASHINGTON AVENUE W OHP W IINV OUT=523.86 8" CLAY (NW) 35' R/W 8" DI OHP W DB. 93, PG. 60 (EXCEPTION 9) OHP S SAN W OHP SAN SAN OHP SAN S MHS OHP G P OHW TOP=502.01 YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. 2" PE W OHP G ' G G G G INV IN=499.71 8" PVC (SW) OHP 67.24 INV IN=498.71 8" PVC (NW) "E S36°15'36"E 256.13' 31'28 INV OUT=496.66 10" CLAY (NE) S51° W SAN SAN E 8" SAN S S43°26'28" 8" PVC 63.40' OHP 4' JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE INV=528.60 SAN STONE WALL 24' D DATE 104.10' RETAINING WALL (TYP.) W OHP DATE S52°24'24"W 10/04/2021 EP APPROX. LOCATION OF 12" DI WATERLINE SAN DRAWN BY 26.35' FRONT SETBACK K. ROESER OHP DESIGNED BY W K. ROESER 25' PLANTING BUFFER CHECKED BY SAN S MHS B. CICHOCKI SWL SWL 177.69' TOP=507.84 OHP SCALE TMP 17-105 119-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING. INV IN=503.36 8" PVC (SW) CITY PID: 170105000 DOG PARK 5-STORY APARTMENT OVER 2-STORY UNDERGROUND GARAGE. INV OUT=503.33 8" CLAY (NE) 1" = 20' 9' BENJAMIN T. & SENEM K. WARD SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DETAILS. PROPOSED SANITARY INST. NO. 090002917 N51°22'45"E SEWER CONNECTION W #116 WASHINGTON AVE. SAN OHP 8" These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not 92.10' 36' REAR SETBACK (SUP) SITE DATA: W OHP S52°41'07"W TAX MAP PARCEL AND OWNER INFO:PARCEL(S) 170104000, 170103000, 170103100 ASPEN HEIGHTS (2005 JPA) NORMAN LAMSON, TRUSTEE OF THE GADIENT LAND SAN TRUST AGREEMENT 25 WHITE PINE STREET SCOTTSVILLE, VA 24590 12' TOTAL SITE AREA: 1.71 ACRES (COMBINED PARCELS) 5' OHP PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA: 1.24 ACRES LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE: 1.84 ACRES W SUP CONCEPT PLAN 6' CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA SOURCE OF SURVEY, BOUNDARY, AND TOPOGRAPHY: TIMMONS GROUP 13' 28 IMPERIAL DRIVE SAN STAUNTON, VA 24401 (540) 885-0920 S37°19'40"E 165.32' N37°18'15"W 110.04' N37°18'15"W 105.40' OHP GRAVEL OHP OHP VERTICAL DATUM REFERENCE: NAVD 88 S:\103\48530-JPA_Aspen_Heights\DWG\Sheet\SUP\48530-103-C3.0-CONCEPT.dwg | Plotted on 3/14/2022 4:11 PM | by Kim Roeser OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP CURRENT USE: RESIDENTIAL G G G G G G G 2" PE PROPOSED USE:MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL W SAN W SAN SAN G SAN SAN SAN HP S SAN SAN SAN MAXIMUM DENSITY ALLOWED WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT: 87 DUA; 70 DUA PROPOSED OHP O SAN OHP P SAN limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP. OHP SAN OH SAN S P OH ALL PARKING IS PROVIDED BELOW GRADE ACCESS FROM ENTRANCE ON WASHINGTON AVENUE. OHP W W RWSA 16" W W '16" CVL' W W W W W W EP RWSA 16"W W W W RECREATION AREA: PROPOSED STREETSCAPE AND ROOF TOP AMENITY SPACE HP EP CVL O MHS ZONED: R-3 TOP=535.76 INV IN=531.81 8" CLAY (NW) INV OUT=531.66 8" CLAY (SE) OBSERVATORY AVENUE 20' SIDE SETBACK (CORNER) MHS TOP=513.69 SETBACKS: PRIMARY STREET FRONTAGE (JPA): 26.35' SIDES: 20' 40' & VAR. WIDTH R/W INV IN=508.39 8" PVC (SW) REAR: 75'; REQUESTED REDUCTION TO 36' INV IN=508.49 8" CLAY (NW) SWL INV OUT=508.34 8" PVC (NE) ADJACENT AREAS: NORTH - WASHINGTON AVENUE EP EAST - JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE SOUTH - OBSERVATORY AVENUE SWL WEST - PARCEL 170105000 (116 WASHINGTON AVE) MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED WITH SPECIAL USE PERMIT: 101'; 75' PROPOSED (AVERAGE GRADE) LEGEND: UTILITIES: CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE PUBLIC WATER, SEWER CONCRETE SIDEWALK NOTES: 1. FOR ALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS AND BUILDING FOUNDATIONS, NO TIEBACKS, GEOGRID, OR OTHER STRUCTURAL COMPONENT CAN HEAVY DUTY CONCRETE EXTEND INTO CITY ROW (INCLUDING TEMPORARY SHEETING AND SHORING) WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL. 2. A BACKFLOW PREVENTER MUST BE PROVIDED FOR THE PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY ASPHALT 83 DOMESTIC CONNECTION, IN ADDITION TO THE FIRE SERVICE LINE. D NA 3. ALL WATER LINE SHUT DOWNS MUST BE COORDINATED WITH AND PERFORMED BY THE CITY. THE DEVELOPER MUST HAND OUT NOTICES HARDSCAPE (SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN) TO AFFECTED CUSTOMERS AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE. JOB NO. 4. ALL PERIMETER SIDEWALK ALONG OBSERVATORY AVENUE, SCALE 1"=20' JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE, AND WASHINGTON AVENUE WILL BE 48530 MILL AND OVERLAY PLACED WITHIN AN ACCESS EASEMENT AND MAINTAINED BY THE SHEET NO. 0 20' 40' PROPERTY OWNER. C3.0 Attachment B WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS (PRELIMINARY): WATER QUANTITY ANALYSIS (PRELIMINARY): STORMWATER MANAGEMENT NARRATIVE SITE DATA DRAINAGE AREA ANALYSIS THE SITE TOPOGRAPHY AND BELOW GRADE PARKING GARAGE PODIUM WILL BE USED TO PRE DEVELOPED AREA PRE DEVELOPED POST DEVELOPED PROMOTE DISCONNECTION OF IMPERVIOUS AREA DIRECTED TO RUNOFF REDUCTION MANAGED TURF = 0.82 AC AREA = 1.84 AC STORMWATER PRACTICES. THE INTENT IS TO DRAIN ALL OF THE ROOF AREAS TO URBAN AREA = 1.84 AC MHS IMPERVIOUS = 0.75 AC CN = 79 CN= 91 BIORETENTION PRACTICES STRATEGICALLY DISTRIBUTED AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE TOP=498.42 TC = 6 MIN TC = 6 MIN BUILDING. THE UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE PODIUM ALLOWS GREAT FLEXIBILITY IN INV IN=479.67 8" PVC (SW) PRE DEVELOPMENT LOAD (TP) (LB/YR) = 2.04 LB/YR DISTRIBUTING THE ROOF DRAINAGE AS NEEDED BECAUSE THE ROOF DRAINS CAN BE TAKEN INV OUT=479.59 8" PVC (NE) Q (CFS) V (AC-FT) Q (CFS) V (AC-FT) DOWN INTO THE GARAGE PER USUAL AND THEN ROUTED AS NEEDED FOR TREATMENT. THE POST DEVELOPED AREA 1 YEAR 3.93 0.190 1 YEAR 1.78 0.292 URBAN BIORETENTION PRACTICES ALONG THE OBSERVATORY AVE ARE PLANNED TO PROVIDE MANAGED TURF= 0.33 AC 10 YEAR 10.34 10 YEAR 8.07 THE MAJORITY OF THE TREATMENT WITH OVERFLOWS CONNECTING TO THE DETENTION PIPE IMPERVIOUS = 1.24 AC POST Q ABOVE ARE THE DETAINED RATES DIRECTLY BELOW (WHICH UNDERDRAINS WILL TIE TO ALSO). THE WATER QUALITY TEL 434.295.5624 FAX 434.295.8317 www.timmons.com 608 Preston Avenue, Suite 200 | Charlottesville, VA 22903 CHANNEL PROTECTION (ENERGY BALANCE): REQUIREMENTS AS SHOWN ON THIS SHEET ARE EXPECTED TO BE ACHIEVED ON SITE. WATER TOTAL POST DEVELOPMENT LOAD (TP) (LB/YR) = 3.36 LB/YR QUANTITY IS MET THROUGH THE RUNOFF REDUCTION PRACTICES AND SUPPLEMENTED BY THE QDEVELOPED ≤ 0.90*(QPRE-DEVELOPED*RVPRE-DEVELOPED)/RVDEVELOPED UNDERGROUND STORAGE PIPE. ALL RUNOFF FROM THE SITE LEAVES IN THE FORM OF SHEET TOTAL LOAD REDUCTION REQUIRED (LB/YR) = 1.48 LB/YR FLOW TO CURB LINES AND ULTIMATELY DRAINS TO THE NORTH EAST DOWN JEFFERSON PARK OK 1.78 CFS ≤ 0.80*(3.93 CFS*0.190AC-FT)/(0.292AC-FT)= 2.05 CFS AVENUE. OUR INTENT IS TO MEET THE ENERGY BALANCE AND FLOOD PROTECTION ONSITE LOAD REDUCTION PROPOSED: ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATES FOR THE SITE. FURTHER, OUR INTENT IS TO DISPERSE THE URBAN BIORETENTION PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL (LB/YR) = 1.31 LB/YR RELEASE POINTS OF FLOW FROM THE SITE INTO THE SITE PERIMETER CURB LINES IN SUCH S THIS DRAWING PREPARED AT THE FLOOD PROTECTION: DOWNSTREAM HYDRODYNAMIC PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL (LB/YR) = 0.21 LB/YR WAY AS TO MIMIC THE EXISTING HYDROLOGY OF THE SITE TO THE EXTENT PRACTICAL. CHARLOTTESVILLE OFFICE TOTAL PHOSPHORUS REMOVED ON SITE = 1.52 LB/YR POST-DEVELOPED Q10 ≤ PRE-DEVELOPED Q10 MHS 10" THIS CONCEPTUAL EVALUATION DEMONSTRATES HOW AT SITE PLAN THE VIRGINIAOK 8.07 CFS (POST-DEVELOPED Q ) ≤ 10.34 CFS (PRE-DEVELOPED Q ) TOP=512.05 10 10 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY WILL BE MET. INV IN=509.25 8" CLAY (SW) INV IN=507.50 8" PVC (NW) P OH APPROX. LOCATION OF 8" DI WATERLINE INV OUT=507.45 8" PVC (SE) REVISION DESCRIPTION SWL 500 SAN SWL 12" DI OHP DWS OHP OHP OHP EP OHP MHS W WP OH OHP OHP OHP OHP P W W OHP 512 W OH TOP=528.49 OHP 508 W WASHINGTON AVENUE 515 INV IN=525.19 6" PVC (SW) OHP W W EP 518 505 OHP W IINV OUT=523.86 8" CLAY (NW) 35' R/W 8" DI 520 APPROX. AREA OF DEPRESSED URBAN 523 OHP 50 W 503 OHP BIORETENTION PLANTER (TYP.) DB. 93, PG. 60 (EXCEPTION 9) 1 S SAN W OHP SAN SAN 510 527 OHP CURB DRAIN (TYP.) SAN S MHS OHP 507 G P OHW TOP=502.01 YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS. 525 2" PE W OHP G 8 ' G G G G INV IN=499.71 8" PVC (SW) OHP 52 67.24 521 515 520 512 S36°15'36"E INV IN=498.71 8" PVC (NW) "E 510 510 507 256.13' 50 5 31'28 508 506 50055 INV OUT=496.66 10" CLAY (NE) S51° 9 W SAN 514 503 SAN E 516 SAN S S43°26'28" 516 8" 530 51 50 8" PVC 63.40' 52 8 9 525 5 515 OHP JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE INV=528.60 505 SAN 528 STONE WALL 534 517 D FFE=510.00' FFE=510.00' 529 528 6' VORTECH STRUCTURE 527 519 FFE=510.00' 505 DATE 53 104.10' 1 0 5353 TRENCH DRAINS TO URBAN 53 0 51 4 BIORETENTION PLANTER 520 505 53 W 532 5 FFE=525.00' 6" TRENCH DRAIN 5 524 OHP 506 DATE 533 525 FFE=510.00' 51 53 S52°24'24"W 7 10/04/2021 0 EP 531 4 APPROX. LOCATION OF 12" DI WATERLINE 53 SAN 526 DRAWN BY 530 528 529 507 K. ROESER 53 OHP 8 DESIGNED BY 533 532 507 W 527 53 K. ROESER 0 535 52 508 APPROX. AREA OF DEPRESSED URBAN CHECKED BY 5 BIORETENTION PLANTER (TYP.) SAN S MHS B. CICHOCKI SWL SWL 177.69' TOP=507.84 517 OHP 535 SCALE INV IN=503.36 8" PVC (SW) 530 TMP 17-105 535 529 CITY PID: 170105000 509 INV OUT=503.33 8" CLAY (NE) 1" = 20' 519 53 513 BENJAMIN T. & SENEM K. WARD 3 52 INST. NO. 090002917 0 N51°22'45"E 509 9 W #116 WASHINGTON AVE. 53 51 53 5 5 53 2 SAN 536 510 OHP 8" 538 510 540 514 These plans and associated documents are the exclusive property of TIMMONS GROUP and may not be reproduced in whole or in part and shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever, inclusive, but not 92.10' 534 517 52 1 535 511 537 530 W 9 53 OHP S52°41'07"W 528 540 ASPEN HEIGHTS (2005 JPA) 511 SAN 53 7 2 53 51 7 514 SUP CONCEPT SWM & GRADING 538 ROOF DRAINS 512 CONTRIBUTING TO URBAN OHP 250 LF OF 72" CMP. SIZE OF DETENTION BIORETENTION (TYP.) 535 527 FFE=525.00' FFE=525.00' FFE=523.00' SYSTEM SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON W 51 9 BUILDING/ROOF DRAIN UPDATES. 2 53 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 537 515 52 2 SAN 513 536 530 526 527 531 529 528 530 525 S37°19'40"E 165.32' N37°18'15"W 110.04' 533 N37°18'15"W 105.40' 535 524 4 537 536 2 8 OHP 9 S:\103\48530-JPA_Aspen_Heights\DWG\Sheet\SUP\48530-103-C4.0-GRAD-SWM.dwg | Plotted on 3/14/2022 4:11 PM | by Kim Roeser 53 OHP 523 53 53 53 GRAVEL OHP 521 515 516 517 519 518 520 522 OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP OHP G G G G G 2" PE 53 G G W W 515 520 530 SAN 525 5 518 SAN SAN G SAN SAN SAN HP S SAN SAN APPROX. AREA OF URBAN SAN CURB DRAIN (TYP.) OHP O SAN OHP P SAN limited to construction, bidding, and/or construction staking without the express written consent of TIMMONS GROUP. OHP SAN 540 OH SAN S BIORETENTION CELLS TO TREAT 38 P CURB DRAIN (TYP.) OH 5 OHP ROOF DRAINAGE (TYP.) 2 W W 53 7 RWSA 16" W W '16" CVL' 52 W W W W W W EP RWSA 16"W W W W HP EP CVL O MHS TOP=535.76 INV IN=531.81 8" CLAY (NW) INV OUT=531.66 8" CLAY (SE) OBSERVATORY AVENUE MHS TOP=513.69 40' & VAR. WIDTH R/W INV IN=508.39 8" PVC (SW) INV IN=508.49 8" CLAY (NW) SWL INV OUT=508.34 8" PVC (NE) EP SWL 83 D 36" NA LEGEND: SCALE 1"=20' URBAN BIORETENTION 0 20' 40' PLANTER AREA JOB NO. ROOF AREA TO URBAN BIORETENTION PLANTER 48530 SHEET NO. C4.0 Attachment C Affordable Dwelling Unit Ordinance Worksheet Step 1: Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of Site A. Total size of development site: 1.71 acres B. Total square footage of site: 1.71 x 43,560.00 = 74,487.60 square feet (sf) (# of acres) C. 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 74,487.60 (total sf of site) D. Gross Floor Area (GFA) of ALL buildings/uses: 183,648.00 sf E. Total site FAR: 183,648.00 ÷ 74,487.60 = 2.47 (total GFA of site) (1.0 FAR) F. Is E greater than or equal to 1.0 FAR? NO: Your proposed development does not trigger the ADU ordinance. YES: Proceed to Step 2 or Step 3. Step 2: Number of ADUs Required G. GFA in excess of 1.0 FAR: 183,648.00 - 74,487.60 = 109,160.40 (D: total site GFA) (B: total SF of site) H. Total GFA of ADUs required: 109,160.40 x 0.05 = 5,458.02 (G: GFA in excess of 1.0 FAR) I. Equivalent density based on Units Per Acre: i. Dwelling Units per Acre (DUA) approved by SUP: 70.00 ii. SF needed for ADUs: 5,458.02 ÷ 43,560.00 = 0.1252989 acres (H: Total GFA of ADUs) iii. Total number of ADUs required: 0.1252989 x 70.00 = 8.77 (ii: ADU acreage) (i: DUA approved) Step 3: Cash-in-Lieu Payment J. Cash-in-Lieu Amount Residential: 183,648.00 x $2.685 = $493,094.88 K. Cash-in-Lieu Amount Mixed-Use: Total GFA of development site: 183,648.00 GFA Occupied Commercial Space: 0.00 GFA Occupied Residential Space: 183,648.00 Total GFA Occupied Space: 183,648.00 % Residential: 1.00 Propotionate amount of non-occupied GFA Non-Occupied Space*: 0.00 space GFA for residential use: 0.00 Amount of Payment: 183,648.00 x $2.685 = $493,094.88 *GFA of non-occupied space shall include: (i) basements, elevator shafts and stairwells at each story, (ii) spaces used or occupied for mechanical equipment and having a structural head room of six (6) feet six (6) inches or more, (iii) penthouses, (iv) attic space, whether or not a floor has been laid, having a structural head room of six (6) feet six (6) inches or more, (v) interior balconies, and (vi) mezzanines. GFA shall not include outside balconies that do not exceed a projection of six (6) feet beyond the exterior walls of the building; parking structures below or above grade; or and roof top mechanical structures. Attachment C Step 4: Minimum Term of Affordability L. Residential Project i. Households earning up to 80% AMI: Unit Type Eff. 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR 5BR 6BR Number of Units Market Rent HUD Fair Market Rents $1,024.00 $1,063.00 $1,264.00 $1,562.00 $1,959.00 $2,253.00 $2,547.00 HUD Utility Allowance Difference per Month $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Annual Cost of ADU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Annual Cost of ADUs: 0.00 (Sum of Annual Cost of ADU) Minimum Term of Affordability*: #DIV/0! (Cash-in-lieu payment / Total annual cost of ADUs) *If answer is less than 5, then minimum term of affordability will be 5 years. M. Mixed-Use Project i. Households earning up to 80% AMI: Unit Type Eff. 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR 5BR 6BR Number of Units Market Rent HUD Fair Market Rents $1,024.00 $1,063.00 $1,264.00 $1,562.00 $1,959.00 $2,253.00 $2,547.00 HUD Utility Allowance Difference per Month $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Annual Cost of ADU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Annual Cost of ADUs: 0.00 (Sum of Annual Cost of ADU) Minimum Term of Affordability: #DIV/0! (Cash-in-lieu payment / Total annual cost of ADUs) *If answer is less than 5, then minimum term of affordability will be 5 years. Source: HUD FY2022 Fair Market Rents Attachment D From: Karimi, Hamid Jim (hk6ty) hk6ty@virginia.edu Subject: Aspen Heights Building Plan Date: November 30, 2021 at 1:31 PM To: eh@mitchellmatthews.com Cc: alfelem@charlottesville.gov Dear Erin Hannegan, Thank you for your recent le6er regarding your upcoming request for a Special Use Permit for 104 Observatory Avenue. I am the resident and owner of 113 Observatory Avenue. Reading your project proposal, I am primarily concerned about on-street parking. Occasionally, cars parked on the road block my way out of my driveway. On-street parking has also presented a problem for the trash-pickup services, as their trucks are someMmes unable to navigate through Observatory Avenue. You are proposing a 10% reducMon in required parking spaces for your planned units. I would like to know what you anMcipate as an effect of this on on-street parking. With so many new units being proposed, what recommendaMons do you have, if any, to regulate parking? I very much appreciate any informaMon and recommendaMons you may have to help alleviate this problem. Thank you for your Mme and consideraMon. Regards, Hamid Karimi Attachment D From: Bill Schaaf billschaafsr@gmail.com Subject: 2005 JPA Project Date: December 15, 2021 at 2:35 PM To: eh@mitchellmatthews.com Good Afternoon Erin, The attached letter expressed my concerns with the proposed development. Please review and comment if you like . I was unable to view the virtual presentation. Thank you, Bill Schaaf 814-882-769 Washington AVe 2005 p…ect.odt Attachment D December 15, 2021 Mitchell / Matthews Architects Erin Ferguson, Project manager PO Box 5603 Chancellorsville, VA 22905 Good Morning Erin, Thank you for the information on the 2005 JPA proposed development. I was unable to attend the virtual meeting. I own the property at 113 Washington Ave. If I understand the plans correctly the proposed ingress and egress for the parking garage would be very close to the front door of my property I am most concerned that the proposed plan and related appeal would put an unreasonable amount of traffic on Washington Avenue. This street has a downward slope to the south from your parking entrance towards JPA and a rising slope approaching the garage entrance from the stadium. The result, in my opinion, would be creating a potential hazard for vehicles entering and exiting your garage. They would not see approaching vehicles on Washington Ave when turning into or leaving the garage. If everybody followed the speed limit it would be less of a problem, but they do not. This residential street was not designed to handle high density development. Ingress and egress would be more properly facing JPA. It solves the safety of visibility and the wider street would permit the higher density traffic. The second concern is the request for a decrease in the total parking by 10 % The reality is that it should be increased. My 4 bedroom dwelling has 5 occupants and 5 cars. There is not adequate parking for them on the street and includes using the existing driveway. The typical college student comes to the University with a vehicle. The plan as presented does not address where the others will park. The plan does not recite the number of parking spaces that will be in the garage. The minimum requirement should be one parking space per bedroom. I don't want to be a property owner that says “NIMBY” – Not in My Back Yard. However, the request for variances serve the best interest of the developers and not the interest of the neighborhood. Perhaps you are asking for the moon and will settle for something reasonable and acceptable to both. I ask you to look very closely at the impact of traffic and parking as you finalize your design. Sincerely William E. Schaaf 5017 Westbury Farms Drive Attachment D Erie, PA 16506 814-882-7696 cc: Mat Alfele Attachment D From: Kenneth Hill micasabe@gmail.com Subject: Fwd: 2005 JPA Project Date: January 6, 2022 at 5:02 PM To: eh@mitchellmatthews.com Hi Erin: I received notice from Mr. Shaaf about the 2005 JPA project, the next-door owner. My property is at 111 Washington Ave. According to the project plan video, the vehicle exit and entryway are right across from my property, as well as the trash pickup area. I have serious concerns re 390 tenants and 125 and only parking spaces. I have 8 tenants in my duplex and each has their own car. Five of them park on the street. It is hard enough to find a parking space on Washington Avenue now and little enforcement, so I can really see this by the numbers for what it is. I would like to know when the public was first made aware of this project. I was not informed of such and believe a number of my non- resident neighbor owners were not as well. I would like to know who to contact (emails preferably) in the transportation department and the planning commission to find out more information and to provide feedback accordingly. Please put my email on a list of any information on the 2005 JPA project moving forward. V/R Kenneth Hill 111 Washington Ave owner 703-280-1742 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Bill Schaaf Date: Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 10:58 AM Subject: Fwd: 2005 JPA Project To: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Bill Schaaf Date: Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 3:48 PM Subject: Re: 2005 JPA Project To: Erin Hannegan Thank you. I reviewed the video. The parking and traffic seem to be identified by multiple viewers as being of concern. I would like the name and address of the planning commission that asked for a reduction in parking spaces so I can have dialogue with them. It is somewhat naive that students that can pay the rental prices of you building will not have cars available to them. One participant brought up the challenge of visitors and their parking. Really concerned about those two issues. Bill Schaaf 814-882-7696 On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 2:55 PM Erin Hannegan wrote: Bill, Thanks for you interest in our project and for your letter. Did you happen to leave me a voicemail just a little while ago? Your partial number below appears to match the voicemail, albeit, no name was left in the VM. If so, follow the below link to access the archived video of Tuesday, Dec. 7th's Neighborhood meeting for our proposed project titled "2005 JPA”. This will remain accessible throughout the review process. Please feel free to forward this email to neighbors who could not attend. https://transcripts.gotomeeting.com/#/s/9e98af90f4404d2dd2a2a7d7cca2cfaff77ec76ae4c36d12fdfbebefe6788c32 Additionally, as one slide (#14) had an incorrect title, (explained during the meeting), here is a link to a pdf of the slides, with that title corrected: https://mitchellmatthewsarchitects.sharefile.com/d-se9d73fea857143d28596cd8eed6847d3 A pdf of the original slides (used for the meeting) is also available for download from the video archive link (the first link) above. Attachment D I will forward your letter on to our civil & traffic engineer. Please continue to reach out with additional questions or comments. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Erin Erin Hannegan, LEED AP Project Manager Mitchell/Matthews Architects & Planners a | P.O. Box 5603, Charlottesville, VA 22905 e | eh@mitchellmatthews.com p | 434.979.7550 x 208 c | 215.266.6943 f | 434.979.5220 On Dec 15, 2021, at 2:35 PM, Bill Schaaf wrote: Good Afternoon Erin, The attached letter expressed my concerns with the proposed development. Please review and comment if you like . I was unable to view the virtual presentation. Thank you, Bill Schaaf 814-882-769 Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Alfele, Matthew From: Anne Benham Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 5:39 PM To: Alfele, Matthew; Anne Benham Subject: ASPEN TOPCO II Special Use Permit (SUP) application / JPA and Observatory Ave Attachments: TRAFFIC_Parking_Observatory (2)_jpg; TREES_3STORYBLDGS_104_OBSERVATORY_jpg; TREES_JPA_SUP_jpg Follow Up Flag: FollowUp Flag Status: Flagged ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Dear Mr. Alfele Re: ASPEN TOPCO II Special Use Permit (SUP) application / JPA and Observatory Ave It's important to me that the City Department members who will review the above referenced SUP will read and acknowledge receipt of my comments on this application. Please confirm that you have received and read my message in an email to me. I thank you in advance for this. As a long‐time resident homeowner of Observatory Avenue, I’m writing to urge that you reject the Special Use Permit application by Aspen Topco II to build a large student complex on 2005‐2007JPA /104 Observatory, for reasons of safety, building scale, density, and the required parking reduction inappropriate for our street. I also have concerns about the destruction of green space and about the reputation of the developer. Parking, Traffic, Safety Issues Observatory Avenue is a narrow dead end street, with only one lane of traffic available when there are vehicles parked on the street, which is most of the time. It’s very difficult to back out of a driveway when there are cars parked on the street, especially in the snow. Last week I saw my neighbor struggle to avoid hitting a car parked across from her driveway as she backed out. Large vehicles such as garbage or UPS trucks block traffic when they’re on the street. They must back down the street to exit, because there is no space for them to turn around at the end of the street. A fire truck or ambulance would be unable to drive down Observatory if there were other large vehicles on the street or many parked cars. The proposed new complex calls for 390 students, with underground parking provided for only 125. This leaves scores of students without spaces, many of whom (and their visitors) will want to park on our street. Observatory Avenue can’t possibly handle much more parking. SEE ATTACHED PHOTO, taken from my driveway last week, of traffic and parking conditions on Observatory. Scale, Height, Density, Duration of Construction The five to seven story building of the proposed project is much larger than and way out of proportion with the existing structures on Observatory, none of which is currently higher than three stories. PLEASE SEE 1 Attachment D ATTACHED PHOTO OF 3‐STORY BUILDINGS CURRENTLY ON PROPOSED BUILDING SITE on Observatory. The proposed five to seven story building, at certain times of the day, will cast big shadows on adjacent properties, eliminating or reducing sunlight necessary for established plantings or growing flowers and vegetables in the summer on these properties, mine included. The proposed density of 390 occupants will bring more artificial light at night, more noise and more parked cars to the street, not to mention the destruction of a significant green space (see next item below). The construction is estimated to take two years – a very long time for Observatory and Washington residents to have to bear the (unhealthy) dust, loud noise, additional parking by employees working on the building, and treeless, bleak, unsightly views of the construction process. The process and completion of the proposed complex will dramatically alter the character of Observatory and reduce quality of life for its residents, in terms of traffic, safety, health, the environment and aesthetics. Destruction of Tree Canopy and Increased Heat Island Effect Currently, there are over two dozen trees on the SUP property. They form part of Charlottesville’s urban forest, which continues to decline. These trees provide carbon sequestration, shade, cooling, air purification, and stormwater management. They mitigate the urban heat island effect in our neighborhood. If the SUP goes forward, 27 mature trees will be cut down. In their place small, young trees will be planted. However, it takes decades for young trees to provide the same cover as mature trees, as City Planning Commissioner Stolzenberg says in a Charlottesville Tomorrow 2020 article. According to a Charlottesville Tomorrow 8/30/21 article on heat islands, the JPA neighborhood is already one of the hottest parts of the city. This is corroborated by a January 2021 article, in which Tree Commission Chair Brian Menard is quoted: Simply put, less shade equals higher levels of heat, negative health outcomes, and higher energy costs …Neighborhoods with tree canopy below 40 percent are effectively unhealthy neighborhoods. In the January 2021 article graphic the tree canopy percentage listed for the JPA area is 36.6%. Removal of over two dozen shade‐providing trees and the increase of impermeable surfaces, which will occur if this SUP is approved and the complex is built, can only increase the heat island effect in our neighborhood PLEASE SEE ATTACHED PHOTOS for examples of the trees that would be removed if the proposed project is approved. Concerns about Aspen Heights History I’m concerned about a company with major problems in its track record coming to build a complex in my neighborhood. Some reports on problems with their projects: 2020 Baltimore Sun article on Towson students who filed lawsuit against Aspen Heights 2020 Texas law firm reports on a multimillion dollar lawsuit won against a company controlled by the Aspen Heights group of companies. 2014 Columbia Missourian article on high student housing utility bills and connection to Aspen Heights construction of student housing building. 2013 KOMU article reports on unpaid workers controversy concerning Columbia Mo. student housing built by Aspen Heights 2 Attachment D Please Note: Aspen Topco II, LLC is registered to Aspen Heights Partners CEO Greg Henry. Sincerely, Anne Benham 116 Observatory Ave apbe4n@gmail.com 3 Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Alfele, Matthew From: Bill Schaaf Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 12:21 PM To: Alfele, Matthew Cc: Kenneth Hill Subject: JPA 2005 project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Good afternoon Matt. Let me begin by stating that Iam not in opposition to this development as I have been a real estate investor for years. I own a property at 113 Washington Avenue that will be impacted by the proposed construction. I am confidentthat the project will move forward and neighbors' reasonable concerns will be responded to. My big concern is that the parking is very inadequate. I base this on the fact that at my property I have 6 tenants and six cars attributed to them. My neighbor to the south has a similar situation . For the developers and planners to ignore this statistic is not a good answer to a significant concern . Of course, related to the vehicles is the single exit and ingress off Washington. WAshington AVe is not designed to handle this traffic flow and the related impact on JPA. The garbage collection site is nearly opposite my property. I believe this will be an ongoing problem with smell, trash flying etc if it is not completely enclosed . Is there any chance that I could appear virtually? I don't live in Charlottesville. You can reach me at 814‐882‐7696 to discuss these concerns. Bill Schaaf 1 Attachment D Alfele, Matthew From: Erin Hannegan Sent: Friday, December 3, 2021 12:36 PM To: Karimi, Hamid Jim (hk6ty) Cc: Alfele, Matthew; Matthews, John Subject: Re: Aspen Heights Building Plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Dear Hamid, Thank you for your inquiry into our proposed project and your recent follow up phone call. As a team, we are aware that Observatory Avenue has owner occupied residences, (as opposed to Washington Avenue) and is a narrower street. I am sorry to hear that you are currently experiencing some parking problems on your street. After further review of the existing conditions, we understand that Observatory Avenue is a permit parking only street already. It appears that the existing street width is typically not wide enough to support on‐street parking, which explains your concerns about navigation for trash trucks, etc. It is our opinion that parking is a problem virtually everywhere in close proximity to the University and the Hospital, and is not specific to newer residential projects. New purpose‐built student residences generally do a better job at providing adequate parking and other amenities for their residents when compared to the condition created by conversion of older homes to student residences. As I expect you realize, this project cannot stop illegal or nuisance parking issues, but we expect it will house all its parking needs on site, below grade and out of view, with no vehicular access to/from Observatory Avenue. This should be a major improvement over the current condition. In addition, trash services for our proposed project are also located off of Washington Avenue. The request for a 10% reduction in parking is based on a few factors: 1) Planning Commission suggested we build less parking during our recent informal discussion, 2) calculation of existing on‐street parking at the perimeter of the site, suggests there are at least 16 spaces ‐ 8 available spaces on JPA, 4 spaces on Washington Avenue, and 4 spaces on Observatory Avenue. (Refer to attached image). Observatory Avenue does not appear wide enough to accommodate on‐street parking for much of its length, however the city has not restricted the on street parking. The proposed design will eliminate many of the existing access points / driveways, and therefore potentially increase the available spaces on‐ street, if the city does not enforce its street width requirements. 3) the University has parking available to students at Scott Stadium, within easy walking distance of this project (and the neighborhood at large) as well as at other locations around Grounds accessible via the University Transit System and 4) finally, for your specific benefit as a resident of Observatory Ave, the main entrances to the building are on the corner of JPA and Washington ‐ thus parking on Observatory will be the least convenient location compared to other available on‐street parking on JPA and Washington Ave. After we (the neighborhood and our team) jointly understand the city’s current monitoring of the area, potential solutions could be improved 'permit parking only' signage and increased frequency of monitoring for non‐compliant parking, by city parking enforcement. I would appreciate knowing if you felt these suggestions would be helpful to you and your neighbors. 1 Attachment D As requested over the phone, here’s a link to our preliminary packet, used during our informal discussion with planning commission. I look forward to meeting you (virtually) on Tuesday. Get in touch if you have further questions. https://mitchellmatthewsarchitects.sharefile.com/d‐s722f7162427c441bad7fccd3d407ba83 Sincerely, Erin Erin Hannegan, LEED AP Project Manager Mitchell/Matthews Architects & Planners a | P.O. Box 5603, Charlottesville, VA 22905 e | eh@mitchellmatthews.com p | 434.979.7550 x 208 c | 215.266.6943 f | 434.979.5220 2 Attachment D 3 Attachment D On Nov 30, 2021, at 1:31 PM, Karimi, Hamid Jim (hk6ty) wrote: Dear Erin Hannegan, Thank you for your recent letter regarding your upcoming request for a Special Use Permit for 104 Observatory Avenue. I am the resident and owner of 113 Observatory Avenue. Reading your project proposal, I am primarily concerned about on‐street parking. Occasionally, cars parked on the road block my way out of my driveway. On‐street parking has also presented a problem for the trash‐pickup services, as their trucks are sometimes unable to navigate through Observatory Avenue. You are proposing a 10% reduction in required parking spaces for your planned units. I would like to know what you anticipate as an effect of this on on‐street parking. With so many new units being proposed, what recommendations do you have, if any, to regulate parking? I very much appreciate any information and recommendations you may have to help alleviate this problem. Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards, Hamid Karimi 4 Attachment D Dear Matt Alfere and City Regulators, I am writing because I am concerned about Aspen Heights Partners’ application for a more than threefold increase in by-right density and a reduction in required parking spaces for their proposed construction of new student housing on Observatory Avenue and the adjacent streets. I am the resident and owner of 113 Observatory Avenue. I have lived on this address for nearly 10 years. Occasionally, cars parked on the road block my way out of my driveway. There is a telephone post right at the corner of my driveway. Whenever a car is parked on the other side of the road across from my driveway, there is no way I can navigate my vehicle out and turn onto the road without hitting the car behind or the telephone post. On several occasions I have had to knock on my neighbor’s door in the early hours of the morning to ask them to move their cars, so I could get out. It is never a pleasant experience to wake a neighbor early in the morning. On-street parking has also presented a problem for the trash-pickup services, as their trucks are sometimes unable to pass through Observatory Avenue. Last year I took the issue up with the local traffic authorities and Neighborhood Development, but I never heard back. The suggestion, presented by Aspen Heights Partners and their architects, that many students do not own cars and commute on the buses is not at all what we are seeing in this neighborhood. Has their suggestion been independently verified? Our experience is that for every 3 or 4 students, there are 4 or 5 cars parked at and around their residencies. The extra cars belong to their visitors. The proposed 119 new units means many weekly student parties and overnight visitors, who will squeeze their cars into any space available on Observatory and Washington Avenue without worrying about the disruption this may cause for other residents. I bought this house because Observatory Avenue is a nice and quiet neighborhood, conveniently located within walking distance of where I currently work. Aspen Heights Partners and their architects claim that building a giant edifice in this neighborhood will be nothing more than simply following a trend already happening in this area: homeownership being turned into rentals. Contrary to their claim, the percentage of owner-occupancy has increased on our street over the last few years (111 and 125 Observatory Ave were both rentals, now owner-occupied. I believe 113 was also a rental at some point in the past). This is roughly a 15% increase in owner-occupancy on Observatory Avenue. The proposed construction will not simply follow a trend. It may dictate a new trend: it may force out the existing homeowners, in particular professionals working at UVA and those seeking a retirement in peace, in favor of investors who themselves live outside of this community. I hope that the city officials will protect the interests of the residents in this neighborhood. Attachment D I am not opposed to any project that improves student accommodation in our community. In my opinion, students add so much value to our city. I have a job because of them. I want our students to live well and have a good, vibrant time during their tenure at the university. I am only objecting to building a high-density-low-parking edifice that does not adequately address the concerns and the welfare of the existing residents. For this reason, I request that Aspen Heights Partners’ application for Special Use Permits for increased density and reduced parking be denied in its current form. More density will bring more vehicles. Any student housing built on this site should provide for more parking spaces. There needs to be more regulations as conditions for any such project. In my view, the parking provisions should sufficiently accommodate not only the need for parking spaces for the residents of the units, but also take into account their guests and overnight visitors. Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards, Hamid Karimi Attachment D Alfele, Matthew From: Jennifer King Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 9:45 AM To: Dowell, Taneia; Habbab, Karim; Lahendro, Jody; hosealmitchells@gmail.com; Palmer, William Charles; Russell, Liz; Solla-Yates, Lyle; Stolzenberg, Rory Cc: Alfele, Matthew Subject: SUP 2005-2007 JPA/104 Observatory Ave Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** To the Planning Commission: The Jefferson Park Avenue Neighborhood Association Board respectfully requests that the Planning Commission and City Council REJECT the application of Aspen Topco II for Special Use Permits to construct a residential building aimed at student renters at 2005‐2007 JPA/104 Observatory Ave. The developer requests a height of 75 feet, almost twice the height permitted by the current R‐3 zoning of this location, and a density of 119 units, more than three times the density of 36 units permitted by zoning. They also request a reduction of rear setback from 75 feet to 36 feet and a 22% reduction in required parking. This application, made soon after City Council approved the FLUM, anticipates a rezoning of the JPA neighborhood as “higher intensity residential” and a redesignation of Jefferson Park Avenue as an “urban mixed use corridor.” But this rezoning has not yet happened and it is not a given that it will happen precisely as the FLUM proposes. The 2021 Draft Comprehensive Plan projects rezoning to take 1‐3 years, using a deliberative, community‐collaborative, step‐by‐step rezoning process. Moreover, the rezoning proposed in the FLUM is highly controversial; it has already provoked a lawsuit. Aspen Topco II Acquisitions’ application not only jumps the gun on the City’s collaborative rezoning process, but even requests a radical increase in height (7 stories) compared to that envisaged by the FLUM for “higher intensity residential” (5 stories). According to the City Code guidelines for Special Use Permits (Section 34‐157, item 1) the Planning Commission must consider "whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood". The SUP guidelines also specify that the Planning Commission must consider "whether the proposed use or development will have any potentially adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, or the community in general", including traffic or parking congestion (item 4a), undue density of population or intensity of use (item 4e), and massing and scale of project (item 4j). This project has adverse effects in all these ways. 1. Parking and Safety. Observatory Ave. is a narrow, dead‐end street that already has more cars than it can tolerate. The developer proposes to provide only 125 parking spaces for a population of 390 students, on the grounds of proximity to U.Va. and to a bus stop. However, it is well known that students prefer to have cars for purposes other than going to school. Even if the developer increased the number of on‐site parking spaces, the addition of hundreds of cars of both residents and their guests would add to the already hazardous traffic conditions on both Observatory Ave. and Washington Ave. 2. Massing and scale. The developer proposes to place a 5‐7 story building directly across from one‐story houses on Observatory and two‐ story houses on Observatory and Washington, and in front of a one‐story house on Washington. It would be grossly out 1 Attachment D of scale in relation to the surrounding neighborhood, and its shadow would deprive nearby homes of sunlight. Note that on p. 6 of their application the developer misleadingly states that "newer projects range in scale from five to nine stories facing JPA," and they include a photo of the 9‐story building in the "neighborhood context photos" on p. 12. In fact that building, 1800 JPA, is located on the side of JPA that is in a higher density zone (University High Density) than the side where the proposed building would be located. 1800 JPA is also set considerably back from the street, unlike the proposed building. Furthermore, the developer also misleadingly claims that "the 2013 Comprehensive Plan modified the zoning in the JPA neighborhood … Rather than UHD, R‐3 and R‐2U spanning east to west between the railroad and Stadium Road, the entire area was designated as High‐Density residential" (p. 14). In fact, there has been no rezoning of the neighborhood, as shown by the developer's own zoning map on p. 11 of their application. 3. This project will not increase the City's inventory of badly‐needed affordable housing. On the contrary, it will replace current units on the site that are relatively affordable with luxury units targeting U.Va. students. As stated in their December 7 presentation to the neighborhood, the developer plans to charge rents at "market rate". 4. Environmental concerns. Considering that six buildings will be removed to make way for one large U‐shaped building with underground parking, there are several environmental concerns. The impervious surface will be greatly enlarged, so the ground water absorption will be greatly reduced with increased water into city drainage systems and the local creek for the surface water runoff. The removal of 27 trees will reduce the canopy cover that the city aims to enhance. The addition of 390 students will increase litter, noise, lights and fumes from car uses and personal gatherings. 5. Entrance corridor concerns. The City's Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines specify that "[n]ew building design should be compatible (in massing, scale, materials, colors) with those structures that contribute to the overall character and quality of the corridor" and that they "should complement the City’s character and respect those qualities that distinguish the City’s built environment." The proposed structure is hugely disproportionate in massing and scale with nearby buildings in the JPA corridor, and also starkly contrasts with them in materials and color. 6. Aspen Heights Partners, the Texas‐based developer behind this project, has a problematic history. For example, according to a 2020 article in the Baltimore Sun, a group of Towson University students sued Aspen Heights for charging them rent despite not having completed construction of the units they had leased. A 2014 article in the Columbia Missourian describes extraordinarily high electricity bills in another Aspen Heights student building, possibly due to under‐sized heating units. Other recent news stories mention multi‐million dollar lawsuits against subcontractors controlled by this company. In summary, this project will not benefit the City. Instead it will create hazardous parking and traffic conditions, will mar the environment, and will do serious harm to the quality of life of residents of the neighborhood. Please do not approve the Special Use Permits for this project. Sincerely, Nina Barnes, President Bobbie Williams, Vice President Bonnie Reilly, Treasurer Jennifer King, Secretary Ellen Contini‐Morava, At‐Large Member Nancy Haynes, At‐Large Member Jennifer King Interim Secretary, JPANA Board Phone: (434) 293‐9104, option 4 or ext. 103 2 Attachment D Fax: (434) 293‐9002 jenniferking@chaseinv.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Electronic Privacy Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains information that is, or may be, covered by electronic communications privacy laws, and is also confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error,and then immediately delete it. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Mutual fund investing involves risk. Principal loss is possible. Quasar Distributors, LLC, Distributor ===================================================================== 3 Attachment D Dear Planning Commissioners and City Councilors I am writing to express my concern about the proposed apartment building at 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue and 104 Observatory ,I reside at 125 Observatory Avenue. On the front end the project is asking for a special use permit, the developer want to exceed the by-right height for R-3 zoning by 30 feet, which is a seven stories on the JPA front going above and beyond , to triple the by-right density to accommodate close to 400 tenants . This towering structure will certainly impact the quality of life of residents negatively in parking alone the streets around here already maxed and the side entrances on the 5-7floor structure will only invite more side street parking. The road especially Observatory is narrow to begin with my neighbors and I already are constantly making many too adjustments in turning just to get out of the driveway! With the intended setbacks and reduce parking plans its a no brainer this is going to be ugly for us. I know there is some underground parking but there’s no doubt with this dense high population apartment complex will bring agony for us residents on already crowded streets. I respectfully ask you to deny Aspen Llc request for the special use permits. I bought my house four years ago and I completely renovated the entire house from the 1928 days of the past all brick and tile block and stucco, I love this home the structure and style and plan on living here for a long time. Its great to be within walking distance to so many places the church ,the school the restaurants , coffee shops etc . We like our calm and comfort here now and see that is going to change on the downside from this towering imposing structure. The word harmonious will transpire and will be sore ears, eyes and headaches for many many months, our living here will be rough then the other problems will begin ,The car Parking Mostly. I would also would venture to say the old waste lines on our street ,are terra cotta and there are 100 years old ,just believe they will rattle apart along with the shabby power lines when all this digging will start .(The city utility folks already know many of these waste lines are compromised already in these old neighborhoods.) as The rumbling will be going on for a good while I suppose. It is going to be noisy for sure. We my neighbors and I urge the planning commissioners and city councilors to please give us some thought and ask yourself how would I like this if it were me living next to this expansive construction site for months and months on end . Please think about how this will affect the residents, thank you . We ask for your help Sincerely John Ashworth Attachment D Attachment D Attachment D Date: January 20, 2022 Subject: Aspen Topco II Acquisitions and Mitchell/Matthews’s SUP application for 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue To: Matt Alfele and the City departments contributing to the analysis From: Lorna Martens, resident homeowner at 128 Observatory Avenue Attachment: Photo of Observatory Avenue plat of 1928 Dear Matt and Reviewing Departments: Aspen Topco II Acquisitions and Mitchell/Matthews have applied for four special use permits in order to construct an apartment building on the site they call 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue. This 1.71 acre site also includes a number of addresses on Observatory Avenue and Washington Avenue. Precisely the special use permits, if granted, would cause trouble if the developer were to build the proposed building. The developer is requesting close to double the by-right height (75’ at average grade plane instead of 45’) and more than three times the by-right density (119 units instead of 36 units). Nothing would mitigate the problems caused by this height and this density. 1. Height. The 1.7 acre lot is on an eminence. If you drive south from the university along Jefferson Park Avenue and pass Carrolton Terrace, the current buildings on the 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue site, i.e., the mansion and a side building, loom into view. They define the skyline. They are taller than anything else around. Imagine adding two stories to their height at the crest of the hill and four stories to their height where Observatory Avenue and Washington Avenue meet Jefferson Park Avenue. The result would be by far the tallest building in the neighborhood. It would not only block the light for houses on Observatory and Washington, but block afternoon light for houses on Harmon Street and Shamrock Road to the east and morning light for a stretch of residences to the west. On Observatory Avenue and Washington Avenue, the effect of the height on the light as well as the view would be disastrous. The building would dwarf every structure on both streets. The property, which is currently zoned R-3, is adjacent to R-2 zoning. The developer proposes to erect a 5-7 story edifice directly across from one-story houses on Observatory and two-story houses on Observatory and Washington and in front of a one-story house on Washington. The disproportion is grotesque. The 45’ by-right R-3 height is enough; 75’ from average grade plane is far too much. The 2021 draft Comprehensive Plan emphasizes context-sensitivity in new development: “forms and scales that are respectful of the surrounding Attachment D neighborhood,” “adequate transitions such as step downs in scale and intensity to mitigate impacts on adjacent residential and historical areas,” and “viewsheds.” The entrance corridor guidelines likewise state: “When making transitions to lower density areas, modulate the mass of the building to relate to smaller buildings. Heights can be greater if the mass is modulated and other scale techniques are adopted. Reduce height near lower density uses (p. 52).” 2. Density. The main problem with increased density is cars. Seemingly every student who lives off grounds wants to have a car. There are no rules against this. For a student, it’s one of the perks of coming to UVA. You’ve noticed the difference in traffic in Charlottesville generally, and the difference in parking along JPA, during term and during vacations? When classes are in session and students are here, Charlottesville is overwhelmed by student traffic. The students don’t want cars in order to drive to classes; in the daytime, there is no place to park on Central Grounds. To get on-grounds parking you have to join a waiting list longer than any student’s stay at the university. Students want cars for the many other reasons it’s convenient to have a car: to get groceries, to drive to “places like Wal-Mart” (to quote what they’ve said in the past), to visit their friends, to drive to their local jobs, to drive home during vacations, to drive out of town. In any case, it’s not an exaggeration to plan for one car (thus, one parking space) per off-grounds student. 125 parking spots for 390 residents, which is what the developer requests, is a totally inadequate number. Yet even if the developer were to add additional spots, that would not solve the parking problem (see below on “Traffic” and “Safety”). Traffic on Observatory Avenue: Observatory Avenue is a 1-block long dead end on a steep upgrade from Jefferson Park Avenue that narrows halfway up. There is no turnaround. There is at most one sidewalk, and for stretches no sidewalk at all. On Washington Avenue, too, there is at most one sidewalk. City records show that in 1924 H. Gary Clarke acquired a tract of land whose description corresponds to the location of present- day Observatory Avenue and Washington Avenue (DB 46, pg 29). According to 1925 land records for Charlottesville’s “District #1,” lot sales on Observatory Avenue took place in that year, and the first houses were built. The “new street” Observatory Avenue, built by H.G. Clarke, is shown together with its numbered lots on a plat of September 1928 (DB 62, pg 362). Please refer to the attached photo of this plat. The size of the road shown on this plat of 1928 has not changed. It is a narrow, hilly little road. Nevertheless, it sees a remarkable amount of traffic for a one-block-long dead end. We homeowners on Observatory Ave. have long been plagued by people driving up our street by mistake and using our driveways to turn around. During the university terms, Observatory Ave. swells with student traffic— not just the cars owned by the student renters, but those brought by their many guests, who come for parties and other get-togethers particularly in the evenings. Attachment D Observatory Avenue is also targeted by football game goers looking for parking. Observatory and Washington were not built for such traffic. Safety on Observatory Avenue: Observatory Avenue narrows upwards of the large parking lot behind 108 Observatory. Observatory Avenue is 27” wide at the level of 108 Observatory, but only 21.5” wide at the telephone pole in front of 113 Observatory. Currently, if cars park on both sides of the street on the narrow stretch and stay on the asphalt, i.e., do not drive up onto somebody’s grass, large vehicles like garbage trucks, fire trucks, and snow plows cannot squeeze through between two cars parked on opposite sides of the street. This has been an ongoing problem for decades and already constitutes a hazard. I’ve had to call garbage collection many times: why hasn’t my trash been picked up? The answer is, the driver couldn’t get up the road. Mail vehicles, delivery and other trucks, etc. routinely use the 108 Observatory parking lot (this is the parking lot that the proposed project wants to get rid of) to turn around so as to descend back onto JPA. In short, we have a problem with traffic and parking as it is. Observatory Avenue absolutely cannot support any more traffic of any kind. The 390 residents of 2005 JPA and their guests will exacerbate the traffic and parking problem, because they will park wherever they find space, regardless of the proposed underground parking spots. Additionally, the exit from Observatory Avenue onto JPA is almost blind and therefore dangerous. If cars park in the legal parking spaces on JPA to the left of Observatory Avenue, then it is difficult to impossible to see traffic coming from the left when exiting Observatory Avenue. The taller the vehicles parked on JPA, and the smaller the vehicle coming from Observatory, the less visibility the driver has. (If you send somebody to check this out, please do not send a 6’ 4” guy in a pickup truck! Such a person might actually be able to see over the parked cars. Instead, send somebody who can duplicate the residents’ experience, such as a 5’5” woman in a Honda Civic.) The existence of the proposed building fronting on Jefferson Park Avenue as shown in the architect’s diagrams would make the exit from Observatory Avenue more blind and more dangerous. Traffic on Jefferson Park Avenue and Emmett Street: During the university terms, traffic between Observatory Avenue and Grounds and Route 29 North (BUS), and between Observatory Avenue and UVA Hospital, is heavy and often backed up. Imagine adding several hundred cars (390 cars?) to that traffic. It is worth noting that the traffic analysis that Aspen commissioned is based on traffic observation on a Saturday, and hence not representative of the weekday traffic flow. Other: Aesthetic considerations: The buildings along the JPA entrance corridor, as well as on Observatory Avenue and Washington Avenue are largely made of brick, stucco, Attachment D and wood. The proposed building does not use these materials. It does not fit in with its surroundings, but—in its context—creates an eyesore. It looks as if it were designed for Stonefield Plaza. Trees: “Keep Charlottesville green” is a priority in the new draft Comprehensive Plan. Currently, the property has many old trees and some newer flowering trees along Observatory Avenue. The 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue project proposes to get rid of all of them. Affordable Housing: No affordable housing is envisaged at 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue. Meanwhile, a component of the “affordable housing” concept is “aging in place” (2021 draft Comprehensive Plan, pp. 18, 33). Observatory Avenue has six residents, five of them resident homeowners, over the age of 65. We all hope to be able to “age in place.” For all these reasons, it is not advisable to grant the special use permits. Sincerely, Lorna Martens Attachment D Attachment D Aspen-Topco IIʼs Application for Special Use Permits I am a resident homeowner at 123 Observatory Ave., and I have objections to the proposed Special Use Permit requests of Aspen-Topco II for the 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue project. My first objection is to the permit to increase the allowable residential density and to the permit to reduce the parking requirement. Both of these SUPʼs would impact safety, related to parking congestion and traffic. (City Code Standard for Special Use Permits, Sec. 34-157: (4)a) Parking: Aspen-Topco II plans to house 390 students in 119 units, and provide 125 underground parking spots. This would leave 265 residents with no on-site parking. Observatory Ave is a narrow, one-block-long dead end. If cars are parked all along both sides of the street, Fire Trucks, Rescue Squad Vehicles, Garbage Trucks, Repair Trucks, and Delivery Trucks couldnʼt travel in the narrow space between the cars. As it is, delivery trucks need to back down the street after making their deliveries, until they find a place to partly back into a driveway to turn around. If cars are parked on the street too close to a driveway, itʼs very hard to enter or exit the driveway. If one driver is entering Observatory Ave. from JPA while another is driving on Observatory Ave. toward JPA, itʼs now possible for one driver to find a place to pull to one side so the other driver can continue in the single lane in the middle. If cars were parked all along both sides of the street, this would be impossible. Add snow/ice to all of this, and each of these problems would be worse. There are city and university bus stops nearby, and a few places to eat or buy basics like bread and milk. There are no complete grocery stores or general all- purpose stores close by. Students would need/want to go to places not on the bus lines and not in walking distance, or at times that donʼt match a bus schedule. Attachment D Would 265 residents be able or willing to park their cars in areas not adjacent to their building, or do without cars entirely? The proposed buildingʼs residents would also have guests who would need to park. Traffic: Visibility to the left when entering JPA from Observatory Ave. is minimal to non-existent due to cars parked all along JPA between Washington Ave. and Observatory Ave. Iʼve turned right onto JPA from Observatory Ave. to see a car, which I was unable to see from Observatory Ave., frighteningly close behind my car once on JPA. Traffic will increase on JPA due to cars from the proposed buildingʼs underground parking area turning from Washington Ave. onto JPA. Some of the increased traffic will turn right and pass Observatory Ave., increasing the possibility of an accident when exiting Observatory Ave. onto JPA. My second objection is to the permit to increase height. This SUP is related to massing and scale of the project. (City Code Standard for Special Use Permits, Sec. 34-157: (4)j) A building of such height and mass would cast a very large shadow over the smaller houses on Observatory Ave., and would affect the amount of sunlight available for grass, gardens, shrubs, and smaller trees. Some homeowners would live in almost continuous shadow. Attachment D Alfele, Matthew From: Marilyn Poling Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 8:48 PM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: Re: 2005 JPA ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** I listened to the Dec. 7 meeting on my phone, and didn’t have a way to “sign in.” I do have some comments. A house across the street from me has been rented to students since before I moved here, over 30 years ago. There has always been one car per student, and most students have used their cars almost daily. I don’t think it’ll be any different for 2005 JPA. If 390 people live in the building, there will be 390 cars. The presence of bus stops is irrelevant. As several people said, students will go places other than the university, that are not on the university or city bus lines, and are not in convenient walking or biking distance. To think otherwise is to indulge a fantasy. If the city were to issue parking permits for Observatory or Washington, I can foresee being unable to enter my own driveway, and trying to find a place to park on another street, for which I would have neither a parking permit nor a driveway. I’m 67 years old, and would find this a hardship. I believe there are people in their 70s who live on this street, and one in her 80s, who would find the situation even more difficult. At one point, the presenter seemed to imply that because there were parking issues here 10 and 20 years ago, it’s fine that there will be more parking issues now. Expecting side streets that could barely deal with parking for 50 units/70 students to now deal with 119 units/390 students is unrealistic. What is possible in the comprehensive plan may have no correlation to what’s possible on the ground. > On Dec 6, 2021, at 8:53 AM, Alfele, Matthew wrote: > > Marilyn, > Thank you for the comments. I will make sure to include them in any report that goes to Planning Commission and City Council. > > ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ > From: Marilyn Poling > Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2021 7:32 PM > To: Alfele, Matthew > Subject: 2005 JPA > 1 Attachment D > ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** > > > I live at 123 Observatory Ave., and have concerns about the 2005 JPA project: > > 1) Parking—If the current buildings have the by‐right maximum density now, it’s 21 units/acre. The special use permit requests 70 units/acre, and, since its request is not final, it could change the request to 87 units/acre. Another special use permit requests 10% decrease in parking. The density would more than triple at 70 units/acre, and parking would decrease by 10%? Observatory Ave. is a narrow, one block long dead end. Residents have stickers for parking during weekdays, but one or two rented houses have their driveways filled and a car parked across on the street in front of their driveways when everyone is at home with current parking conditions. Currently, on home football game days, only one side of the street is allowed parked cars; cars on the other side of the street are ticketed/towed, because if cars are parked in available spaces on both sides of the street, no fire truck would be able to go up the street. If cars from the proposed 2005 JPA project are allowed to park along Observatory Ave., this inability of a fire truck (or garbage truck, or snow plow, or utility truck, or some trucks from private companies that need to do work at houses on the street) to go up the street would be a permanent condition. One day while I was in my yard, the driver of a truck that needed to get to a house beyond mine to work on the house was unable to pass my house because a car (not mine) was parked in front of my house and another car was parked directly across the street from it. The driver had to take all his equipment by hand from the truck to the house. A fire truck would not have been able to get as far up the street as my house. When cars are parked on both sides of the street, the middle is wide enough for one car, barely wide enough for an SUV, and two cars, one going up the street and one going down the street, could not pass each other. When cars are parked on both sides of the street with some distance between them, one car can pull between two cars to let the other pass— impossible if maximum cars are parked along the street. Also, cars would park very close to driveways, making it difficult/impossible to enter/exit driveways due to the narrowness of the street. > > 2) Entering JPA from Observatory Ave.—Visibility to the left when trying to pull into JPA currently is minimal to non‐existent now, when cars are parked all along JPA to the left, as occurs whenever UVA is in session and businesses are open, particularly when it’s a high‐traffic time of day. Sometimes a minimal amount of visibility is possible if you look further down the street. If the planned building setback is very close to JPA and Observatory Ave., instead of the current building’s further setback, even this occasional minimal visibility would not exist. > > 3) Height/bulk of proposed building—The “Perspective Rendering” of the proposed building in the information package from Mitchell/Matthews says the proposed building could be 5‐8 2 Attachment D stories high. A building of that height and bulk would put quite a bit of Observatory Ave. into shadow, not just the houses directly across from or behind the building. I live on 123 Observatory Ave., three houses up from the back of the site. From the angles that sunlight comes into my windows, it seems that the building would cut off light to my house for part of the year. Would this be enough shadow in some places to interfere with growing lawns, flower/vegetable gardens, shrubs, trees? Could the architects calculate the area of shadow though the day and through the year, and present the results to the neighborhood association? > > > Marilyn Poling > > 3 Attachment D Megan Buschi & Family 126 Observatory Ave Charlottesville, VA 22903 megantbuschi@gmail.com 434.466.2632 March 5, 2022 Dear Planning Commissioners, I’m writing to you to protest any special use permits (SUP) that have been presented to the City from Aspen Topco II Acquisitions, LLC and architects and planners Mitchell Matthews for the property 2005 Jefferson Park Ave. My family and I are residents of Observatory Ave and have lived here for over 15 years. We didn’t buy the property as an investment, it was a decision made in good conscience to live close to where we work and recreate. I work for UVA (therefore walk to work) and my husband works for Blue Wheel Bicycle downtown (rides his bike to work), where we are part owners. We are a family of four, sometimes five when a parent stays for an extended visit. My husband and I have two elementary-age active boys that play in our yard and along the entire street. Our community on Observatory Ave is unique…we have 15 houses, 9 are occupied by the homeowners. (This does not include the homes on 2005 Jefferson Park Ave). This is a much higher owner-occupied street than any other in the JPA neighborhood. When you’re here you can feel the difference. We are active in our yards/gardens and use our surrounding amenities to the fullest. Many of our residents have lived here for over 25 years…one even 40 years. We love our neighborhood and how close we are to the students and academic energy that the University provides. I have always enjoyed getting to know the students living in the rental properties and showing/teaching them what it means to be part of our Observatory community. We have had many students come back to visit after graduation. We oppose the SUP (special use permit) for increased density to 70 dwellings per acre and this amounts to 119 units total. That equals 390 occupants. This increase in dwellings will increase traffic on an already narrow street. The City of Charlottesville rescue vehicles and the City’s garbage facilities have a difficult time getting to our street now…an increase in population (cars) will be unsafe! We oppose the SUP for increasing the height to 75 feet. This increased height is a direct reflection in the number of units needed. With the increase of units, is an increase in the population. The City of Charlottesville rescue vehicles and the City’s garbage vehicles have a difficult time getting to our street now…an increase in population (vehicles) will be unsafe! Attachment D We oppose the SUP to reduce the rear setback. I believe the setback should not be reduced to shield the remaining parts of the street from the building. We would love to maintain the charm and character of our hundred-year-old homes. We oppose the SUP for reducing onsite parking by 22%. Our street is already at capacity with cars parking on both sides of our narrow road..reducing parking provided by the apartment complex would increase traffic to Observatory Ave.. Increased traffic will cause more issues for the emergency vehicles, snowplows, garbage trucks, delivery services. Thank you for your communication and participation with the community of Observatory Ave and the JPA neighborhood. Sincerely, Megan Buschi, Paul Buschi, Sam Buschi and Jack Buschi. Attachment D Alfele, Matthew From: Megan Buschi Sent: Monday, January 31, 2022 6:53 PM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: Fwd: SUP for 2005 Jefferson Park Ave. Follow Up Flag: FollowUp Flag Status: Flagged ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Matt, I'm not sure where this letter goes after I send it to you but I would love to make sure it gets to the City Council. What's the best action from here...mailing an actual letter? Best, Megan Buschi ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Megan Buschi Date: Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 3:58 PM Subject: SUP for 2005 Jefferson Park Ave. To: Megan Buschi January 30, 2022 Dear members of the Charlottesville City Council, I’m writing to you to protest any special use permits (SUP) that have been presented to the City from Aspen Topco II Acquisitions, LLC and architects and planners Mitchell Matthews for the property 2005 Jefferson Park Ave. My family and I are residents of Observatory Ave and have lived here over 15 years. We didn’t buy the property as an investment, it was a decision made in good conscience to live close to where we work and recreate. I work for UVA (therefore walk to work) and my husband works for Blue Wheel Bicycle downtown (rides his bike to work), where we are part owners. We are a family of four, sometimes five when a parent stays for an extended visit. My husband and I have two elementary age active boys that play in our yard and along the entire street. Our community on Observatory Ave is unique…we have 15 houses, 8 are occupied by the homeowners. (This does not include the homes on 2005 Jefferson Park Ave). This is a much higher owner occupied street than any other in the JPA neighborhood. When you’re here you can feel the difference. We are active in our yards/gardens and use our surrounding amenities to the fullest. Many of our residents have lived here for over 25 years…one even 40 years. We love our neighborhood and how close we are with the students and academic energy that the University provides. I have always enjoyed getting to know the students living in the rental properties and showing/teaching them what it means to be part of our Observatory community. We have had many students come back to visit after graduation. 1 Attachment D We oppose the SUP (special use permit) for increased density to 70 dwellings. This increase in dwellings will increase traffic on an already narrow street. The City of Charlottesville rescue vehicles and the City’s garbage facilities have a difficult time getting to our street now…an increase in population (cars) will be unsafe! We oppose the SUP for increasing the height to 75 feet. This increased height is a direct reflection in the number of units needed. With the increase of units, is an increase in the population. The City of Charlottesville rescue vehicles and the City’s garbage vehicles have a difficult time getting to our street now…an increase in population (vehicles) will be unsafe! Also, the height will severely and negativity alter the appearance of the neighborhood and reduce visibility to the sky. We oppose the SUP to reduce the rear set back. I believe the setback should not be reduced to shield the remaining parts of the street from the building. We would love to maintain the charm and character of our hundred year old homes. We oppose the SUP for reducing onsite parking by 22%. Our street is already at capacity with cars parking on both sides of our narrow road..reducing parking provided by the apartment complex would increase traffic to Observatory Ave.. Increased traffic will cause more issues for the emergency vehicles, snow plows, garbage trucks, delivery services. Special notes and requests: I believe that the apartment complex will have all of it’s utilities placed underground in duct banks with conduit. Mitchell Matthews as architects and planners should offer this service to all the residents on Observatory Ave for no charge. Any ingress and egress should remain on Washington Ave with no exceptions. All landscaping plants should be native and any in need of replacement should be replaced with native plantings. Underground parking should take into consideration exterior lighting. The exterior lighting should consider the residents of Observatory Ave and how the lights will flood their homes. The dumpsters should be maintained from the garage level or well hidden behind a barrier. Thank you for your communication and participation with the community of Observatory Ave. Sincerely, Megan Buschi, Paul Buschi, Sam Buschi and Jack Buschi. 2 Attachment D Alfele, Matthew From: Bill Schaaf Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 1:59 PM To: Alfele, Matthew Cc: Ellen Contini-Morava; Jennifer King; Kenneth Hill; Kenny Valpak; Lorna Martens; Nelson Bickers; Barnes, Nina Subject: Re: 2005 JPA Special Use Permit ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Hi Matt, Thanks for the update! I wish to express a concern that the staff should consider making part of their report I focuses on the lack of adequate parking for the residents. My neighbor and I have both indicated that they have at least 1 car per bedroom. This development does not even come close to that. It is short sighted to believe that existing surrounding space can absorb the vehicles the tenants will bring. I have no professional studies to substantiate this. Perhaps you do? In addition. Washington and Observatory roads are far too narrow to handle the ingress and egress of the vehicles that might park in their garage. This does ot contemplate the potential of an emergency vehicle that might need to traverse these streets. I hope the planning commission will take a realistic and practical look at the traffic mess this structure will create. My "dream" answer would be to see the garage parking (ingress and egress) from JPA.! Thank you in advance for your input on May 10th . I also welcome any feeed back from other nearby property owners. Bill Schaaf 113 Washington AVe owner 814‐882‐7696 On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 1:42 PM Alfele, Matthew wrote: To interested parties, I am sending this email to inform interested parities that the applicant for the proposed development at 2005 JPA has elected not to make changes to their application. I am not sure why they are not making changes. This means I am anticipating this will be on the Planning Commission agenda for a Public Hearing on May 10th. This means all materials are staying the same. There might be some minor updates to the staff report to change some typos or rewording a sentence for more clarity. I will highlight any changes in a future email should it be needed. As a reminder, any Public Hearing notice will be communicated through a mailed letter to property owners within 500’ of the proposed development and this email is only an informal way to keep interested parties informed. Once I have more information I will pass it on. Thank you and let me know if you have any questions. 1 Attachment D Alfele, Matthew From: Marilyn Poling Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 9:32 AM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue project SUP application Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Mr. Alfele, this is my response to the City Staff Report of 3/30/2022 concerning the 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP application. Please forward it to the Planning Commission and City Council members. My concerns with the City Staff Report are based on the Standard of Review factors in Zoning Ordinance Sec. 34‐157. My greatest concerns are related to 4) Whether the proposed use or development will have any potentially adverse impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, or the community in general; and if so, whether there are any reasonable conditions;ns of approval that would satisfactorily mitigate such impacts. a) Traffic or parking congestion First, parking. Per the review, there will be 390 bedrooms and 125 parking spaces. I have heard assertions that this will not be a problem; that many students don’t use cars, and that decreasing car use at universities is a trend. I have not seen any data showing this, or any proof that there is such a trend at UVA among students living in apartments with amenities such as a pool and a dog park. My own observations of student‐rented houses and small apartment buildings on Observatory Avenue is that there is one car per student. Lacking any proof to the contrary, I believe my own observations. As the review notes under “Vehicular Access,” “Observatory is also a sub‐standard roadway and would have difficulty accommodating additional traffic while still maintaining the on‐street parking that is currently present.” This emphasizes my concern that any increased parking would make the passage of fire trucks, rescue squad vehicles, etc. impossible. The review under “Vehicular Access” also notes that “The building will be close enough to Observatory for fire apparatus to service the building if needed”. I interpret this to mean that fire trucks will be able to get to the building, even the back of the building, by way of Observatory Avenue. My concern is that this is not the case. 1 Attachment D The review notes that “Due to current regulations, the proposed development would not be eligible to obtain on‐street parking permits…residents and guests of the proposed development would not be allowed to park on Washington, Observatory, or JPA.” The current permits for Observatory Avenue are for 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. Residents and guests could park on this street after 5:00 p.m. and on weekends. If permits were changed to 24 hours, 7 days a week, how strictly and consistently could this be enforced? Would it be strict and consistent enough to prevent all residents and their guests from ever parking illegally? Would enforcement be ticketing, or towing? How often would the street be checked for illegal parking? Would it be checked during the night ass well as the day? A late party with guests parking illegally could happen during a night when a fire truck or rescue squad vehicle is needed immediately. This happening even once could have fatal consequences. Second, traffic. As I and several others have stated elsewhere, the outlet from Observatory Avenue to Jefferson Park Avenue is dangerous as it is, since there is no visibility to the left when cars are parked all along JPA. Per the review, the “development and increased residential density, while increasing traffic on the roadway, will not create an adverse effect on surrounding City streets.” But any increase in traffic will increase the danger in exiting this particular street. c) Displacement of existing residents or businesses I will not be directly displaced, but, if any additional parking occurs, whether legal or illegal, it could get to the point that I need to move because of decreased access to my house for fire trucks or rescue squad vehicles. Indirectly displaced is still displaced. I would not be able to find an affordable house in Charlottesville that is anywhere close to as convenient for all aspects of my life as the house I own is. e) Undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available It is the extreme increase in density that would decrease the community facility of street space for emergency vehicles and parking, causing the problems related to a) and c). Another area of concern is 1) Whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood. The staff analysis of the 2005 JPA project is that “the scale and density of the development is not harmonious with the existing patterns within the neighborhood.” I agree with this. As the 2 Attachment D review also states, its “footprint takes up almost an entire city block,” and will loom over and overwhelm the one‐ and two‐story houses on Observatory Avenue and Washington Avenue. Marilyn Poling 3 Attachment D Alfele, Matthew From: Nelson Bickers Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 5:01 PM To: Alfele, Matthew Subject: JPA Proposed Apartmentss Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** My name is Nelson Bickers and I own property at 114 Observatory. I am opposed to the proposed apartment for several reasons, one being that it can only decrease the value of my property and that of the other parcels on Observatory. Another major objection is the impact the small streets of Washington and Observatory. Neither are wide enough for two cars to pass each other with cars parked on the street. Many of the properties don’t have off street parking, so they have to park in the street. Trash collectors have to back down Observatory to collect trash. Exiting Observatory on to JPA is always a challenge as there is no line of sight down JPA to see approaching cars. You must nose into the street and then you can only see one approaching vehicle. It’s hard to see how anyone in a planning department or a traffic engineer could see this as a viable location for a project of this size. Sent from my iPhone 1 Attachment D Alfele, Matthew From: Contini-Morava, Ellen L (elc9j) Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2022 3:34 PM To: Alfele, Matthew Cc: Barnes, Nina; Anne Benham; peteb21@comcast.net; rebeccawtju@hotmail.com; Jennifer King; Martens, Lorna (lm2e); jmorava1@jhu.edu; aloisedphelps@gmail.com; Marilyn Poling; jimmy.wright@jeffersonscholars.org Subject: Response to staff report about 2005 JPA SUP application ** WARNING: This email has originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.** Dear Matt, Below please find a response from JPA homeowners to the city staff report on the SUP application for 2005 JPA that was posted on March 30. Signatures are still coming in, but we wanted to get the letter to you by today’s deadline so you could include it in your updated report. With best wishes, Ellen ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ellen Contini‐Morava Professor Emerita Anthropology and Linguistics University of Virginia To: Matt Alfele Please find here our comments on the City Staff Report of 3/30/2022 apropos of the 2005 Jefferson Park Avenue SUP application. ERB report: While we agree with the ERB that the height, mass, and scale of the proposed building exceed what is typical for the JPA corridor, indeed for Charlottesville, and would result in an adverse impact (p. 2), we disagree that this adverse impact could be mitigated in any way other than by significantly reducing the building’s height, mass, and scale. The ERB focuses on ways in which the perception of height might be mitigated. But in our view it is the height itself—not just the perception of its height—that would have an adverse impact. The building would tower over nearby houses and their yards, putting them in shadow, cutting their sunlight, blocking their view of the distance, and replacing their close-up view of trees, grass, and sky which give a sense of spaciousness, with a view of the building’s tall wall. Additionally, to return to the issue of perception of height, nothing could possibly mitigate the perception of the unbroken east elevation, which is as long as a city block and rises on a hill, as seen from the intersection of JPA and Shamrock. Agreeing with ERB, we find that “when viewed from a distance, the tall, unbroken walls read as massive and overwhelming” (p. 3). The ERB suggests that the perception of height, mass, and scale could be mitigated at the pedestrian level by interrupting the east and west elevations with breezeways into the central courtyard. Unfortunately, breezeways, or any entryway into the building from Observatory Avenue, would inevitably have the highly undesirable effect of inviting and thereby increasing parking by residents and their guests on Observatory Avenue. Even if such parking is declared illegal, it will occur, especially at times when the street is not monitored. Currently, the worst parking problems on Observatory occur in the evening and overnight when the student residents have guests. In the ERB report p. 4, we do not understand the second two “conditions” staff recommends for an ERB Certificate of Appropriateness. Staff report 1 Attachment D In the staff evaluation of the “standard of review,” we agree with staff that the scale and density of the development is not harmonious with the existing patterns within the neighborhood (p. 6) and that it therefore does not meet standard # 1 (p. 20). We appreciate staff’s concern with the building’s height at the eastern frontage (7 stories, see p. 8 and p. 16) and the north (5 stories, see p. 16), where it would tower over a one-story house. We do not understand why staff does not also point out the adverse effect of the height on 1- and 2-story buildings across the street from it on Observatory. Not just the height on the eastern elevation and at the rear, but the height on the western elevation is unacceptable. As previously stated, we disagree that the proposed mass, height, and scale could be mitigated except by significantly decreasing these dimensions. Regarding standard # 2, we do not understand how the development could both be in compliance and might not be in compliance with goals 6 and 7 of the Comprehensive Plan. Regarding standard #4a, our comments on traffic are extensive and so we are placing them at the end of the document. Regarding the statement on p. 13 that “the proposed development could have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood as it relates to parking should adequate measures not be implemented,” we believe the only adequate measure would be 24-hour in-person surveillance by a law enforcement officer. Is the City prepared to dedicate an employee to this task? Regarding standard # 4b: "Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment. The proposed development will not result in any additional dust, odor, fumes, vibration, or other factors that could also be present with any by-right development. It should be noted that due to the height and density, noise and lighting could be more intense than would be present in a by-right development." (p. 13 of 22) We have italicized what we feel is an important quality of life issue that will heavily impact Observatory residents for the two years the developer has said would be the duration of construction of this project, and that the City minimizes with its description. Regarding standard # 4e: fire protection, emergency response services, and public utilities have all been historically hampered on Observatory Avenue by the presence of parked cars, which often make it impossible for larger vehicles to get up the narrow road. The proposed development could only make this situation worse. Staff Report – Traffic Impact Analysis, Attachment E We disagree with the City Traffic Engineer, who apparently did no more than adopt the figures in the Traffic Impact analysis provided by the applicant. That is, the traffic engineer neither performed independent traffic analysis nor paid attention to the comments of long-term residents of Observatory Avenue about traffic, nor checked and verified the information in the applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis. We ourselves reviewed the Traffic Analysis and find it flawed and untrustworthy on several counts: 1. Data Collection "Existing AM, Midday, and PM peak hour traffic counts were collected at the existing study intersections on August 28, 2021. A 12-hour turning movement count was also conducted at Jefferson Park Avenue/Washington Avenue on the same date" (Traffic Impact Analysis p. 1-2). The traffic report says that observations were made on a “typical weekday” (p. 3-1), but August 28, 2021 was a Saturday; this means the data on current traffic conditions is unreliable. Observatory residents consistently experience higher traffic volume and denser parking conditions on JPA during the week than on weekends. We also wish to stress that these factors contribute to hazardous conditions if one is trying to turn left from Observatory onto JPA, especially during peak traffic hours. 2. The calculation of the trips generated by 2005 JPA is based on a trip generator manual whose applicability to actual conditions among the student population here is uncertain; however, they calculate 1070 additional trips per day, 60% of them onto JPA (there is no access to Fontaine except via JPA). We dispute the Traffic Engineer’s conclusion that this volume of additional traffic will “not create an adverse effect on traffic on surrounding City streets” (p. 11). 3. The calculation of “background vehicle volumes” for 2023 is based on a 0.2% annual growth rate, with a claim that “per coordination with the City of Charlottesville, no background developments are expected to be completed within the 2 Attachment D vicinity of the proposed development.” However, 240 Stribling is certain to be developed, whether with 170-unit affordable housing or by-right townhouses or something in between, and the University has committed to building affordable housing in place of Piedmont Faculty Housing on Fontaine Avenue. Both projects will cause steep increases in traffic precisely on the JPA corridor. Although the Piedmont project is unlikely to be completed by 2023, 2005 JPA would also be unlikely to be completed that soon. We asked the City Traffic Engineer to send us the information on off-campus student housing contained in the Trip Generation Manual used by the developer's Traffic Impact Analysis so we could see how the Traffic Impact Analysis arrived at its figures. The Traffic Engineer told us that the City only owns an older edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, which does not include off-campus student housing as a category—the category on which the Traffic Impact Analysis’s “site trip generation” (see 6-1) is based. We conclude that the Traffic Engineer did not check the Traffic Impact Analysis’ data himself before pronouncing it “sufficient and appropriate” (Staff Report p. 11). In conclusion, although we appreciate that the staff report acknowledges the disproportionate scale and density of the proposed development, we do not think that cosmetic modifications would alleviate the serious harm this project would cause to the neighborhood. Sincerely, Nina Barnes Anne Benham Nelson Bickers Ellen Contini-Morava Rebecca Foster Jennifer King Lorna Martens Jack Morava Aloise Phelps Marilyn Poling Jimmy Wright 3 Attachment E ASPEN HEIGHTS CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA Traffic Impact Analysis December 23, 2021 Prepared For: Aspen Topco II Acquisitions, LLC Contact: Thomas Ruff, PE, PTOE 1001 Boulders Parkway, Suite 300 • Richmond, VA 23225 (804) 200-6500 phone www.timmons.com Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................................... I APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................................................... II LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................................................. III LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................................... IV 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................1-1 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .............................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF ON-SITE DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 STUDY LIMITS .........................................................................................................................................................2-1 2.3 EXISTING ROADWAYS NETWORK ..............................................................................................................................2-1 2.4 FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS...........................................................................................................................................2-2 2.5 OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION .......................................................................................................................2-2 3 2021 EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................................3-1 3.1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES ....................................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 CAPACITY ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................................................3-1 3.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS ...............................................................................................3-4 4 2023 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS .....................................................................................................................4-1 4.1 2023 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES....................................................................................................................4-1 4.2 APPROVED BACKGROUND 2023 DEVELOPMENTS .......................................................................................................4-1 4.3 BACKGROUND 2023 CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS ...................................................................................................4-1 5 2028 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS .....................................................................................................................5-1 5.1 2028 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES....................................................................................................................5-1 5.2 BACKGROUND 2028 CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS ...................................................................................................5-1 6 TRIP GENERATION ..................................................................................................................................................6-1 6.1 SITE TRIP GENERATION ...........................................................................................................................................6-1 6.2 EXTERNAL TRIP DISTRIBUTIONS...............................................................................................................................6-2 6.3 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT ..............................................................................................................................................6-2 7 2023 TOTAL FUTURE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................7-1 7.1 TOTAL FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES ...........................................................................................................................7-1 7.2 2023 FUTURE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS RESULTS .......................................................................................................7-1 8 2028 TOTAL FUTURE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................................8-1 8.1 TOTAL FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES ...........................................................................................................................8-1 8.2 2028 TOTAL FUTURE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS RESULTS ............................................................................................8-1 9 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................9-1 9.1 WARRANT 1 (EIGHT-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME) .....................................................................................................9-1 9.2 WARRANT 2 (FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME) ......................................................................................................9-2 9.3 WARRANT 3 (PEAK-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME) .......................................................................................................9-3 9.4 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................9-3 10 CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................................................................................10-1 i Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville APPENDICES Appendix A – Traffic Counts Appendix B – Existing Traffic Signal Timings Appendix C – Synchro/SimTraffic Outputs for 2021 Existing Conditions Appendix D – Synchro/SimTraffic Outputs for 2023/2028 Background Conditions Appendix E – Synchro/SimTraffic Outputs for 2023/2028 Total Future Conditions ii Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville LIST OF TABLES TABLE 3-1: LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS .............................................................................................. 3-2 TABLE 3-2: SIGNALIZED AND UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA ....................................... 3-3 TABLE 3-3: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AND DELAY SUMMARY 2021 EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ................. 3-7 TABLE 4-1: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AND DELAY SUMMARY 2023 TOTAL BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ... 4-3 TABLE 5-1: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AND DELAY SUMMARY 2028 TOTAL BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ... 5-3 TABLE 6-1: ASPEN HEIGHTS TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY ............................................................................. 6-1 TABLE 7-1: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AND DELAY SUMMARY 2023 TOTAL FUTURE TRAFFIC.......................... 7-3 TABLE 8-1: INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AND DELAY SUMMARY 2028 TOTAL FUTURE TRAFFIC.......................... 8-3 TABLE 9-1– TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS JEFFERSON PARK AVENUE/WASHINGTON AVENUE INTERSECTION ..... 9-4 iii Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1-1: SURROUNDING ROADWAY NETWORK & SITE LOCATION FIGURE 1-2 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FIGURE 2-1: EXISTING INTERSECTION GEOMETRY FIGURE 2-2: CHARLOTTESVILLE TRAILS AND BIKE LANES FIGURE 2-3: CHARLOTTESVILLE AREA TRANSIT (CAT) SERVICE MAP FIGURE 2-4: UVA TRANSIT SERVICE MAP FIGURE 3-1: 2021 EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FIGURE 3-2: 2021 EXISTING BICYCLE VOLUMES FIGURE 3-3: 2021 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES FIGURE 4-1: 2023 BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FIGURE 4-2: 2023 BACKGROUND BICYCLE VOLUMES FIGURE 4-3: 2023 BACKGROUND PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES FIGURE 5-1: 2028 BACKGROUND PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FIGURE 5-2: 2028 BACKGROUND BICYCLE VOLUMES FIGURE 5-3: 2028 BACKGROUND PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES FIGURE 6-1: SITE PEAK HOUR TRIP DISTRIBUTIONS FIGURE 6-2: TOTAL EXTERNAL SITE PEAK HOUR TRIPS FIGURE 7-1: 2023 TOTAL FUTURE PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FIGURE 8-1: 2028 TOTAL FUTURE PEAK HOUR VOLUMES iv Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the findings of the traffic impact analysis prepared for the proposed Aspen Heights off-campus student housing development in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia. The proposed development is located between Observatory Avenue and Washington Avenue to the east and west and Jefferson Park Avenue to the south as shown in Figure 1-1 (all figures are located at the end of their respective chapter). The site is currently zoned R3. The proposed development will consist of 390 beds (119 units) of off- campus student housing apartments. The applicant is submitting this traffic impact analysis in support of a Special Use Permit (SUP). Access to the site will be provided via one (1) full movement entrance on Washington Avenue. A conceptual plan is shown on Figure 1-2. For the purposes of this analysis, the development was assumed to be complete and occupied by 2023. When complete, the proposed development will generate a total of 38 trips (16 in and 22 out) during the AM peak, 55 trips (26 in and 29 out) during the Midday peak, 84 trips (42 in and 42 out) during the PM peak, and 1,070 average weekday daily trips. The purpose of this analysis is to determine the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding roadway network. The scope of this study was developed in conjunction with the City of Charlottesville staff at a scoping meeting held (virtually) on August 23, 2021. As agreed upon in the scoping meeting, the study limits include the following seven (7) existing intersections: 1. Jefferson Park Avenue and Shamrock Road (signalized); 2. Jefferson Park Avenue and Harmon Street (unsignalized); 3. Jefferson Park Avenue and Washington Street (unsignalized); 4. Jefferson Park Avenue and Observatory Avenue (unsignalized); 5. Jefferson Park Avenue and Fontaine Avenue/Maury Avenue (Signalized); 6. Maury Avenue/Alderman Road and Stadium Road (unsignalized); and 7. Stadium Road and Washington Avenue (unsignalized) In addition, the site entrance will be analyzed in future conditions (2023 and 2028). In accordance with the scoping agreement, analyses were completed for the following scenarios: 1. 2021 Existing Traffic Conditions; 2. 2023 Background Traffic Conditions (without development of the site); 3. 2028 Background Conditions (without development of the site); 4. 2023 Future Traffic Conditions (with development of the site); and 5. 2028 Future Traffic Conditions (with development of the site). 1-1 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville The following steps were taken to determine the potential traffic impacts associated with this project: 1. Data Collection – Existing AM, Midday, and PM peak hour traffic counts were collected at the existing study intersections on August 28, 2021. A 12-hour turning movement count was also conducted at Jefferson Park Avenue/Washington Avenue on the same date. 2. Traffic Growth – In order to be conservative and account for development outside the study area, a 0.2% annual growth rate was applied to the existing vehicle traffic counts and 1.0% annual growth rate was applied to the existing bike and pedestrian volumes at all study intersections for the 2023 and 2028 analysis scenarios. 3. Trip Generation – Traffic generated by the proposed development was estimated using the 10th edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual. 4. Traffic Distributions – The distribution of trips generated by the proposed developed was based on the existing traffic volumes, the nature of the use, and local knowledge. 5. Site Traffic Projections – Future traffic volumes were determined by combining the 2023 and 2028 background traffic volumes with proposed new trips generated by the site to create the 2023 and 2028 total traffic volumes used in the analysis. 6. Traffic Capacity Analysis – Level of service calculations for existing, background, and future conditions were performed using SYNCHRO Version 10 with SimTraffic for signalized and unsignalized intersections. 7. Queuing Analysis – The 95th percentile queue lengths (Synchro) and maximum queues (SimTraffic) were reviewed at the intersections listed above. 1-2 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville Based on the operational analyses the following is offered: • Across 2023 and 2028 background conditions during the PM peak, the westbound approach to the intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue/Maury Avenue experiences operational issues with congestion on the westbound approach and the queue extends through Observatory Avenue, Washington Avenue, and Harmon Street intersections. Under 2023 and 2028 total volume conditions, with the addition of the proposed Aspen Heights development site traffic, the westbound approach is expected to experience minimal increases with the proposed development over the 2023 and 2028 background conditions. • The results of the signal warrant analysis at Jefferson Park Avenue/Washington Avenue under 2028 total build conditions indicate that none of the traffic volume thresholds in Warrants 1 through 3 were met. None of the other warrants were considered at this time. • Under 2021 existing conditions: o All movements at unsignalized intersections within the study area on Jefferson Park Avenue and Stadium Road operate at level of service (LOS) C or better during the AM, Midday, and PM peak hours. All approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. o At the signalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Shamrock Road, the overall intersection operates at a level of service (LOS) B during the AM/Midday/PM peak hours. All turning movements and approaches operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. All turn bays have adequate storage to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. o At the signalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Maury Avenue/Fontaine Avenue, the overall intersection operates at a LOS C during the AM/PM peaks and a LOS B during the Midday peak. All turning movements and approaches generally operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The westbound left queue fills the available storage (AM/Midday) and backs up into the through lane (PM). During the PM peak, the westbound approach queues through the adjacent intersection with Observatory Avenue. During the PM peak, the southbound through queue backs up through the adjacent intersection with Clark Court. • Under 2023 and 2028 background conditions (without the proposed development): o Levels of service at the study intersections do not change significantly from 2021 existing to 2023 or 2028 background conditions. All unsignalized intersections continue to operate at LOS C or better during all peak hours. All signalized intersections continue to operate with LOS B or C during all peak hours. o There are no queuing concerns within the study area, with the exception of the westbound approach of Jefferson Park Avenue at Maury Avenue during the PM peak hour. The queues extend to intermittently block the intersections of Observatory Avenue, Washington Avenue, and Harmon Street. 1-3 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville • Under 2023 and 2028 total future conditions (with the proposed development): o Levels of service at the study intersections do not change significantly from background to total future conditions in 2023 or 2028. o All movements at unsignalized intersections within the study area on Jefferson Park Avenue and Stadium Road operate at level of service (LOS) C or better during the AM, Midday, and PM peak hours. All approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. o At the signalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Shamrock Road, the overall intersection operates at a level of service (LOS) B during the AM/Midday/PM peak hours. All turning movements and approaches operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. During the PM peak, the westbound left fills the available storage. All other approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. o At the signalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Maury Avenue/Fontaine Avenue, the overall intersection operates at a LOS C during the AM/PM peaks and a LOS B during the Midday peak. All turning movements and approaches generally operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The westbound left queue fills the available storage (AM/Midday) and backs up into the through lane (PM). During the PM peak, the westbound approach queue backs up through the adjacent intersection with Observatory Avenue. During the PM peak, the southbound through queue backs up through the adjacent intersection with Clark Court. Based on the results of the operational analysis, there are no vehicular and roadway network improvements required based on the additional development traffic volumes. The site will increase the residential density in the area and add to the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit volumes. To address the additional pedestrian, bicycle, and transit volumes, the applicant plans to install sidewalks along the entire frontage of the property. 1-4 Attachment E 6 7 Stadium Road Washington Ave Observatory Ave Harmon Street 8 BUS 5 29 Jefferson Park Avenue NOT TO SCALE 4 3 2 1 LEGEND: Existing Road Shamrock Proposed Road Proposed Site Road Study Intersection Future Intersection Surrounding Roadway Network and Site Location Figure Aspen Heights TIA City of Charlottesville, Virginia 1-1 Attachment E Shamrock Road NOT TO SCALE Conceptual Site Plan Figure Aspen Heights TIA City of Charlottesville, Virginia 1-2 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville 2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION This report presents the findings of the traffic impact analysis prepared for the proposed Aspen Heights residential development in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia. 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF ON-SITE DEVELOPMENT The proposed development is located north of Jefferson Park Avenue, between Observatory Avenue and Washington Avenue. The proposed development will consist of 388 bedrooms of off-campus student housing apartments (119 units). Access to the site is proposed via one (1) full movement entrance on Washington Avenue. A conceptual plan is shown on Figure 1-2. For purposes of this analysis, the development was assumed to be complete and occupied by 2023. 2.2 STUDY LIMITS As agreed upon in the scoping agreement, the study limits include the following seven (7) existing intersections: 1. Jefferson Park Avenue and Shamrock Road (signalized); 2. Jefferson Park Avenue and Harmon Street (unsignalized); 3. Jefferson Park Avenue and Washington Street (unsignalized); 4. Jefferson Park Avenue and Observatory Avenue (unsignalized); 5. Jefferson Park Avenue and Fontaine Avenue/Maury Avenue (Signalized); 6. Maury Avenue/Alderman Road and Stadium Road (unsignalized); and 7. Stadium Road and Washington Avenue (unsignalized) In addition, the proposed site entrance will be analyzed in future conditions (2023 and 2028) 2.3 EXISTING ROADWAYS NETWORK Jefferson Park Avenue between Maury Avenue and Emmett Street is a two-lane divided principal arterial with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. According to the 2019 VDOT traffic counts, Jefferson Park Avenue services 12,000 vehicles per day. The roadway has one bike lane in each direction with on-street parking and sidewalks on both sides through the study area. Jefferson Park Avenue south of Fontaine Avenue is a two-lane divided minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 30 mph. According to the 2019 VDOT traffic counts, Jefferson Park Avenue services 11,000 vehicles per day. The roadway has one bike lane in each direction with on-street parking and sidewalks on both sides through the study area. Fontaine Avenue is a two-lane undivided principal arterial with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. According to the 2019 VDOT traffic counts, Fontaine Avenue services 13,000 vehicles per day. The roadway has sidewalks on both sides through the study area. Maury Avenue is a two-lane undivided minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. According to the 2019 VDOT traffic counts, Fontaine Avenue services 6,200 vehicles per day. The roadway has sidewalks on one side through the study area. Alderman Road is a two-lane undivided minor arterial with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. According to the 2019 VDOT traffic counts, Alderman Road services 6,200 vehicles per day. The roadway has sidewalks on one side through the study area. 2-1 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville Stadium Road is a two-lane undivided major collector with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. According to the 2019 VDOT traffic counts, Stadium Road services 3,800 vehicles per day. The roadway has sidewalks on one side through the study area. Shamrock Road is a two-lane undivided major collector with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. According to the 2019 VDOT traffic counts, Shamrock Road services 3,500 vehicles per day. The roadway has sidewalks on one side through the study area. Observatory Avenue is a two-lane undivided local road with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The roadway has sidewalks on one side in some locations through the study area. Washington Avenue is a two-lane undivided local road with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The roadway has sidewalks on one side in some locations through the study area. Currently, it is not possible to walk from Jefferson Park Avenue to Stadium Road using a sidewalk. Harmon Street is a two-lane undivided local road with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The roadway has sidewalks on one side through the study area. The 2021 existing lane use and traffic control at the study intersections is shown on Figure 2-1. 2.4 FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS Fontaine Avenue from the west city limits to Jefferson Park Avenue is proposed to have streetscape improvements. The proposed typical section is expected to consist of two travel and two bike lanes (one in each direction) and sidewalks on both sides. The project is not expected to change the existing lane configuration of the eastbound approach to the Fontaine Avenue/Jefferson Park Avenue intersection. Construction is tentatively scheduled to start in Fall 2023. The applicant has committed to install new sidewalks along the frontage of the property on Observatory Avenue and Washington Avenue. In addition, a new north-south marked pedestrian crossing will be installed at the intersection of Observatory Avenue and Jefferson Park Avenue. This will provide access to the UVA Transit bus stop at the SE corner of the intersection. 2.5 OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION Currently, there are sidewalks and bike lanes throughout the study area that connect the proposed Aspen Heights development to the UVA campus and greater Charlottesville. The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing pedestrian facilities with the construction of the site and to add sidewalks along the frontage of the property on Washington and Observatory Avenues. A map showing the proposed development and City trails and bike lanes is included on Figure 2-2. It is anticipated that some site trips may be made via walking/biking/transit, however, a reduction from the vehicular trip generation rates provided by the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) Route T runs along Jefferson Park Avenue with a bus stop approximately 500 feet away from the proposed development at Jefferson Park Avenue/Maury Avenue. The UVA Transit Orange Line runs along Jefferson Park Avenue, with bus stops approximately 200 feet (Jefferson Park Avenue/Observatory Avenue) and 500 feet (Jefferson Park Avenue/Maury Avenue) away from the proposed development. Transit routes in the vicinity of the site are shown for CAT and UVA Transit on Figures 2-3 and 2-4, respectively. 2-2 Alderman Road Attachment E 6 7 NOT TO SCALE Stadium Road LEGEND: Existing Road Proposed Road Signalized Intersection Stop Controlled Intersection Stop Sign Location Washington Avenue 8 Maury Avenue Lane Configuration Shamrock Site Entrance Channelization Road Yield * Per TOSAM Guidelines, effective storage (S’) equals the full width Observatory Avenue storage length plus ½ the taper length Harmon Street 5 4 3 2 1 125’ S’ 117’ S’ Jefferson Park Avenue Fontaine Avenue 88’ S’ 75’ S’ 152’ S’ 120’ S’ 355’ S’ 225’ S’ Jefferson Park Avenue Private Entrance Private Entrance Private Entrance Shamrock Road Existing Intersection Geometry Figure Aspen Heights TIA City of Charlottesville, Virginia 2-1 Source: Attachment E City of Charlottesville N Project Site Existing Bike Lanes Charlottesville Trails and Bike Lanes Figure Aspen Heights TIA City of Charlottesville, Virginia 2-2 Attachment E N Bus Stops Project Site Source: Charlottesville Area Transit Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) Service Map Figure Aspen Heights TIA City of Charlottesville, Virginia 2-3 Attachment E N Bus Stops Source: UVA Transit Service Project Site UVA University Transit Service Map Figure Aspen Heights TIA City of Charlottesville, Virginia 2-4 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville 3 2021 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing peak hour turning movement counts were conducted at each of the study intersections during the AM (7:00-9:00), Midday (11:00-1:00), and PM (4:00-6:00) peak hour timeframes. The counts were conducted on August 28, 2021 on a typical weekday when public schools and the University of Virginia were in session. The counts included heavy vehicles by movement, pedestrians, and bikes. The common peak hours across all study intersections were found to be 7:30–8:30 AM, 12:00–1:00 PM, and 4:45–5:45 PM. The existing vehicle traffic counts are shown on Figure 3-1; existing bike and pedestrian volumes are shown on Figures 3-2 and 3-3, respectively. In addition, a 12-hour count at the intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Washington Avenue was conducted to support a traffic signal warrant analysis. The complete traffic data is included in Appendix A. Existing signal timings for all intersections were provided by the City of Charlottesville and are included in Appendix B. 3.2 CAPACITY ANALYSIS Capacity analysis allows traffic engineers to determine the impacts of traffic on the surrounding roadway network. The Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies govern how the capacity analyses are conducted and how the results are interpreted. There are six letter grades of Levels of Service (LOS) from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst operating conditions. Table 3-1 shows in detail how each of these levels of service are interpreted. 3-1 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville Table 3-1: Level of Service Definitions Level of Roadway Segments or Service Controlled Access Highways Intersections A Free flow, low traffic No vehicle waits longer than density. one signal indication. B Delay is not unreasonable, On a rare occasion motorists stable traffic flow. wait through more than one signal indication. C Stable condition, Intermittently drivers wait movements somewhat through more than one signal restricted due to higher indication, and occasionally volumes, but not backups may develop behind objectionable for motorists. left turning vehicles, traffic flow still stable and acceptable. D Movements more restricted, Delays at intersections may queues and delays may become extensive with some, occur during short peaks, especially left-turning but lower demands occur vehicles waiting two or more often enough to permit signal indications, but clearing, thus preventing enough cycles with lower excessive backups. demand occur to permit periodic clearance, thus preventing excessive backups. E Actual capacity of the Very long queues may create roadway invloves delay to lengthly delays, especially for all motorists due to left-turning vehicles. congestion. F Forced flow with demand Backups from locations volumes greater than downstream restrict or capacity resulting in prevent movement of vehicles complete congestion. out of approach creating a Volumes drop to zero in storage ares during part or extreme cases. all of an hour. SOURCE: "A Policy on Design of Design of Urban Highways and Arterial Streets" - AASHTO, 1973 based upon material published in "Highway Capacity Manual" , National Academy of Sciences, 1965. 3-2 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville For signalized and unsignalized intersections, level of service is defined in terms of delay, a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption and lost travel time. Table 3-2 summarizes the delay associated with each LOS category: Table 3-2: Signalized and Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria Signalized Intersections Unsignalized Intersections Level of Control Delay per Level of Average Control Service Vehicle (sec/veh) Service Delay (sec/veh) A ≤ 10 A 0 to 10 B > 10 to ≤ 20 B > 10 to ≤ 15 C > 20 to ≤ 35 C > 15 to ≤ 25 D > 35 to ≤ 55 D > 25 to ≤ 35 E > 55 to ≤ 80 E > 35 to ≤ 50 F > 80 F > 50 Source: Exhibit 16-2 and Exhibit 17-2 from TRB's "Highway Capacity Manual 2000" Capacity analyses were performed to assess existing (2021), background (2025), and future (2031) operational conditions. The signalized and unsignalized intersections were analyzed using SYNCHRO Version 10 based on HCM 2000 methodologies with the following assumptions: • Level terrain; • 12-foot lane widths; • Existing peak hour factor as determined by the traffic counts (by intersection) for existing scenario; • The higher of the existing peak hour factor as determined by traffic counts (by intersection) or a peak hour factor of 0.92 for the background and total future scenarios. • Heavy vehicle percentage as determined by the traffic counts (by movement); and • Traffic signals timing data provided by the City of Charlottesville. 3-3 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville 3.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS Table 3-3 summarizes the 2021 existing intersection LOS, delay, 95th percentile queue lengths (Synchro), and longest queue lengths (SimTraffic) based on the 2021 existing intersection geometry (Figure 2-1) and peak hour traffic volumes shown on Figures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3. The corresponding SYNCHRO and SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix C. Note that the intersection numbers shown on the LOS, delay, and queue length summary tables correspond with the intersection numbers used in the SYNCHRO models and report figures. As shown in Table 3-1, under 2021 existing conditions: • At the signalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Shamrock Road, the overall intersection operates at a LOS B during the AM/Midday/PM peak hours. During the AM/Midday/PM peaks, the mainline (east-west) approaches and movements operate at a LOS B or better; the side street (north-south) approaches operate at a LOS C. All turn bays have adequate storage to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Harmon Street, the mainline (east-west) approaches operate at a LOS A during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The side street (north-south) approaches operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. All approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Washington Avenue, the mainline (east-west) approaches operate at a LOS A during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The side street (north-south) approaches operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. During the PM peak, the westbound approach maximum queue length (79 feet) fills the distance to the adjacent intersection with Harmon Street (77 feet away). All other approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Observatory Avenue, the mainline (east-west) approaches operate at a LOS A during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The side street (north-south) approaches operate at a LOS B during the AM/Midday peaks and a LOS C during the PM peak. During the PM peak, the westbound maximum queue (157 feet) fills the distance to the adjacent intersection with Washington Avenue (174 feet away). All other approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the signalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Maury Avenue/Fontaine Avenue, the overall intersection operates at a LOS C during the AM/PM peaks and a LOS B during the Midday peak. The north- and southbound approaches and movements generally operate at a LOS C during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The east- and westbound approaches and movements generally operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/PM peaks and LOS B during the Midday peak. 3-4 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville o During the AM/Midday peaks, the westbound left maximum queue (87 feet) fills the available storage (88 feet), spilling back into the through lane sometimes. During the PM peak, the 95th percentile queue (178 feet) exceeds the available storage (88 feet), spilling back into the through lane 20% of the time. During the PM peak, the westbound approach maximum queue (445 feet) backs up through the adjacent intersection with Observatory Avenue (432 feet away). Factoring in space for the intersection width, the queue continues past Observatory Avenue a further 157 feet. During the PM peak, the southbound through maximum queue (339 feet) effectively blocks the left and right turn lanes (125 feet max. storage) and backs up through the adjacent intersection with Clark Court (275 feet away). All other turn bays have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of Maury Avenue/Alderman Road and Stadium Road, all approaches operate at a LOS B or better during the AM/Midday peaks. During the PM peak, the east- west- and northbound approaches operate at a LOS C or better. The southbound approach operates at a LOS D. All approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of Stadium Road and Washington Avenue, all approaches operate at a LOS A during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. All approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. 3-5 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 3-6 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville Table 3-3: Intersection Level of Service and Delay Summary 2021 Existing Peak Hour Traffic AM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Effective Synchro Turn Synchro Synchro SimTraffic Intersection and Movement and 95th Lane 1 95th SimTraffic 1 95th SimTraffic Max Type of Control Approach Delay 1 Delay 1 Delay 1 1 Percentile Storage (sec/veh) LOS Percentile Max Queue (sec/veh) LOS Percentile Max Queue (sec/veh) LOS Queue Queue (ft) Queue Length (ft) Queue Length (ft) Length Length Length (ft) Length (ft) (ft) (ft) 1. Shamrock Road (N-S) and EB Approach 13.8 B 320 299 11.8 B 272 248 14.4 B 212 253 Jefferson Park Avenue (E-W) WB Left 75 6.4 A 18 66 6.6 A 25 74 8.7 A 47 74 Signalized WB Thru - Right 5.9 A 46 140 6.8 A 147 199 10.5 B 296 354 WB Approach 6.0 A -- -- 6.8 A -- -- 10.2 B -- -- NB Approach 31.4 C 157 197 28.8 C 93 146 28.0 C 113 152 SB Approach 27.1 C 31 63 27.0 C 32 65 26.4 C 63 96 Overall 15.2 B -- -- 11.9 B -- -- 14.2 B -- -- 2. Harmon Street (N-S) and EB Approach 8.2 A 0 68 8.2 A 0 67 9.1 A 0 52 Jefferson Park Avenue (E-W) WB Approach 8.5 A 0 56 8.4 A 0 78 8.2 A 0 159 Unsignalized NB Approach 15.4 C 0 27 15.4 C 0 27 11.1 B 0 33 SB Approach 15.8 C 0 31 12.6 B 2 33 18.7 C 6 66 3. Washington Avenue (N-S) and EB Approach 8.4 A 0 65 8.7 A 0 68 9.2 A 0 80 Jefferson Park Avenue (E-W) WB Approach 8.6 A 0 38 8.4 A 0 14 8.3 A 0 79 Unsignalized NB Approach 12 B 0 22 16.9 C 2 62 11 B 0 25 SB Approach 0 A 0 0 14.3 B 2 35 19.8 C 4 42 4. Observatory Avenue (N-S) and EB Approach 8.2 A 0 55 8.2 A 0 11 9.3 A 0 91 Jefferson Park Avenue (E-W) WB Approach 9.2 A 0 61 8.3 A 0 46 8.5 A 0 157 Unsignalized NB Approach 14.3 B 0 31 14.4 B 0 35 19.1 C 2 41 SB Approach 14.9 B 0 29 10.8 B 0 14 21.3 C 4 46 5. Maury Avenue/Jefferson Park Ave (N-S) EB Left 152 20.2 C 77 133 16.3 B 53 117 27.7 C 35 90 and Fontaine Avenue (E-W) EB Thru 25.2 C 275 292 19.9 B 226 237 24.5 C 58 210 Signalized EB Right 120 9.2 A 19 120 11.3 B 20 120 16.8 B 48 120 EB Approach 20.1 C -- -- 16.8 B -- -- 18.8 B -- -- WB Left 88 16.7 B 52 87 15.2 B 97 87 29.8 C 178 87 WB Thru - Right 15.7 B 186 211 11.7 B 178 241 23.9 C 294 445 WB Approach 15.9 B -- -- 12.9 B -- -- 26.1 C -- -- NB Left 355 34.1 C #319 269 29.5 C 126 153 32.9 C 174 187 NB Thru 27.5 C 215 221 28.0 C 86 113 30.8 C 101 133 NB Right 200 0.0 A 53 111 0.0 A 32 0 0.0 A 15 0 NB Approach 31.2 C -- -- 28.9 C -- -- 32.2 C -- -- SB Left 117 31.7 C 31 67 27.6 C 40 86 27.8 C 57 117 SB Thru 32.3 C 59 93 29.4 C 111 157 36.9 D 284 339 SB Right 125 31.6 C 0 66 27.9 C 0 107 28.1 C 0 125 SB Approach 32.1 C -- -- 28.7 C -- -- 34.7 C -- -- Overall 24.2 C -- -- 19.6 B -- -- 27.8 C -- -- 6. Maury Avenue/Alderman Road (N-S) and EB Approach 11.7 B 31 101 8.5 A 4 42 10.4 B 6 63 Stadium Road (E-W) WB Approach 9.8 A 8 73 9.0 A 10 72 15.1 C 55 127 Unsignalized NB Approach 14.6 B 74 224 9.1 A 20 103 11.4 B 25 122 SB Approach 11.4 B 20 101 9.4 A 23 88 30.4 D 168 310 7. Washington Avenue (N-S) and EB Approach † † -- 3 † † -- 6 † † -- -- Stadium Road (E-W) WB Approach 7.6 A 0 -- 7.5 A 0 12 7.6 A 0 28 Unsignalized NB Approach 9.5 A 0 30 9.8 A 0 39 9.5 A 0 33 1 Overall intersection LOS and delay cannot be reported for unsignalized intersections. † SYNCHRO does not provide level of service or delay for unsignalized movements with no conflicting volumes. # - 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SimTraffic queues are average maximum queues after 10 runs of 60 minutes each. 3-7 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 3-8 71 (328) {150} Alderman Road 29 (94) {40} 26 (61) {17} Attachment E 6 7 31 (20) {21} 9 (129) {22} 50 (259) {93} 6 18 (128) {53} 1 (5) {7} Stadium Road {20} (20) 111 {47} (80) 143 7 Stadium Drive {12} (16) 70 Washington Ave Observatory Ave {2} (3) 6 {9} (2) 3 Harmon Street {3} (5) 1 {2} (10) 4 {5} (6) 2 {26} (16) 49 {157} (154) 304 NOT TO SCALE 4 (7) {16} LEGEND: Washington Avenue 00 AM Peak Hour 8 5 Maury Avenue (00) PM Peak Hour Site Entrance 4 3 2 1 {00} Midday Peak Hour Jefferson Shamrock Park Avenue Existing Road Road Proposed Road {8} (10) 8 AM Peak: 7:30-8:30 AM Observatory Avenue Harmon Street Midday Peak: 12-1 PM PM Peak: 4:45-5:45 PM 49 (305) {116} 19 (52) {21} 2 2 (15) {8} 3 (7) {1} 0 (1) {0} 2 (6) {0} 0 (1) {0} 2 (6) {2} 14 (49) {42} 20 (49) {31} 0 (7) {7} 0 (0) {1} 0 (7) {4} 5 4 3 3 (7) {5} 4 (9) {2} 1 Jefferson Park Avenue 2 (2) {5} 1 (5) {6} Fontaine Avenue 22 (33) {24} 291 (590) {360} 3 (4) {1} 3 (12) {6} 214 (327) {216} 278 (609) {377} 287 (571) {351} 243 (549) {342} 2 (2) {1} 53 (222) {125} 4 (8) {3} 4 (13) {8} 31 (104) {54} {46} (25) 68 {3} (9) 6 {6} (7) 9 {5} (21) 8 {257} (150) 293 {426} (311) 502 {3} (8) 5 {419} (314) 479 {406} (275) 451 {144} (255) 136 {3} (3) 0 {425} (317) 483 {3} (1) 1 {33} (55) 32 {38} (43) 65 {22} (25) 45 {38} (56) 73 {132} (183) 309 {85} (101) 232 {129} (105) 177 {1} (1) 2 {2} (4) 1 {0} (0) 0 {3} (6) 3 {1} (0) 1 {0} (0) 0 {1} (8) 1 {2} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 {3} (1) 1 Jefferson Park Avenue Private Entrance Private Entrance Private Entrance Shamrock Road 2021 Existing Peak Hour Volumes Figure Aspen Heights TIA City of Charlottesville, Virginia 3-1 Alderman Road Attachment E 0 (22) {6} 2 (9) {5} 1 (0) {1} 6 7 1 (0) {0} 1 (3) {1} 1 (6) {2} 6 0 (1) {1} 1 (0) {2} Stadium Road {2} (7) 11 {3} (2) 2 7 Stadium Drive {1} (1) 2 Washington Ave Observatory Ave {0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 Harmon Street {0} (0) 0 {3} (3) 0 {1} (0) 0 {13} (6) 13 {1} (1) 0 NOT TO SCALE LEGEND: Washington Avenue 00 AM Peak Hour 8 5 Maury Avenue (00) PM Peak Hour Site Entrance 4 3 2 1 {00} Midday Peak Hour Jefferson Shamrock Park Avenue Existing Road Road Proposed Road AM Peak: 7:30-8:30 AM Observatory Avenue Harmon Street Midday Peak: 12-1 PM PM Peak: 4:45-5:45 PM 1 (2) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (10) {3} 5 4 3 0 (2) {0} 0 (2) {2} 2 1 Jefferson Park Avenue 0 (1) {1} 3 (9) {2} 0 (0) {0} 0 (1) {1} 0 (1) {1} Fontaine Avenue 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 3 (2) {0} 3 (2) {0} 4 (21) {6} 4 (25) {7} 2 (21) {6} 3 (21) {11} 1 (15) {5} 0 (2) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (6) {0} {0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 {0} (1) 0 {0} (1) 0 {6} (7) 17 {0} (1) 0 {1} (3) 2 {5} (6) 18 {5} (4) 20 {0} (1) 0 {5} (6) 17 {1} (1) 0 {0} (0) 0 {0} (1) 0 {0} (0) 0 {3} (3) 4 {1} (0) 2 {0} (0) 0 {1} (1) 0 {9} (2) 12 {4} (1) 9 {0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 1 {0} (1) 0 {0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 {1} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 Jefferson Park Avenue Private Entrance Private Entrance Private Entrance Shamrock Road 2021 Existing Bicycle Volumes Figure Aspen Heights TIA City of Charlottesville, Virginia 3-2 Alderman Road Attachment E 47 (46) {39} {34} (30) 22 6 7 1 (1) {1} 6 Stadium Road 7 Stadium Drive {13} (9) 4 {17} (17) 15 Washington Ave Observatory Ave Harmon Street NOT TO SCALE 8 (11) {19} 13 (42) {38} LEGEND: Washington Avenue 00 AM Peak Hour (00) PM Peak Hour 8 5 Maury Avenue {00} Midday Peak Hour Site Entrance 4 3 2 1 Jefferson Existing Road Shamrock Park Avenue Proposed Road Road Marked Crosswalk AM Peak: 7:30-8:30 AM Observatory Avenue Harmon Street Midday Peak: 12-1 PM PM Peak: 4:45-5:45 PM 18 (58) {47} 5 4 3 2 1 16 (21) {22} Jefferson Park Avenue 23 (69) {14} {5} (3) 3 {30} (50) 43 {22} (42) 57 {52} (73) 61 2 (2) {1} {23} (45) 56 2 (2) {1} Fontaine Avenue {0} (4) 2 {2} (1) 1 {9} (9) 16 {0} (0) 0 {0} (4) 2 11 (18) {7} 32 (89) {21} 26 (66) {24} 19 (43) {24} 26 (81) {35} Jefferson Park Avenue Private Entrance Private Entrance Private Entrance Shamrock Road 2021 Existing Pedestrian Volumes Figure Aspen Heights TIA City of Charlottesville, Virginia 3-3 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 3-12 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville 4 2023 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS The background 2023 volumes were analyzed assuming existing intersection geometry in conjunction with projected background traffic volumes. The background vehicle volumes were developed based on a 0.2% annual growth rate. The background bike and pedestrian volumes were developed based on a 1% annual growth rate. 4.1 2023 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES The 0.2% and 1% annual growth rates discussed above were compounded annually for the two-year period from 2021 to 2023 and was applied to all movements at the study intersections. The resulting 2023 vehicle background (existing + growth) volumes are shown on Figure 4-1; the 2023 bike and pedestrian background (existing + growth) volumes are shown on Figures 4-2 and 4-3, respectively. 4.2 APPROVED BACKGROUND 2023 DEVELOPMENTS Per coordination with the City of Charlottesville, no background developments are expected to be completed within the vicinity of the proposed development. 4.3 BACKGROUND 2023 CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS Table 4-1 summarizes the 2023 background intersection LOS, delay, 95th percentile queue lengths (Synchro), and maximum queue lengths (SimTraffic) based on the intersection geometry (Figure 2-1) and 2023 background peak hour traffic volumes shown on Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3. The corresponding SYNCHRO and SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix D. Note that the intersection numbers shown on the LOS, delay, and queue length summary tables correspond with the intersection numbers used in the SYNCHRO models and report figures. As shown in Table 4-1 under 2023 background conditions: • Levels of service at the study intersections are not expected to change significantly from 2021 existing to 2023 background conditions. • At the signalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Shamrock Avenue, the overall intersection continues to operate at a LOS B during the AM/Midday/PM peak hours. During the AM/Midday/PM peaks, the mainline (east-west) approaches and movements continue to operate at a LOS B or better; the side street (north-south) approaches continue to operate at a LOS C. During the PM peak, the westbound left maximum queue (74 feet) fills the available storage (75 feet). All other approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Harmon Street, the mainline (east-west) approaches continue to operate at a LOS A during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The side street (north-south) approaches continue to operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. All approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Washington Avenue, the mainline (east-west) approaches continue to operate at a LOS A during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The side street (north-south) approaches continue to operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. During the PM peak, the westbound approach maximum queue length 4-1 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville (78 feet) fills the distance to the adjacent intersection with Harmon Street (77 feet away). All other approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Observatory Avenue, the mainline (east-west) approaches continue to operate at a LOS A during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The side street (north-south) approaches continue to operate at a LOS B during the AM/Midday peaks and a LOS C during the PM peak. All approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the signalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Maury Avenue/Fontaine Avenue, the overall intersection continues to operate at a LOS C during the AM/PM peaks and a LOS B during the Midday peak. The north- and southbound approaches and movements continue to generally operate at a LOS C during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The east- and westbound approaches and movements continue to generally operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/PM peaks and LOS B during the Midday peak. o During the AM/Midday peaks, the westbound left maximum queue (87 feet) fills the available storage (88 feet), spilling back into the through lane sometimes. During the PM peak, the 95th percentile queue (179 feet) exceeds the available storage (88 feet), spilling back into the through lane 20% of the time. During the PM peak, the westbound approach maximum queue (442 feet) backs up through the adjacent intersection with Observatory Avenue (432 feet away). Factoring in space for the intersection width, the queue continues past Observatory Avenue a further 166 feet. During the PM peak, the southbound through maximum queue (350 feet) effectively blocks the left and right turn lanes (125 feet max. storage) and backs up through the adjacent intersection with Clark Court (275 feet away). All other turn bays have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of Maury Avenue/Alderman Road and Stadium Road, all approaches continue to operate at a LOS B or better during the AM/Midday peaks. During the PM peak, the east- west- and northbound approaches continue to operate at a LOS C or better. The southbound approach operates at a LOS D. All approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of Stadium Road and Washington Avenue, all approaches continue operate at a LOS A during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. All approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. 4-2 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville Table 4-1: Intersection Level of Service and Delay Summary 2023 Total Background Peak Hour Traffic AM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Effective Synchro Turn Synchro Synchro SimTraffic Intersection and Movement and 95th Lane 1 95th SimTraffic 1 95th SimTraffic Max Type of Control Approach Delay 1 Delay 1 Delay 1 1 Percentile Storage (sec/veh) LOS Percentile Max Queue LOS Percentile Max Queue LOS Queue (sec/veh) (sec/veh) Queue (ft) Queue Length (ft) Queue Length (ft) Length Length Length (ft) Length (ft) (ft) (ft) 1. Shamrock Road (N-S) and EB Approach 13.9 B 321 293 11.9 B 274 284 14.5 B 212 261 Jefferson Park Avenue (E-W) WB Left 75 6.5 A 18 61 6.6 A 25 68 8.7 A 47 74 Signalized WB Thru - Right 5.9 A 105 144 6.9 A 147 207 10.6 B 298 326 WB Approach 6.0 A -- -- 6.9 A -- -- 10.3 B -- -- NB Approach 31.4 C 157 200 28.8 C 93 133 28.0 C 114 159 SB Approach 27.1 C 31 63 27.0 C 32 53 26.4 C 63 111 Overall 15.3 B -- -- 11.9 B -- -- 14.2 B -- -- 2. Harmon Street (N-S) and EB Approach 8.2 A 0 73 8.2 A 0 63 9.1 A 0 62 Jefferson Park Avenue (E-W) WB Approach 8.5 A 0 37 8.4 A 0 82 8.2 A 0 199 Unsignalized NB Approach 15.4 C 0 21 15.5 C 0 21 11 B 0 33 SB Approach 15.9 C 0 33 12.6 B 2 35 18.1 C 6 55 3. Washington Avenue (N-S) and EB Approach 8.4 A 0 93 8.7 A 0 32 9.2 A 0 119 Jefferson Park Avenue (E-W) WB Approach 8.6 A 0 35 8.4 A 0 11 8.3 A 0 78 Unsignalized NB Approach 12 B 0 22 16.9 C 2 55 11 B 0 19 SB Approach 0 A 0 0 14.4 B 2 38 19.6 C 4 44 4. Observatory Avenue (N-S) and EB Approach 8.2 A 0 37 8.2 A 0 29 9.3 A 0 77 Jefferson Park Avenue (E-W) WB Approach 9.2 A 0 26 8.4 A 0 51 8.5 A 0 166 Unsignalized NB Approach 14.1 B 0 30 14.4 B 0 33 18.6 C 2 46 SB Approach 14.7 B 0 31 10.8 B 0 9 20.7 C 4 42 5. Maury Avenue/Jefferson Park Ave (N-S) EB Left 152 20.8 C 77 143 16.3 B 53 141 27.9 C 35 80 and Fontaine Avenue (E-W) EB Thru 26.1 C 276 306 20.0 B 227 282 27.2 C 143 198 Signalized EB Right 120 9.6 A 19 120 11.3 B 20 120 16.9 B 50 120 EB Approach 20.9 C -- -- 16.8 B -- -- 21.2 C -- -- WB Left 88 17.2 B 52 87 15.2 B 98 87 36.6 D 179 88 WB Thru - Right 16.4 B 187 203 11.7 B 178 256 24.0 C 295 442 WB Approach 16.5 B -- -- 12.9 B -- -- 28.8 C -- -- NB Left 355 35.1 D #320 269 29.5 C 127 145 32.9 C 175 190 NB Thru 28.0 C 216 225 28.0 C 86 105 30.8 C 101 129 NB Right 200 0.0 A 53 156 0.0 A 33 0 0.0 A 15 0 NB Approach 32.1 C -- -- 28.9 C -- -- 32.2 C -- -- SB Left 117 31.4 C 31 65 27.6 C 40 95 27.8 C 57 117 SB Thru 32.0 C 59 96 29.4 C 111 174 37.0 D 285 350 SB Right 125 31.3 C 0 67 28.0 C 0 92 28.2 C 0 125 SB Approach 31.7 C -- -- 28.8 C -- -- 34.8 C -- -- Overall 24.9 C -- -- 19.6 B -- -- 28.9 C -- -- 6. Maury Avenue/Alderman Road (N-S) and EB Approach 11.0 B 25 97 8.4 A 4 49 10.5 B 6 59 Stadium Road (E-W) WB Approach 9.4 A 6 78 8.9 A 10 7 15.2 C 55 133 Unsignalized NB Approach 13 B 59 222 9 A 20 120 11.4 B 23 135 SB Approach 10.8 B 18 105 9.3 A 23 119 30.8 D 170 294 7. Washington Avenue (N-S) and EB Approach † † -- 3 † † -- 6 † † -- 11 Stadium Road (E-W) WB Approach 7.6 A 0 8 7.5 A 0 15 7.6 A 0 20 Unsignalized NB Approach 9.3 A 0 30 9.8 A 0 46 10.0 A 2 40 1 Overall intersection LOS and delay cannot be reported for unsignalized intersections. † SYNCHRO does not provide level of service or delay for unsignalized movements with no conflicting volumes. # - 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SimTraffic queues are average maximum queues after 10 runs of 60 minutes each. 4-3 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 4-4 71 (329) {151} Alderman Road 29 (94) {40} 26 (61) {17} Attachment E 6 7 31 (20) {21} 9 (130) {22} 50 (260) {93} 6 18 (129) {53} 1 (5) {7} Stadium Road {20} (20) 111 {47} (80) 144 7 Stadium Drive {12} (16) 70 Washington Ave Observatory Ave {3} (3) 6 {9} (2) 3 Harmon Street {3} (5) 1 {2} (10) 4 {5} (6) 2 {26} (16) 49 {158} (156) 305 NOT TO SCALE 4 (7) {16} LEGEND: Washington Avenue 00 AM Peak Hour 8 5 Maury Avenue (00) PM Peak Hour Site Entrance 4 3 2 1 {00} Midday Peak Hour Jefferson Shamrock Park Avenue Existing Road Road Proposed Road {8} (10) 8 AM Peak: 7:30-8:30 AM Observatory Avenue Harmon Street Midday Peak: 12-1 PM PM Peak: 4:45-5:45 PM 49 (306) {116} 19 (52) {21} 2 2 (15) {8} 3 (7) {1} 0 (1) {0} 2 (6) {0} 0 (1) {0} 2 (6) {2} 14 (49) {42} 20 (49) {31} 0 (7) {7} 0 (0) {1} 0 (7) {4} 5 4 3 3 (7) {5} 4 (9) {2} 1 Jefferson Park Avenue 2 (2) {5} 1 (5) {6} Fontaine Avenue 22 (33) {24} 292 (592) {361} 3 (4) {1} 3 (12) {6} 215 (328) {217} 279 (611) {379} 288 (573) {352} 244 (551) {343} 2 (2) {1} 53 (223) {126} 4 (8) {3} 4 (13) {8} 31 (104) {54} {46} (25) 68 {3} (9) 6 {6} (7) 9 {5} (21) 8 {258} (151) 294 {428} (312) 504 {3} (8) 5 {421} (315) 481 {408} (276) 453 {145} (256) 137 {3} (3) 0 {427} (318) 485 {3} (1) 1 {33} (55) 32 {38} (43) 65 {22} (25) 45 {38} (56) 73 {133} (184) 310 {85} (101) 233 {130} (105) 178 {1} (1) 2 {2} (4) 1 {0} (0) 0 {3} (6) 3 {1} (0) 1 {0} (0) 0 {1} (8) 1 {2} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 {3} (1) 1 Jefferson Park Avenue Private Entrance Private Entrance Private Entrance Shamrock Road 2023 Background Peak Hour Volumes Figure Aspen Heights TIA City of Charlottesville, Virginia 4-1 Alderman Road Attachment E 0 (22) {6} 2 (9) {5} 1 (0) {1} 6 7 1 (0) {0} 1 (3) {1} 1 (6) {2} 6 0 (1) {1} 1 (0) {2} Stadium Road {2} (7) 11 {3} (2) 2 7 Stadium Drive {1} (1) 2 Washington Ave Observatory Ave {0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 Harmon Street {0} (0) 0 {3} (3) 0 {1} (0) 0 {13} (6) 13 {1} (1) 0 NOT TO SCALE LEGEND: Washington Avenue 00 AM Peak Hour 8 5 Maury Avenue (00) PM Peak Hour Site Entrance 4 3 2 1 {00} Midday Peak Hour Jefferson Shamrock Park Avenue Existing Road Road Proposed Road AM Peak: 7:30-8:30 AM Observatory Avenue Harmon Street Midday Peak: 12-1 PM PM Peak: 4:45-5:45 PM 1 (2) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (10) {3} 5 4 3 0 (2) {0} 0 (2) {2} 2 1 Jefferson Park Avenue 0 (1) {1} 3 (9) {2} 0 (0) {0} 0 (1) {1} 0 (1) {1} Fontaine Avenue 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 3 (2) {0} 3 (2) {0} 4 (21) {6} 4 (26) {7} 2 (21) {6} 3 (21) {11} 1 (15) {5} 0 (2) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (6) {0} {0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 {0} (1) 0 {0} (1) 0 {6} (7) 17 {0} (1) 0 {1} (3) 2 {5} (6) 18 {5} (4) 20 {0} (1) 0 {5} (6) 17 {1} (1) 0 {0} (0) 0 {0} (1) 0 {0} (0) 0 {3} (3) 4 {1} (0) 2 {0} (0) 0 {1} (1) 0 {9} (2) 12 {4} (1) 9 {0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 1 {0} (1) 0 {0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 {1} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 Jefferson Park Avenue Private Entrance Private Entrance Private Entrance Shamrock Road 2023 Background Bicycle Volumes Figure Aspen Heights TIA City of Charlottesville, Virginia 4-2 Alderman Road Attachment E 48 (47) {40} {35} (31) 22 6 7 1 (1) {1} 6 Stadium Road 7 Stadium Drive {13} (9) 4 {17} (17) 15 Washington Ave Observatory Ave Harmon Street NOT TO SCALE 8 (11) {19} 13 (42) {39} LEGEND: Washington Avenue 00 AM Peak Hour (00) PM Peak Hour 8 5 Maury Avenue {00} Midday Peak Hour Site Entrance 4 3 2 1 Jefferson Existing Road Shamrock Park Avenue Proposed Road Road Marked Crosswalk AM Peak: 7:30-8:30 AM Observatory Avenue Harmon Street Midday Peak: 12-1 PM PM Peak: 4:45-5:45 PM 18 (59) {48} 5 4 3 2 1 16 (21) {22} Jefferson Park Avenue 23 (70) {14} {5} (3) 3 {31} (51) 44 {22} (43) 58 {53} (74) 62 2 (2) {1} {23} (46) 57 2 (2) {1} Fontaine Avenue {0} (4) 2 {2} (1) 1 {9} (9) 16 {0} (0) 0 {0} (4) 2 11 (18) {7} 32 (91) {21} 27 (67) {25} 19 (44) {25} 27 (83) {36} Jefferson Park Avenue Private Entrance Private Entrance Private Entrance Shamrock Road 2023 Background Pedestrian Volumes Figure Aspen Heights TIA City of Charlottesville, Virginia 4-3 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 4-8 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville 5 2028 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS The background 2028 volumes were analyzed assuming existing intersection geometry in conjunction with projected background traffic volumes. The background vehicle volumes were developed based on a 0.2% annual growth rate. The background bike and pedestrian volumes were developed based on a 1% annual growth rate. 5.1 2028 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES The 0.2% and 1% annual growth rates discussed above were compounded annually for the 7-year period from 2021 to 2028 and was applied to all movements at the study intersections. The resulting 2028 vehicle background (existing + growth) volumes are shown on Figure 5-1; the 2028 bike and pedestrian background (existing + growth) volumes are shown on Figures 5-2 and 5-3, respectively. 5.2 BACKGROUND 2028 CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS Table 5-1 summarizes the 2028 background intersection LOS, delay, 95th percentile queue lengths (Synchro), and maximum queue lengths (SimTraffic) based on the intersection geometry (Figure 2-1) and 2028 background peak hour traffic volumes shown on Figures 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3. The corresponding SYNCHRO and SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix D. Note that the intersection numbers shown on the LOS, delay, and queue length summary tables correspond with the intersection numbers used in the SYNCHRO models and report figures. As shown in Table 5-1 under 2028 background conditions: • Levels of service at the study intersections are not expected to change significantly from 2021 existing to 2028 background conditions. • At the signalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Shamrock Avenue, the overall intersection continues to operate at a LOS B during the AM/Midday/PM peak hours. During the AM/Midday/PM peaks, the mainline (east-west) approaches and movements continue to operate at a LOS B or better; the side street (north-south) approaches continue to operate at a LOS C. During the PM peak, the westbound left maximum queue (74 feet) fills the available storage (75 feet). All other approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Harmon Street, the mainline (east-west) approaches continue to operate at a LOS A during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The side street (north-south) approaches continue to operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. All approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Washington Avenue, the mainline (east-west) approaches continue to operate at a LOS A during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The side street (north-south) approaches continue to operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. During the PM peak, the westbound approach maximum queue length (82 feet) backs up through the adjacent intersection with Harmon Street (77 feet away). This queue is most often caused by the westbound approach queue at Jefferson Park Avenue/Maury Avenue. All other approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. 5-1 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville • At the unsignalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Observatory Avenue, the mainline (east-west) approaches continue to operate at a LOS A during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The side street (north-south) approaches continue to operate at a LOS B during the AM/Midday peaks and a LOS C during the PM peak. During the PM peak, the westbound approach maximum queue (184 feet) backs up through the adjacent intersection with Washington Avenue (174 feet away). This queue is most often caused by the westbound approach queue at Jefferson Park Avenue/Maury Avenue. All other approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the signalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Maury Avenue/Fontaine Avenue, the overall intersection continues to operate at a LOS C during the AM/PM peaks and a LOS B during the Midday peak. The north- and southbound approaches and movements continue to generally operate at a LOS C during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The east- and westbound approaches and movements continue to generally operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/PM peaks and LOS B during the Midday peak. o During the AM/Midday peaks, the westbound left maximum queue (87 feet) fills the available storage (88 feet), spilling back into the through lane sometimes. During the PM peak, the 95th percentile queue (182 feet) exceeds the available storage (88 feet), spilling back into the through lane 24% of the time. During the PM peak, the westbound approach maximum queue (446 feet) backs up through the roadway network at Observatory Avenue (432 feet away), Washington Avenue (606 feet away) and Harmon Street (683 feet away). During the PM peak, the southbound through maximum queue (384 feet) effectively blocks the left and right turn lanes (125 feet max. storage) and backs up through the adjacent intersection with Clark Court (275 feet away). All other turn bays have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of Maury Avenue/Alderman Road and Stadium Road, all approaches continue to operate at a LOS B or better during the AM/Midday peaks. During the PM peak, the east- west- and northbound approaches continue to operate at a LOS C or better. The southbound approach operates at a LOS D. All approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of Stadium Road and Washington Avenue, all approaches continue operate at a LOS A during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. All approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. 5-2 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville Table 5-1: Intersection Level of Service and Delay Summary 2028 Total Background Peak Hour Traffic AM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Effective Synchro Turn Synchro Synchro SimTraffic Intersection and Movement and 95th Lane 1 95th SimTraffic 1 95th SimTraffic Max Type of Control Approach Delay 1 Delay 1 Delay 1 1 Percentile Storage (sec/veh) LOS Percentile Max Queue (sec/veh) LOS Percentile Max Queue (sec/veh) LOS Queue Queue (ft) Queue Length (ft) Queue Length (ft) Length Length Length (ft) Length (ft) (ft) (ft) 1. Shamrock Road (N-S) and EB Approach 14.1 B 325 298 12.1 B 278 283 14.7 B 216 262 Jefferson Park Avenue (E-W) WB Left 75 6.5 A 18 58 6.7 A 26 73 8.9 A 47 74 Signalized WB Thru - Right 6.0 A 106 146 7.1 A 149 188 10.8 B 303 326 WB Approach 6.0 A -- -- 7.0 A -- -- 10.5 B -- -- NB Approach 31.5 C 160 187 28.7 C 95 138 28.0 C 115 162 SB Approach 27.1 C 31 59 26.9 C 32 63 26.3 C 64 97 Overall 15.4 B -- -- 12.1 B -- -- 14.4 B -- -- 2. Harmon Street (N-S) and EB Approach 8.2 A 0 64 8.2 A 0 69 9.1 A 0 61 Jefferson Park Avenue (E-W) WB Approach 8.6 A 0 44 8.4 A 0 82 8.2 A 0 201 Unsignalized NB Approach 15.6 C 0 27 15.8 C 0 21 11.1 B 0 31 SB Approach 16.1 C 0 33 12.8 B 2 31 18.4 C 6 61 3. Washington Avenue (N-S) and EB Approach 8.4 A 0 48 8.8 A 0 39 9.2 A 0 97 Jefferson Park Avenue (E-W) WB Approach 8.6 A 0 17 8.4 A 0 3 8.4 A 0 82 Unsignalized NB Approach 12 B 0 21 17.2 C 2 60 11.1 B 0 21 SB Approach 0 A 0 0 14.5 B 2 31 19.9 C 4 42 4. Observatory Avenue (N-S) and EB Approach 8.2 A 0 58 8.3 A 0 28 9.3 A 0 97 Jefferson Park Avenue (E-W) WB Approach 9.2 A 0 39 8.4 A 0 52 8.5 A 0 184 Unsignalized NB Approach 14.3 B 0 31 14.6 B 0 31 18.9 C 2 54 SB Approach 14.9 B 0 33 10.9 B 0 20 21 C 4 55 5. Maury Avenue/Jefferson Park Ave (N-S) EB Left 152 21.1 C 78 141 16.5 B 55 132 28.3 C 35 68 and Fontaine Avenue (E-W) EB Thru 26.7 C 280 358 20.3 C 230 295 27.5 C 144 195 Signalized EB Right 120 9.8 A 19 120 11.4 B 20 120 16.9 B 52 119 EB Approach 21.3 C -- -- 17.0 B -- -- 21.3 C -- -- WB Left 88 17.5 B 52 87 15.5 B 98 87 37.6 D 181 87 WB Thru - Right 16.7 B 188 219 11.9 B 180 237 24.4 C 299 446 WB Approach 16.9 B -- -- 13.1 B -- -- 29.4 C -- -- NB Left 355 35.7 D #326 312 29.5 C 129 145 33.0 C 176 206 NB Thru 28.1 C 218 293 27.9 C 86 102 30.8 C 102 144 NB Right 200 0.0 A 54 133 0.0 A 34 0 0.0 A 15 0 NB Approach 32.4 C -- -- 28.9 C -- -- 32.2 C -- -- SB Left 117 31.4 C 31 75 27.6 C 40 98 27.9 C 59 117 SB Thru 32.0 C 60 118 29.5 C 113 174 37.5 D #289 384 SB Right 125 31.4 C 0 65 28.0 C 0 99 28.2 C 0 125 SB Approach 31.8 C -- -- 28.9 C -- -- 35.2 D -- -- Overall 25.3 C -- -- 19.8 B -- -- 29.2 C -- -- 6. Maury Avenue/Alderman Road (N-S) and EB Approach 11.1 B 27 87 8.4 A 4 41 10.5 B 6 60 Stadium Road (E-W) WB Approach 9.5 A 6 78 8.9 A 10 81 15.4 C 57 161 Unsignalized NB Approach 13.2 B 60 225 9 A 20 100 11.5 B 25 150 SB Approach 10.9 B 18 102 9.3 A 23 94 32.2 D 178 422 7. Washington Avenue (N-S) and EB Approach † † -- 3 † † -- 6 † † -- 12 Stadium Road (E-W) WB Approach 7.6 A 0 6 7.5 A 0 20 7.6 A 0 18 Unsignalized NB Approach 9.3 A 0 30 9.8 A 0 46 10.0 A 2 35 1 Overall intersection LOS and delay cannot be reported for unsignalized intersections. † SYNCHRO does not provide level of service or delay for unsignalized movements with no conflicting volumes. # - 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SimTraffic queues are average maximum queues after 10 runs of 60 minutes each. 5-3 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 5-4 72 (333) {152} Alderman Road 29 (95) {41} 26 (62) {17} Attachment E 6 7 31 (20) {21} 9 (131) {22} 51 (263) {94} 6 18 (130) {54} 1 (5) {7} Stadium Road {20} (20) 113 {48} (81) 145 7 Stadium Drive {12} (16) 71 Washington Ave Observatory Ave {2} (3) 6 {9} (2) 3 Harmon Street {3} (5) 1 {2} (10) 4 {5} (6) 2 {26} (16) 50 {159} (156) 308 NOT TO SCALE 4 (7) {16} LEGEND: Washington Avenue 00 AM Peak Hour 8 5 Maury Avenue (00) PM Peak Hour Site Entrance 4 3 2 1 {00} Midday Peak Hour Jefferson Shamrock Park Avenue Existing Road Road Proposed Road {8} (10) 8 AM Peak: 7:30-8:30 AM Observatory Avenue Harmon Street Midday Peak: 12-1 PM PM Peak: 4:45-5:45 PM 50 (309) {118} 19 (53) {21} 2 2 (15) {8} 3 (7) {1} 0 (1) {0} 2 (6) {0} 0 (1) {0} 2 (6) {2} 14 (50) {43} 20 (50) {31} 0 (7) {7} 0 (0) {1} 0 (7) {4} 5 4 3 3 (7) {5} 4 (9) {2} 1 Jefferson Park Avenue 2 (2) {5} 1 (5) {6} Fontaine Avenue 22 (33) {24} 295 (598) {365} 3 (4) {1} 3 (12) {6} 217 (332) {219} 282 (618) {382} 291 (579) {362} 246 (557) {347} 2 (2) {1} 54 (225) {127} 4 (8) {3} 4 (13) {8} 31 (105) {55} {47} (25) 69 {3} (9) 6 {6} (7) 9 {5} (21) 8 {261} (152) 297 {432} (315) 509 {3} (8) 5 {425} (318) 486 {412} (279) 457 {146} (259) 138 {3} (3) 0 {431} (321) 490 {3} (1) 1 {33} (56) 32 {39} (44) 66 {22} (25) 46 {39} (57) 74 {134} (186) 313 {86} (102) 235 {131} (106) 179 {1} (1) 2 {2} (4) 1 {0} (0) 0 {3} (6) 3 {1} (0) 1 {0} (0) 0 {1} (8) 1 {2} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 {3} (1) 1 Jefferson Park Avenue Private Entrance Private Entrance Private Entrance Shamrock Road 2028 Background Peak Hour Volumes Figure Aspen Heights TIA City of Charlottesville, Virginia 5-1 Alderman Road Attachment E 2 (10) {5} 0 (24) {6} 1 (0) {1} 6 7 1 (0) {0} 1 (3) {1} 1 (6) {2} 6 0 (1) {1} 1 (0) {2} Stadium Road {2} (8) 12 {3} (2) 2 7 Stadium Drive {1} (1) 2 Washington Ave Observatory Ave {0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 Harmon Street {0} (0) 0 {3} (3) 0 {1} (0) 0 {14} (6) 14 {1} (1) 0 NOT TO SCALE LEGEND: Washington Avenue 00 AM Peak Hour 8 5 Maury Avenue (00) PM Peak Hour Site Entrance 4 3 2 1 {00} Midday Peak Hour Jefferson Shamrock Park Avenue Existing Road Road Proposed Road AM Peak: 7:30-8:30 AM Observatory Avenue Harmon Street Midday Peak: 12-1 PM PM Peak: 4:45-5:45 PM 1 (2) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (11) {3} 5 4 3 0 (2) {0} 0 (2) {2} 2 1 Jefferson Park Avenue 3 (10) {2} 0 (1) {1} 0 (0) {0} 0 (1) {1} 0 (1) {1} Fontaine Avenue 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 3 (2) {0} 3 (2) {0} 4 (23) {6} 4 (27) {8} 2 (23) {7} 3 (23) {12} 1 (16) {5} 0 (2) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (0) {0} 0 (6) {0} {0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 {0} (1) 0 {0} (1) 0 {6} (8) 18 {0} (1) 0 {1} (3) 2 {5} (6) 19 {5} (4) 21 {0} (1) 0 {5} (7) 18 {1} (1) 0 {0} (0) 0 {0} (1) 0 {0} (0) 0 {3} (3) 4 {1} (0) 2 {0} (0) 0 {1} (1) 0 {10} (2) 13 {4} (1) 10 {0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 1 {0} (1) 0 {0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 {1} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 Jefferson Park Avenue Private Entrance Private Entrance Private Entrance Shamrock Road 2028 Background Bicycle Volumes Figure Aspen Heights TIA City of Charlottesville, Virginia 5-2 Alderman Road Attachment E 50 (49) {42} {36} (32) 24 6 7 1 (1) {1} 6 Stadium Road 7 Stadium Drive {14} (10) 4 {18} (18) 16 Washington Ave Observatory Ave Harmon Street NOT TO SCALE 9 (12) {20} 14 (45) {41} LEGEND: Washington Avenue 00 AM Peak Hour (00) PM Peak Hour 8 5 Maury Avenue {00} Midday Peak Hour Site Entrance 4 3 2 1 Jefferson Existing Road Shamrock Park Avenue Proposed Road Road Marked Crosswalk AM Peak: 7:30-8:30 AM Observatory Avenue Harmon Street Midday Peak: 12-1 PM PM Peak: 4:45-5:45 PM 18 (62) {51} 5 4 3 2 1 17 (23) {24} Jefferson Park Avenue 25 (74) {15} {5} (3) 3 {32} (54) 46 {24} (45) 61 {56} (78) 65 2 (2) {1} {25} (48) 60 2 (2) {1} Fontaine Avenue {10} (10) 17 {0} (4) 2 {2} (1) 1 {0} (0) 0 {0} (4) 2 12 (19) {8} 34 (95) {23} 27 (71) {26} 20 (46) {26} 28 (87) {38} Jefferson Park Avenue Private Entrance Private Entrance Private Entrance Shamrock Road 2028 Background Pedestrian Volumes Figure Aspen Heights TIA City of Charlottesville, Virginia 5-3 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 5-8 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville 6 TRIP GENERATION Site traffic for the proposed development was estimated based on the site characteristics and subsequently distributed to the surrounding roadway network. The site is currently zoned R3. The proposed development will consist of 388 beds (119 units) of off- campus student housing apartments. The applicant is submitting this traffic impact analysis in support of a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow for the additional density beyond the existing zoning. Access to the site is proposed via one (1) full movement entrance on Washington Avenue. 6.1 SITE TRIP GENERATION The site-generated traffic volumes shown in Table 6-1 were estimated using the 10th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and were calculated using the number of beds as the independent variable and with “adjacent to campus” subcategory. A reduction of 13% was applied for external trips, corresponding with the 13% reduction for parking spaces allowed under City of Charlottesville code for this land use and location. The midday peak hour trips were calculated using Appendix A of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, time of day distributions for the midday peak hour (12:00 – 1:00 PM). Table 6-1: Aspen Heights Trip Generation Summary WEEKDAY VEHICULAR TRIPS AMOUNT ADT AM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PEAK HOUR(1) PM PEAK HOUR LAND USE ITE CODE UNITS (X) IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL (41%) (59%) (48%) (52%) (50%) (50%) Proposed Development Off Campus Student Apartment 225 388 Beds 1,230 18 26 44 30 33 63 48 48 96 Trip Reduction 13% (160) (2) (4) (6) (4) (4) (8) (6) (6) (12) Total External Primary Trips 1,070 16 22 38 26 29 55 42 42 84 SOURCE: Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition (2017) (1) Midday peak hour based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition, Appendix A time of day distributions for the hour beginning at 12:00 PM (2) Trip Reduction based on the same percentage used for the parking reduction and approved by the City. As shown in Table 6-1, the proposed development will generate a total of 38 trips (16 in and 22 out) during the AM peak, 55 trips (26 in and 29 out) during the Midday peak, 84 trips (42 in and 42 out) during the PM peak, and 1,070 average weekday daily trips. 6-1 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville 6.2 EXTERNAL TRIP DISTRIBUTIONS The distribution of external trips generated by the development was based on the existing travel patterns, the nature of the use, the 2021 existing traffic volumes, and local knowledge. The following directional distributions were assumed for the site and are shown on Figure 6-1: • 40% to/from the east on Jefferson Park Avenue; • 30% to/from the east on Stadium Road; • 10% to/from the west on Fontaine Avenue; • 10% to/from the north on Alderman Road; and • 10% to/from the south on Jefferson Park Avenue. 6.3 TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT The trip distribution percentages for the external trips from Figure 6-1 were applied to the trip generation table (Table 6-1) to distribute the external trips to the surrounding roadway network. The resulting site generated external trips are shown on Figure 6-2. 6-2 Alderman Road Attachment E 6 7 10% 6 10% 30% Stadium Road 10% 7 Stadium Drive Washington Ave Observatory Ave Harmon Street 10% 30% Washington Avenue 40% 8 5 Maury Avenue LEGEND: Site Entrance 4 3 2 1 xx% Volume Distribution Jefferson Shamrock 40% Park Avenue Existing Road Road 60% Proposed Road 60% NOT TO SCALE Observatory Avenue Harmon Street 5 4 3 2 1 Jefferson Park Avenue 20% 40% Fontaine Avenue 10% 10% 20% 40% 40% 40% 10% 20% 20% 40% 40% 10% Jefferson Park Avenue Private Entrance Private Entrance Private Entrance Shamrock Road Site Peak Hour Trip Distributions Figure Aspen Heights TIA City of Charlottesville, Virginia 6-1 Alderman Road Attachment E 2 (4) {3} 6 7 6 2 (4) {3} 5 (13) {8} Stadium Road {3} (4) 2 7 Stadium Drive Washington Ave Observatory Ave Harmon Street {3} (4) 2 {9} (13) 7 6 (17) {10} LEGEND: Washington Avenue 00 AM Peak Hour 8 5 Maury Avenue (00) PM Peak Hour Site Entrance 4 3 2 1 {00} Midday Peak Hour Jefferson Shamrock Park Avenue Existing Road {12} (17) 9 Road {17} (25) 13 Proposed Road {16} (25) 10 NOT TO SCALE Observatory Avenue Harmon Street 9 (17) {12} 4 (8) {6} 5 4 3 2 1 Jefferson Park Avenue Fontaine Avenue 2 (4) {3} 2 (4) {3} 4 (8) {6} 6 (17) {10} 6 (17) {10} 6 (17) {10} {3} (4) 2 {5} (8) 3 {5} (8) 3 {12} (17) 9 {12} (17) 9 {3} (4) 2 Jefferson Park Avenue Private Entrance Private Entrance Private Entrance Shamrock Road Total External Site Peak Hour Trips Figure Aspen Heights TIA City of Charlottesville, Virginia 6-2 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville 7 2023 TOTAL FUTURE CONDITIONS To complete the analysis of 2023 total conditions (with the proposed development), the estimated site trips were added to the background 2023 traffic volumes. The projected volumes were then used to complete the capacity analysis. 7.1 TOTAL FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES To generate the 2023 total future traffic volumes, the external site trips shown on Figure 6-2 and the background 2023 vehicle volumes shown in Figure 4-1 were summed. The resulting 2023 total future traffic volumes are shown on Figure 7-1. 7.2 2023 FUTURE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS RESULTS Table 7-1 summarizes the 2023 total future intersection LOS, delay, 95th percentile queue lengths (Synchro), and maximum queue lengths (SimTraffic) based on the intersection geometry and 2023 total future peak hour traffic volumes shown on Figures 2-1 and 7-1, respectively. The corresponding SYNCHRO and SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix E. Note that the intersection numbers shown on the LOS, delay, and queue length summary tables correspond with the intersection numbers used in the SYNCHRO models and report figures. As shown in Table 7-1, under 2023 total future conditions with development of the site: • Levels of service at the study intersections are not expected to change significantly from 2023 background to 2023 total future conditions. • At the signalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Shamrock Avenue, the overall intersection continues to operate at a LOS B during the AM/Midday/PM peak hours. During the AM/Midday/PM peaks, the mainline (east-west) approaches and movements continue to operate at a LOS B or better; the side street (north-south) approaches continue to operate at a LOS C. During the Midday/PM peaks, the westbound left maximum queue (75 feet) fills the available storage (75 feet). All other approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Harmon Street, the mainline (east-west) approaches continue to operate at a LOS A during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The side street (north-south) approaches continue to operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. During the PM peak, the eastbound approach maximum queue (75 feet) fills the distance to the adjacent intersection with Washington Avenue (77 feet away). All approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Washington Avenue, the mainline (east-west) approaches continue to operate at a LOS A during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The side street (north-south) approaches continue to operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. During the PM peak, the westbound approach maximum queue length (85 feet) backs up through the adjacent intersection with Harmon Street (77 feet away). This queue is most often caused by the westbound approach queue at Jefferson Park Avenue/Maury Avenue. All other approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. 7-1 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville • At the unsignalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Observatory Avenue, the mainline (east-west) approaches continue to operate at a LOS A during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The side street (north-south) approaches continue to operate at a LOS B during the AM/Midday peaks and a LOS C during the PM peak. During the PM peak, the westbound approach maximum queue (184 feet) backs up through the adjacent intersection with Washington Avenue (174 feet away). This queue is most often caused by the westbound approach queue at Jefferson Park Avenue/Maury Avenue. All other approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the signalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Maury Avenue/Fontaine Avenue, the overall intersection continues to operate at a LOS C during the AM/PM peaks and a LOS B during the Midday peak. The north- and southbound approaches and movements continue to generally operate at a LOS C during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The east- and westbound approaches and movements continue to generally operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/PM peaks and LOS B during the Midday peak. o During the AM/Midday peaks, the westbound left maximum queue (87 feet) fills the available storage (88 feet), spilling back into the through lane sometimes. During the PM peak, the 95th percentile queue (182 feet) exceeds the available storage (88 feet), spilling back into the through lane 24% of the time. During the PM peak, the westbound approach maximum queue (447 feet) backs up through the roadway network at Observatory Avenue (432 feet away), Washington Avenue (606 feet away) and Harmon Street (683 feet away). During the PM peak, the southbound through maximum queue (326 feet) effectively blocks the left and right turn lanes (125 feet max. storage) and backs up through the adjacent intersection with Clark Court (275 feet away). All other turn bays have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of Maury Avenue/Alderman Road and Stadium Road, all approaches continue to operate at a LOS B or better during the AM/Midday peaks. During the PM peak, the east- west- and northbound approaches continue to operate at a LOS C or better. The southbound approach operates at a LOS D. All approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of Stadium Road and Washington Avenue, all approaches continue operate at a LOS A during the AM/Midday/PM peaks, the exception being the northbound approach changing from a LOS A (10.0 seconds) to LOS B (10.1 seconds) during the PM peak. All approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of the Site Entrance and Washington Avenue, all approaches will operate at a LOS A during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. All approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. 7-2 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville Table 7-1: Intersection Level of Service and Delay Summary 2023 Total Future Traffic AM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Effective Synchro Turn Synchro Synchro SimTraffic Intersection and Movement and 95th Lane 1 95th SimTraffic 1 95th SimTraffic Max Type of Control Approach Delay 1 Delay 1 Delay 1 1 Percentile Storage (sec/veh) LOS Percentile Max Queue (sec/veh) LOS Percentile Max Queue (sec/veh) LOS Queue Queue (ft) Queue Length (ft) Queue Length (ft) Length Length Length (ft) Length (ft) (ft) (ft) 1. Shamrock Road (N-S) and EB Approach 14.1 B 330 297 12.0 B 285 268 14.8 B 226 265 Jefferson Park Avenue (E-W) WB Left 75 6.5 A 18 63 6.6 A 25 75 8.8 A 47 74 Signalized WB Thru - Right 6.0 A 108 142 7.0 A 152 213 10.8 B 312 402 WB Approach 6.0 A -- -- 6.9 A -- -- 10.5 B -- -- NB Approach 31.4 C 157 189 28.7 C 93 124 28.0 C 114 151 SB Approach 27.1 C 31 64 27.0 C 32 58 26.4 C 63 90 Overall 15.3 B -- -- 12.0 B -- -- 14.4 B -- -- 2. Harmon Street (N-S) and EB Approach 8.2 A 0 60 8.2 A 0 64 9.1 A 0 75 Jefferson Park Avenue (E-W) WB Approach 8.6 A 0 62 8.4 A 0 89 8.3 A 0 225 Unsignalized NB Approach 15.7 C 0 31 15.8 C 0 26 11.2 B 0 35 SB Approach 16.1 C 0 31 12.8 B 2 35 18.7 C 6 61 3. Washington Avenue (N-S) and EB Approach 8.5 A 0 72 8.8 A 0 73 9.3 A 0 139 Jefferson Park Avenue (E-W) WB Approach 8.6 A 0 31 8.4 A 0 11 8.3 A 0 85 Unsignalized NB Approach 12 B 0 12 17.3 C 2 58 11 B 0 22 SB Approach 17.7 C 2 38 16.6 C 6 51 24.2 C 14 92 4. Observatory Avenue (N-S) and EB Approach 8.2 A 0 34 8.2 A 0 15 9.3 A 0 114 Jefferson Park Avenue (E-W) WB Approach 9.2 A 0 52 8.4 A 0 59 8.5 A 0 184 Unsignalized NB Approach 14.2 B 0 31 14.5 B 0 31 19 C 2 53 SB Approach 14.8 B 0 29 10.9 B 0 14 20.9 C 4 84 5. Maury Avenue/Jefferson Park Ave (N-S) EB Left 152 20.8 C 77 149 16.3 B 53 133 28.0 C 35 73 and Fontaine Avenue (E-W) EB Thru 26.3 C 279 289 20.1 C 230 268 27.3 C 146 201 Signalized EB Right 120 9.7 A 19 120 11.3 B 20 120 16.9 B 50 120 EB Approach 21.0 C -- -- 16.9 B -- -- 21.3 C -- -- WB Left 88 17.3 B 53 87 15.4 B 99 87 37.6 D 182 87 WB Thru - Right 16.4 B 188 211 11.8 B 180 246 24.2 C 298 447 WB Approach 16.6 B -- -- 13.0 B -- -- 29.3 C -- -- NB Left 355 35.1 D #320 289 29.5 C 127 160 32.9 C 175 208 NB Thru 28.0 C 216 221 28.0 C 86 109 30.8 C 101 129 NB Right 200 0.0 A 53 111 0.0 A 35 0 0.0 A 18 0 NB Approach 32.1 C -- -- 28.9 C -- -- 32.2 C -- -- SB Left 117 31.4 C 31 71 27.6 C 40 92 27.8 C 57 117 SB Thru 32.0 C 59 96 29.4 C 111 146 37.0 D 285 326 SB Right 125 31.4 C 0 61 28.0 C 0 108 28.2 C 0 125 SB Approach 31.7 C -- -- 28.8 C -- -- 34.8 C -- -- Overall 24.9 C -- -- 19.6 B -- -- 29.0 C -- -- 6. Maury Avenue/Alderman Road (N-S) and EB Approach 11.0 B 25 102 8.4 A 4 40 10.5 B 6 51 Stadium Road (E-W) WB Approach 9.5 A 6 75 8.9 A 10 80 15.4 C 57 160 Unsignalized NB Approach 13 B 60 208 9 A 20 106 11.5 B 25 135 SB Approach 10.9 B 18 106 9.3 A 23 101 31.9 D 176 290 7. Washington Avenue (N-S) and EB Approach † † -- 3 † † -- 6 † † -- 10 Stadium Road (E-W) WB Approach 7.6 A 0 24 7.5 A 0 24 7.6 A 0 35 Unsignalized NB Approach 9.4 A 2 30 9.8 A 2 64 10.1 B 2 44 8. Washington Avenue (N-S) and EB Approach 8.6 A 2 35 8.7 A 2 40 8.8 A 2 52 Site Entrance (E-W) NB Approach 7.2 A 0 -- 4.9 A 0 12 7.3 A 2 25 Unsignalized SB Approach † † -- -- † † -- -- † † -- -- 1 Overall intersection LOS and delay cannot be reported for unsignalized intersections. † SYNCHRO does not provide level of service or delay for unsignalized movements with no conflicting volumes. # - 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SimTraffic queues are average maximum queues after 10 runs of 60 minutes each. 7-3 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 7-4 71 (329) {151} Alderman Road 29 (94) {40} 28 (65) {20} Attachment E 6 7 33 (24) {24} 9 (130) {22} 50 (260) {93} 6 18 (129) {53} 6 (18) {15} Stadium Road {20} (20) 111 {47} (80) 144 7 Stadium Drive {12} (16) 70 Washington Ave Observatory Ave {3} (3) 6 {12} (6) 5 Harmon Street {6} (9) 3 {11} (23) 11 {5} (6) 2 {26} (16) 49 {158} (156) 305 NOT TO SCALE 6 (17) {10} 4 (7) {16} LEGEND: Washington Avenue 00 AM Peak Hour 8 5 Maury Avenue (00) PM Peak Hour Site Entrance 4 3 2 1 {00} Midday Peak Hour Jefferson Shamrock Park Avenue Existing Road {12} (17) 9 Road {17} (25) 13 Proposed Road {16} (25) 10 {8} (10) 8 AM Peak: 7:30-8:30 AM Observatory Avenue Harmon Street Midday Peak: 12-1 PM PM Peak: 4:45-5:45 PM 49 (306) {116} 19 (52) {21} 2 4 (15) {13} 9 (24) {16} 2 (15) {8} 3 (7) {1} 0 (1) {0} 2 (6) {0} 0 (1) {0} 2 (6) {2} 14 (49) {42} 20 (49) {31} 0 (0) {1} 5 4 3 3 (7) {5} 4 (9) {2} 1 Jefferson Park Avenue 8 (19) {15} 1 (5) {6} Fontaine Avenue 22 (33) {24} 292 (592) {361} 3 (4) {1} 3 (12) {6} 217 (332) {220} 283 (619) {385} 294 (590) {362} 250 (568) {353} 2 (2) {1} 55 (227) {129} 4 (8) {3} 4 (13) {8} 31 (104) {54} {46} (25) 68 {3} (9) 6 {6} (7) 9 {5} (21) 8 {261} (155) 296 {433} (320) 507 {8} (16) 8 {433} (332) 490 {420} (293) 462 {145} (256) 137 {3} (3) 0 {427} (318) 485 {3} (1) 1 {33} (55) 32 {38} (43) 65 {22} (25) 45 {38} (56) 73 {133} (184) 310 {85} (101) 233 {133} (109) 180 {1} (1) 2 {2} (4) 1 {0} (0) 0 {3} (6) 3 {1} (0) 1 {0} (0) 0 {1} (8) 1 {2} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 {3} (1) 1 Jefferson Park Avenue Private Entrance Private Entrance Private Entrance Shamrock Road 2023 Total Future Peak Hour Volumes Figure Aspen Heights TIA City of Charlottesville, Virginia 7-1 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 7-6 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville 8 2028 TOTAL FUTURE CONDITIONS To complete the analysis of 2028 total conditions (with the proposed development), the estimated site trips were added to the background 2028 traffic volumes. The projected volumes were then used to complete the capacity analysis. 8.1 TOTAL FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES To generate the 2028 total future traffic volumes, the external site trips shown on Figure 6-2 and the background 2028 vehicle volumes shown in Figure 5-1 were summed. The resulting 2028 total future traffic volumes are shown on Figure 8-1. 8.2 2028 TOTAL FUTURE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS RESULTS Table 8-1 summarizes the 2028 future intersection LOS, delay, 95th percentile queue lengths (Synchro), and maximum queue lengths (SimTraffic) based on the intersection geometry and 2028 future peak hour traffic volumes shown on Figures 2-1 and 8-1, respectively. The corresponding SYNCHRO and SimTraffic reports are included in Appendix E. Note that the intersection numbers shown on the LOS, delay, and queue length summary tables correspond with the intersection numbers used in the SYNCHRO models and report figures. As shown in Table 8-1, under 2028 future conditions with development of the site: • Levels of service at the study intersections are not expected to change significantly from 2028 background to 2028 total future conditions. • At the signalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Shamrock Avenue, the overall intersection continues to operate at a LOS B during the AM/Midday/PM peak hours. During the AM/Midday/PM peaks, the mainline (east-west) approaches and movements continue to operate at a LOS B or better; the side street (north-south) approaches continue to operate at a LOS C. During the PM peaks, the westbound left maximum queue (74 feet) fills the available storage (75 feet). All other approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Harmon Street, the mainline (east-west) approaches continue to operate at a LOS A during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The side street (north-south) approaches continue to operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. All approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Washington Avenue, the mainline (east-west) approaches continue to operate at a LOS A during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The side street (north-south) approaches continue to operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. During the PM peak, the westbound approach maximum queue length (82 feet) backs up through the adjacent intersection with Harmon Street (77 feet away). This queue is most often caused by the westbound approach queue at Jefferson Park Avenue/Maury Avenue. All other approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. 8-1 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville • At the unsignalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Observatory Avenue, the mainline (east-west) approaches continue to operate at a LOS A during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The side street (north-south) approaches continue to operate at a LOS B during the AM/Midday peaks and a LOS C during the PM peak. During the PM peak, the westbound approach maximum queue (160 feet) fills the distance to the adjacent intersection with Washington Avenue (174 feet away). This queue is most often caused by the westbound approach queue at Jefferson Park Avenue/Maury Avenue. All other approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the signalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Maury Avenue/Fontaine Avenue, the overall intersection continues to operate at a LOS C during the AM/PM peaks and a LOS B during the Midday peak. The north- and southbound approaches and movements continue to generally operate at a LOS C during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The east- and westbound approaches and movements continue to generally operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/PM peaks and LOS B during the Midday peak. o During the AM/Midday peaks, the westbound left maximum queue (87 feet) fills the available storage (88 feet), spilling back into the through lane sometimes. During the PM peak, the 95th percentile queue (184 feet) exceeds the available storage (88 feet), spilling back into the through lane 22% of the time. During the PM peak, the westbound approach maximum queue (444 feet) backs up through the adjacent intersection with Observatory Avenue (432 feet away). During the PM peak, the southbound through maximum queue (402 feet) effectively blocks the left and right turn lanes (125 feet max. storage) and backs up through the adjacent intersection with Clark Court (275 feet away). All other turn bays have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of Maury Avenue/Alderman Road and Stadium Road, all approaches continue to operate at a LOS B or better during the AM/Midday peaks. During the PM peak, the east- west- and northbound approaches continue to operate at a LOS C or better. The southbound approach operates at a LOS D. All approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of Stadium Road and Washington Avenue, all approaches continue operate at a LOS A during the AM/Midday/PM peaks, the exception being the northbound approach changing from a LOS A (10.0 seconds) to LOS B (10.1 seconds) during the PM peak. All approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. • At the unsignalized intersection of the Site Entrance and Washington Avenue, all approaches will operate at a LOS A during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. All approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. 8-2 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville Table 8-1: Intersection Level of Service and Delay Summary 2028 Total Future Traffic AM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Effective Synchro Turn Synchro Synchro SimTraffic Intersection and Movement and 95th Lane 1 95th SimTraffic 1 95th SimTraffic Max Type of Control Approach Delay 1 Delay 1 Delay 1 1 Percentile Storage (sec/veh) LOS Percentile Max Queue (sec/veh) LOS Percentile Max Queue (sec/veh) LOS Queue Queue (ft) Queue Length (ft) Queue Length (ft) Length Length Length (ft) Length (ft) (ft) (ft) 1. Shamrock Road (N-S) and EB Approach 14.2 B 335 293 12.3 B 288 275 15.0 B 230 294 Jefferson Park Avenue (E-W) WB Left 75 6.5 A 18 56 6.7 A 26 72 8.9 A 47 74 Signalized WB Thru - Right 6.0 A 109 150 7.2 A 154 215 11.1 B 318 356 WB Approach 6.1 A -- -- 7.1 A -- -- 10.7 B -- -- NB Approach 31.5 C 160 193 28.7 C 95 118 28.0 C 115 154 SB Approach 27.1 C 31 59 26.9 C 32 57 26.3 C 64 87 Overall 15.4 B -- -- 12.1 B -- -- 14.6 B -- -- 2. Harmon Street (N-S) and EB Approach 8.2 A 0 68 8.2 A 0 68 9.2 A 0 69 Jefferson Park Avenue (E-W) WB Approach 8.6 A 0 52 8.5 A 0 31 8.3 A 0 149 Unsignalized NB Approach 15.8 C 0 24 16 C 0 27 11.2 B 0 37 SB Approach 16.3 C 0 31 12.9 B 2 31 19 C 6 56 3. Washington Avenue (N-S) and EB Approach 8.5 A 0 58 8.8 A 0 76 9.4 A 2 130 Jefferson Park Avenue (E-W) WB Approach 8.6 A 0 38 8.4 A 0 22 8.4 A 0 88 Unsignalized NB Approach 12 B 0 22 17.6 C 2 57 11.1 B 0 18 SB Approach 18 C 4 40 16.8 C 6 49 24.7 C 14 67 4. Observatory Avenue (N-S) and EB Approach 8.2 A 0 29 8.3 A 0 19 9.3 A 0 110 Jefferson Park Avenue (E-W) WB Approach 9.2 A 0 71 8.4 A 0 35 8.6 A 0 160 Unsignalized NB Approach 14.4 B 0 31 14.7 B 0 31 19.3 C 2 33 SB Approach 15 B 0 26 10.9 B 0 20 21.4 C 4 48 5. Maury Avenue/Jefferson Park Ave (N-S) EB Left 152 21.2 C 78 143 16.5 B 55 129 28.6 C 35 76 and Fontaine Avenue (E-W) EB Thru 26.8 C 281 302 20.3 C 233 292 27.6 C 147 240 Signalized EB Right 120 9.8 A 19 120 11.4 B 20 120 17.1 B 53 120 EB Approach 21.4 C -- -- 17.1 B -- -- 21.4 C -- -- WB Left 88 17.6 B 53 87 15.7 B 100 87 38.6 D 184 87 WB Thru - Right 16.7 B 190 234 12.0 B 182 259 24.6 C 304 444 WB Approach 16.9 B -- -- 13.2 B -- -- 30.0 C -- -- NB Left 355 35.7 D #326 259 29.5 C 129 148 33.0 C 176 188 NB Thru 28.1 C 218 211 27.9 C 86 110 30.8 C 102 125 NB Right 200 0.0 A 54 110 0.0 A 37 0 0.0 A 15 0 NB Approach 32.4 C -- -- 28.9 C -- -- 32.2 C -- -- SB Left 117 31.4 C 31 74 27.6 C 40 93 27.9 C 59 117 SB Thru 32.0 C 60 101 29.5 C 113 156 37.5 D #289 402 SB Right 125 31.4 C 0 55 28.0 C 0 101 28.3 C 0 125 SB Approach 31.8 C -- -- 28.9 C -- -- 35.2 D -- -- Overall 25.3 C -- -- 19.8 B -- -- 29.4 C -- -- 6. Maury Avenue/Alderman Road (N-S) and EB Approach 11.1 B 27 90 8.5 A 4 47 10.6 B 6 59 Stadium Road (E-W) WB Approach 9.5 A 8 74 8.9 A 10 84 15.6 C 57 163 Unsignalized NB Approach 13.2 B 60 210 9 A 20 111 11.6 B 25 143 SB Approach 11 B 18 106 9.4 A 23 101 33.4 D 176 366 7. Washington Avenue (N-S) and EB Approach † † -- 6 † † -- 1 † † -- 14 Stadium Road (E-W) WB Approach 7.6 A 0 21 7.5 A 0 25 7.6 A 0 37 Unsignalized NB Approach 9.4 A 2 35 9.8 A 2 67 10.1 B 2 47 8. Washington Avenue (N-S) and EB Approach 8.6 A 2 38 8.7 A 2 44 8.8 A 2 47 Site Entrance (E-W) NB Approach 7.2 A 0 -- 7.3 A 0 9 7.3 A 2 19 Unsignalized SB Approach † † -- -- † † -- -- † † -- -- 1 Overall intersection LOS and delay cannot be reported for unsignalized intersections. † SYNCHRO does not provide level of service or delay for unsignalized movements with no conflicting volumes. # - 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. SimTraffic queues are average maximum queues after 10 runs of 60 minutes each. 8-3 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 8-4 72 (333) {152} Alderman Road 29 (95) {41} 28 (66) {20} Attachment E 6 7 33 (24) {24} 9 (131) {22} 51 (263) {94} 6 18 (130) {54} 6 (18) {15} Stadium Road {20} (20) 113 {48} (81) 145 7 Stadium Drive {12} (16) 71 Washington Ave Observatory Ave {2} (3) 6 {12} (6) 5 Harmon Street {6} (9) 3 {11} (23) 11 {5} (6) 2 {26} (16) 50 {159} (156) 308 NOT TO SCALE 6 (17) {10} 4 (7) {16} LEGEND: Washington Avenue 00 AM Peak Hour 8 5 Maury Avenue (00) PM Peak Hour Site Entrance 4 3 2 1 {00} Midday Peak Hour Jefferson Shamrock Park Avenue Existing Road {12} (17) 9 Road {17} (25) 13 Proposed Road {16} (25) 10 {8} (10) 8 AM Peak: 7:30-8:30 AM Observatory Avenue Harmon Street Midday Peak: 12-1 PM PM Peak: 4:45-5:45 PM 50 (309) {118} 19 (53) {21} 2 4 (15) {13} 9 (24) {16} 2 (15) {8} 3 (7) {1} 0 (1) {0} 2 (6) {0} 0 (1) {0} 2 (6) {2} 14 (50) {43} 20 (50) {31} 0 (0) {1} 5 4 3 3 (7) {5} 4 (9) {2} 1 Jefferson Park Avenue 8 (19) {15} 1 (5) {6} Fontaine Avenue 22 (33) {24} 295 (598) {365} 3 (4) {1} 3 (12) {6} 219 (336) {222} 286 (626) {388} 297 (596) {366} 252 (574) {357} 2 (2) {1} 56 (229) {130} 4 (8) {3} 4 (13) {8} 31 (105) {55} {47} (25) 69 {3} (9) 6 {6} (7) 9 {5} (21) 8 {264} (156) 299 {437} (323) 512 {8} (16) 8 {437} (335) 495 {424} (296) 466 {146} (259) 138 {3} (3) 0 {431} (321) 490 {3} (1) 1 {33} (56) 32 {39} (44) 66 {22} (25) 46 {39} (57) 74 {134} (186) 313 {86} (102) 235 {134} (106) 181 {1} (1) 2 {2} (4) 1 {0} (0) 0 {3} (6) 3 {1} (0) 1 {0} (0) 0 {1} (8) 1 {2} (0) 0 {0} (0) 0 {3} (1) 1 Jefferson Park Avenue Private Entrance Private Entrance Private Entrance Shamrock Road 2028 Total Future Peak Hour Volumes Figure Aspen Heights TIA City of Charlottesville, Virginia 8-1 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 8-6 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville 9 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Signal warrant analyses were completed at the intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Washington Avenue using the 2028 total volumes from Figure 8-1. The warrant analyses were conducted following procedures from the 2009 edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the hourly volumes from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. In accordance with VDOT standards, Warrant 1 (Eight-Hour), Warrant 2 (Four-Hour), and Warrant 3 (Peak Hour) outlined in the 2009 MUTCD was considered for the analyses and are described in detail below. The MUTCD contains both 100% and 70% volume thresholds that can be used in the signal warrant analysis. The 100% volume thresholds were used to complete the analyses as the conditions for using the 70% volumes are not met in this case. As noted above, this section of Jefferson Park Avenue has one (1) through travel lane in each direction. The lane geometry used in the traffic signal warrant analysis for the major street is assumed to be one (1) lane and the minor street as one (1) lane. It is specifically noted in all hours of the warrant analysis that the higher minor street volume is on Washington Avenue. At no time does the traffic from the northbound approach from the private entrance oppositive Washington Avenue have higher hourly volumes than the southbound approach from Washington Avenue. 9.1 WARRANT 1 (EIGHT-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME) According to the MUTCD, “the need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day”: Condition A: This warrant is intended for application at locations where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. The need for a traffic control signal is considered when, for each of any eight (8) hours of an average day, a minimum of 500 vehicles per hour exist on the major street approaches and 150 vehicles per hour are present on the higher-volume minor street approach. These are the 100% volume thresholds for a one-lane major street approach and a one-lane minor street approach from the 2009 MUTCD Table 4C-1. The analysis results indicate the required vehicle volume on the minor street approach was present for zero (0) of the eight (8) required hours under the 100% volume thresholds for the one-lane minor street approach. Therefore, this warrant is not considered met. Condition B: This warrant is intended for application at locations where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street. The need for a traffic control signal is considered when for each of any eight (8) hours of an average day, a minimum of 750 vehicles per hour exist on the major street approaches and 75 vehicles are present on the higher-volume minor street approach. These are the 100% volume thresholds for a two- lane major street approach and a two-lane minor street approach from the 2009 MUTCD Table 4C-1. 9-1 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville The analysis results indicate the required vehicle volume on the minor street approach was present for zero (0) of the eight (8) required hours under the 100% volume thresholds. Therefore, this warrant is considered not considered met under the 100% volume thresholds. Combination of Conditions A and B This warrant reduces the volume thresholds found in Conditions A and B by 20% and considers both conditions simultaneously. The need for a traffic control signal is considered when for each of any eight (8) hours of an average day, a minimum of 400 vehicles are present on the major street approaches and 120 vehicles are present on the higher volumes minor street approach (Condition A) and a minimum of 600 vehicles are present on the major street approaches and 60 vehicles are present on the higher volumes minor street approach (Condition B). These are the 100% volume thresholds for a one-lane major street approach and a one-lane minor street approach from the 2009 MUTCD Table 4C-1. The analysis results indicate the required vehicle volume on the minor street approach was present for zero (0) of the eight (8) required hours for Condition A and zero (0) of the eight (8) required hours for Condition B under the 100% volume thresholds. Therefore, this warrant is not considered met. 9.2 WARRANT 2 (FOUR-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME) This warrant is intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic signal. The need for a traffic control signal can be considered when, for each of any four (4) hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the minor street approach all fall above the applicable curve (on MUTCD Figures 4C-1 and 4C-2) for the existing combination of all approach lanes. The analysis results indicate the required vehicle volumes were present for zero (0) of the four (4) required hours under the 100% volume thresholds. Therefore, this warrant is not considered met. 9-2 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville 9.3 WARRANT 3 (PEAK-HOUR VEHICULAR VOLUME) This warrant is intended to be applied at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a minimum of one hour of an average day, the minor-street traffic suffers due to undue delay when entering or crossing the major street. The need for a traffic control signal can be considered when, the following two categories are met: Condition A: For the same one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day, the following conditions exist: 1. The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor-street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds: four vehicle-hours for a one lane approach of five vehicle hours for a two-lane approach; and 2. The volume on the same minor-street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles per hour for two moving lanes; and 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more approaches. Condition B: The plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction only) for 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve in the 2009 MUTCD Figure 4C-3 for the existing combination of approach lanes. The analysis results indicate the required volumes were present for zero (0) of the one (1) required peak hour under the 100% volume thresholds. Therefore, this warrant is not considered met. 9.4 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY The total volumes used in the traffic signal warrant analyses, along with the results, are summarized in Table 9-1. The analysis indicates a traffic signal is not warranted using Warrant 1 (8-hour), Warrant 2 (4-hour), or Warrant 3 (peak hour) for any of the 12 hours analyzed between 7 AM and 7 PM. The proposed Aspen Heights development does not warrant a traffic signal at the intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Washington Avenue. 9-3 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville Table 9-1– Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Jefferson Park Avenue/Washington Avenue Intersection 100% WARRANTS Minor Street Major #1 (8-hour) Volume #3 Time Period Street Combination #2 (Highest Condition Condition (Peak Volume Condition Condition (4-hour) Approach) A B Hour) A B 07:00 - 08:00 674 13 08:00 - 09:00 772 15 09:00 - 10:00 735 22 10:00 - 11:00 721 20 11:00 - 12:00 669 19 12:00 - 13:00 800 29 13:00 - 14:00 754 24 14:00 - 15:00 774 27 15:00 - 16:00 856 29 16:00 - 17:00 901 29 17:00 - 18:00 926 39 18:00 - 19:00 799 35 # of Hours Warrant is Met 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of Hours Warrant is Required to be Met 8 8 8 8 4 1 Is Warrant Satisfied? No No No No No 9-4 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville 10 CONCLUSIONS Based on the operational analyses the following is offered: • Across 2023 and 2028 background conditions during the PM peak, the westbound approach to the intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue/Maury Avenue experiences operational issues with congestion on the westbound approach and the queue extends through Observatory Avenue, Washington Avenue, and Harmon Street intersections. Under 2023 and 2028 total volume conditions, with the addition of the proposed Aspen Heights development site traffic, the westbound approach is expected to experience minimal increases with the proposed development over the 2023 and 2028 background conditions. • The results of the signal warrant analysis at Jefferson Park Avenue/Washington Avenue under 2028 total build conditions indicate that none of the traffic volume thresholds in Warrants 1 through 3 were met. None of the other warrants were considered at this time. • Under 2021 existing conditions: o All movements at unsignalized intersections within the study area on Jefferson Park Avenue and Stadium Road operate at level of service (LOS) C or better during the AM, Midday, and PM peak hours. All approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. o At the signalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Shamrock Road, the overall intersection operates at a level of service (LOS) B during the AM/Midday/PM peak hours. All turning movements and approaches operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. All turn bays have adequate storage to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. o At the signalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Maury Avenue/Fontaine Avenue, the overall intersection operates at a LOS C during the AM/PM peaks and a LOS B during the Midday peak. All turning movements and approaches generally operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The westbound left queue fills the available storage (AM/Midday) and backs up into the through lane (PM). During the PM peak, the westbound approach queues through the adjacent intersection with Observatory Avenue. During the PM peak, the southbound through queue backs up through the adjacent intersection with Clark Court. • Under 2023 and 2028 background conditions (without the proposed development): o Levels of service at the study intersections do not change significantly from 2021 existing to 2023 or 2028 background conditions. All unsignalized intersections continue to operate at LOS C or better during all peak hours. All signalized intersections continue to operate with LOS B or C during all peak hours. o There are no queuing concerns within the study area, with the exception of the westbound approach of Jefferson Park Avenue at Maury Avenue during the PM peak hour. The queues extend to intermittently block the intersections of Observatory Avenue, Washington Avenue, and Harmon Street. 10-1 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville • Under 2023 and 2028 total future conditions (with the proposed development): o Levels of service at the study intersections do not change significantly from background to total future conditions in 2023 or 2028. o All movements at unsignalized intersections within the study area on Jefferson Park Avenue and Stadium Road operate at level of service (LOS) C or better during the AM, Midday, and PM peak hours. All approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95th percentile and maximum queue lengths. o At the signalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Shamrock Road, the overall intersection operates at a level of service (LOS) B during the AM/Midday/PM peak hours. All turning movements and approaches operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. During the PM peak, the westbound left fills the available storage. All other approaches have adequate distance to accommodate 95 th percentile and maximum queue lengths. o At the signalized intersection of Jefferson Park Avenue and Maury Avenue/Fontaine Avenue, the overall intersection operates at a LOS C during the AM/PM peaks and a LOS B during the Midday peak. All turning movements and approaches generally operate at a LOS C or better during the AM/Midday/PM peaks. The westbound left queue fills the available storage (AM/Midday) and backs up into the through lane (PM). During the PM peak, the westbound approach queue backs up through the adjacent intersection with Observatory Avenue. During the PM peak, the southbound through queue backs up through the adjacent intersection with Clark Court. Based on the results of the operational analysis, there are no vehicular and roadway network improvements required based on the additional development traffic volumes. The site will increase the residential density in the area and add to the pedestrian, bicycle, and transit volumes. To address the additional pedestrian, bicycle, and transit volumes, the applicant plans to install sidewalks along the entire frontage of the property. 10-2 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville Appendix A Traffic Counts Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Shamrock Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks Shamrock Rd JPA Shamrock Rd JPA From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 1 1 0 0 2 0 33 2 0 35 3 4 6 0 13 4 73 1 0 78 128 07:15 AM 0 1 0 0 1 2 39 9 1 51 10 11 12 0 33 4 100 1 1 106 191 07:30 AM 0 4 1 0 5 1 64 4 1 70 24 11 16 0 51 6 115 2 0 123 249 07:45 AM 1 6 1 0 8 0 67 6 0 73 15 13 19 0 47 6 103 3 1 113 241 Total 2 12 2 0 16 3 203 21 2 229 52 39 53 0 144 20 391 7 2 420 809 08:00 AM 2 3 1 0 6 1 54 14 0 69 15 11 12 0 38 13 113 0 1 127 240 08:15 AM 0 6 1 0 7 1 44 5 0 50 19 10 17 0 46 5 109 0 0 114 217 08:30 AM 0 1 1 0 2 1 42 8 1 52 13 11 17 0 41 4 132 1 0 137 232 08:45 AM 2 4 2 0 8 0 49 13 0 62 11 5 5 0 21 5 116 3 0 124 215 Total 4 14 5 0 23 3 189 40 1 233 58 37 51 0 146 27 470 4 1 502 904 11:00 AM 0 2 1 0 3 0 86 12 0 98 7 4 6 0 17 6 83 0 0 89 207 11:15 AM 0 3 0 0 3 0 56 8 0 64 6 4 5 0 15 9 62 1 1 73 155 11:30 AM 0 5 0 0 5 0 72 11 1 84 7 4 13 0 24 8 72 0 0 80 193 11:45 AM 1 3 2 0 6 2 63 7 0 72 16 6 12 0 34 10 92 4 0 106 218 Total 1 13 3 0 17 2 277 38 1 318 36 18 36 0 90 33 309 5 1 348 773 12:00 PM 1 5 0 0 6 2 82 13 0 97 8 6 9 0 23 9 88 1 0 98 224 12:15 PM 1 6 1 0 8 1 85 13 0 99 7 5 12 0 24 6 111 2 0 119 250 12:30 PM 1 5 1 0 7 0 70 13 1 84 4 6 11 0 21 9 81 2 0 92 204 12:45 PM 2 5 0 0 7 3 86 12 0 101 19 5 4 0 28 8 108 0 0 116 252 Total 5 21 2 0 28 6 323 51 1 381 38 22 36 0 96 32 388 5 0 425 930 04:00 PM 3 5 0 0 8 3 97 12 0 112 13 12 14 0 39 11 61 0 0 72 231 04:15 PM 0 10 1 0 11 3 121 20 0 144 16 7 13 0 36 13 82 1 0 96 287 04:30 PM 2 6 1 0 9 2 109 19 0 130 11 4 17 0 32 18 66 1 0 85 256 04:45 PM 1 20 3 0 24 2 135 20 0 157 19 8 12 0 39 10 67 0 1 78 298 Total 6 41 5 0 52 10 462 71 0 543 59 31 56 0 146 52 276 2 1 331 1072 05:00 PM 2 11 3 0 16 3 145 24 0 172 13 7 7 0 27 17 76 2 4 99 314 05:15 PM 2 12 1 0 15 2 140 24 0 166 11 7 11 0 29 13 63 3 0 79 289 05:30 PM 2 9 2 0 13 4 118 35 0 157 11 3 12 0 26 15 63 2 3 83 279 05:45 PM 2 19 0 0 21 3 113 10 2 128 14 5 9 0 28 8 63 0 1 72 249 Total 8 51 6 0 65 12 516 93 2 623 49 22 39 0 110 53 265 7 8 333 1131 Grand Total 26 152 23 0 201 36 1970 314 7 2327 292 169 271 0 732 217 2099 30 13 2359 5619 Apprch % 12.9 75.6 11.4 0 1.5 84.7 13.5 0.3 39.9 23.1 37 0 9.2 89 1.3 0.6 Total % 0.5 2.7 0.4 0 3.6 0.6 35.1 5.6 0.1 41.4 5.2 3 4.8 0 13 3.9 37.4 0.5 0.2 42 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Shamrock Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :2 Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks Shamrock Rd JPA Shamrock Rd JPA From North From East From South From West Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Int. Total Passenger Veh 26 152 22 0 200 33 1893 308 7 2241 287 168 265 0 720 212 2024 29 13 2278 5439 % Passenger Veh 100 100 95.7 0 99.5 91.7 96.1 98.1 100 96.3 98.3 99.4 97.8 0 98.4 97.7 96.4 96.7 100 96.6 96.8 Trucks 0 0 1 0 1 3 77 6 0 86 5 1 6 0 12 5 75 1 0 81 180 % Trucks 0 0 4.3 0 0.5 8.3 3.9 1.9 0 3.7 1.7 0.6 2.2 0 1.6 2.3 3.6 3.3 0 3.4 3.2 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Shamrock Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :3 Shamrock Rd JPA Shamrock Rd JPA From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 09:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 0 4 1 0 5 1 64 4 1 70 24 11 16 0 51 6 115 2 0 123 249 07:45 AM 1 6 1 0 8 0 67 6 0 73 15 13 19 0 47 6 103 3 1 113 241 08:00 AM 2 3 1 0 6 1 54 14 0 69 15 11 12 0 38 13 113 0 1 127 240 08:15 AM 0 6 1 0 7 1 44 5 0 50 19 10 17 0 46 5 109 0 0 114 217 Total Volume 3 19 4 0 26 3 229 29 1 262 73 45 64 0 182 30 440 5 2 477 947 % App. Total 11.5 73.1 15.4 0 1.1 87.4 11.1 0.4 40.1 24.7 35.2 0 6.3 92.2 1 0.4 PHF .375 .792 1.00 .000 .813 .750 .854 .518 .250 .897 .760 .865 .842 .000 .892 .577 .957 .417 .500 .939 .951 Passenger Veh 3 19 4 0 26 3 215 28 1 247 73 45 63 0 181 28 429 4 2 463 917 % Passenger Veh 100 100 100 0 100 100 93.9 96.6 100 94.3 100 100 98.4 0 99.5 93.3 97.5 80.0 100 97.1 96.8 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 1 0 15 0 0 1 0 1 2 11 1 0 14 30 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.1 3.4 0 5.7 0 0 1.6 0 0.5 6.7 2.5 20.0 0 2.9 3.2 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Shamrock Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :4 Shamrock Rd Out In Total 52 26 78 1 0 1 53 26 79 3 19 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 19 4 0 Right Thru Left U-Turn Peak Hour Data 29 744 773 4 1 5 Right Thru Total Left Out 517 506 3 0 3 11 North 11 429 440 U-Turn Right Thru 229 215 14 463 477 14 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM In JPA JPA In 262 247 15 2 28 30 Left U-Turn Passenger Veh 29 28 Trucks 1 15 281 296 Out Total 2 0 2 779 753 26 1 0 1 Left Thru Right U-Turn 63 45 73 0 1 0 0 0 64 45 73 0 75 181 256 3 1 4 78 182 260 Out In Total Shamrock Rd Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Shamrock Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :5 Shamrock Rd JPA Shamrock Rd JPA From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 10:00 AM to 01:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 1 5 0 0 6 2 82 13 0 97 8 6 9 0 23 9 88 1 0 98 224 12:15 PM 1 6 1 0 8 1 85 13 0 99 7 5 12 0 24 6 111 2 0 119 250 12:30 PM 1 5 1 0 7 0 70 13 1 84 4 6 11 0 21 9 81 2 0 92 204 12:45 PM 2 5 0 0 7 3 86 12 0 101 19 5 4 0 28 8 108 0 0 116 252 Total Volume 5 21 2 0 28 6 323 51 1 381 38 22 36 0 96 32 388 5 0 425 930 % App. Total 17.9 75 7.1 0 1.6 84.8 13.4 0.3 39.6 22.9 37.5 0 7.5 91.3 1.2 0 PHF .625 .875 .500 .000 .875 .500 .939 .981 .250 .943 .500 .917 .750 .000 .857 .889 .874 .625 .000 .893 .923 Passenger Veh 5 21 2 0 28 6 304 49 1 360 38 22 34 0 94 31 370 5 0 406 888 % Passenger Veh 100 100 100 0 100 100 94.1 96.1 100 94.5 100 100 94.4 0 97.9 96.9 95.4 100 0 95.5 95.5 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 2 0 21 0 0 2 0 2 1 18 0 0 19 42 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.9 3.9 0 5.5 0 0 5.6 0 2.1 3.1 4.6 0 0 4.5 4.5 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Shamrock Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :6 Shamrock Rd Out In Total 33 28 61 0 0 0 33 28 61 5 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 21 2 0 Right Thru Left U-Turn Peak Hour Data 40 749 789 5 0 5 Right Thru Total Left Out 428 410 6 0 6 18 North 18 370 388 U-Turn Right Thru 323 304 19 406 425 19 Peak Hour Begins at 12:00 PM In JPA JPA In 381 360 21 1 31 32 Left U-Turn Passenger Veh 51 49 Trucks 2 21 343 364 Out Total 0 0 0 809 770 39 1 0 1 Left Thru Right U-Turn 34 22 38 0 2 0 0 0 36 22 38 0 101 94 195 3 2 5 104 96 200 Out In Total Shamrock Rd Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Shamrock Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :7 Shamrock Rd JPA Shamrock Rd JPA From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 1 20 3 0 24 2 135 20 0 157 19 8 12 0 39 10 67 0 1 78 298 05:00 PM 2 11 3 0 16 3 145 24 0 172 13 7 7 0 27 17 76 2 4 99 314 05:15 PM 2 12 1 0 15 2 140 24 0 166 11 7 11 0 29 13 63 3 0 79 289 05:30 PM 2 9 2 0 13 4 118 35 0 157 11 3 12 0 26 15 63 2 3 83 279 Total Volume 7 52 9 0 68 11 538 103 0 652 54 25 42 0 121 55 269 7 8 339 1180 % App. Total 10.3 76.5 13.2 0 1.7 82.5 15.8 0 44.6 20.7 34.7 0 16.2 79.4 2.1 2.4 PHF .875 .650 .750 .000 .708 .688 .928 .736 .000 .948 .711 .781 .875 .000 .776 .809 .885 .583 .500 .856 .939 Passenger Veh 7 52 9 0 68 10 527 102 0 639 52 25 41 0 118 55 263 7 8 333 1158 % Passenger Veh 100 100 100 0 100 90.9 98.0 99.0 0 98.0 96.3 100 97.6 0 97.5 100 97.8 100 100 98.2 98.1 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 1 0 13 2 0 1 0 3 0 6 0 0 6 22 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 9.1 2.0 1.0 0 2.0 3.7 0 2.4 0 2.5 0 2.2 0 0 1.8 1.9 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Shamrock Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :8 Shamrock Rd Out In Total 42 68 110 1 0 1 43 68 111 7 52 9 0 0 0 0 0 7 52 9 0 Right Thru Left U-Turn Peak Hour Data 18 908 926 7 0 7 Right Thru Total Left Out 11 10 332 324 1 8 North 6 263 269 U-Turn Right Thru 538 527 6 333 339 11 Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM In JPA JPA In 652 639 13 0 55 55 Left U-Turn Passenger Veh 103 102 Trucks 1 12 575 587 Out Total 8 0 8 984 963 21 0 0 0 Left Thru Right U-Turn 41 25 52 0 1 0 2 0 42 25 54 0 209 118 327 1 3 4 210 121 331 Out In Total Shamrock Rd Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Shamrock Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Bikes - Peds Shamrock Rd JPA Shamrock Rd JPA From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 14 07:15 AM 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 0 4 5 0 0 0 8 8 0 3 0 0 3 19 07:30 AM 0 0 0 10 10 0 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 24 24 0 0 0 0 0 38 07:45 AM 0 0 0 4 4 1 2 0 7 10 2 0 0 24 26 0 9 0 0 9 49 Total 0 0 0 20 20 1 4 0 16 21 3 0 0 64 67 0 12 0 0 12 120 08:00 AM 0 0 0 4 4 1 0 0 4 5 0 2 0 7 9 0 5 0 1 6 24 08:15 AM 0 0 0 8 8 1 0 0 4 5 0 2 0 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 21 08:30 AM 0 0 0 4 4 0 1 0 5 6 1 1 0 13 15 0 6 0 1 7 32 08:45 AM 0 0 0 8 8 0 1 0 10 11 0 3 0 13 16 0 5 0 0 5 40 Total 0 0 0 24 24 2 2 0 23 27 1 8 0 39 48 0 16 0 2 18 117 11:00 AM 0 0 0 6 6 0 1 0 6 7 1 1 0 15 17 0 2 1 0 3 33 11:15 AM 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 6 6 0 2 0 9 11 0 1 0 0 1 24 11:30 AM 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 1 2 4 0 0 0 8 8 0 1 0 0 1 16 11:45 AM 0 0 0 5 5 0 1 0 5 6 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 17 Total 0 0 0 20 20 0 3 1 19 23 1 3 0 38 42 0 4 1 0 5 90 12:00 PM 0 2 2 5 9 0 3 0 15 18 0 2 0 16 18 0 0 0 0 0 45 12:15 PM 0 0 0 14 14 0 7 0 16 23 1 1 0 13 15 0 3 0 1 4 56 12:30 PM 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 1 1 36 12:45 PM 0 1 0 6 7 0 1 0 6 7 0 0 0 8 8 0 2 0 0 2 24 Total 0 3 2 35 40 0 11 0 47 58 1 3 0 52 56 0 5 0 2 7 161 04:00 PM 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 1 1 25 04:15 PM 0 0 0 5 5 0 6 0 7 13 1 0 0 11 12 0 0 0 1 1 31 04:30 PM 0 2 0 3 5 0 7 1 8 16 0 0 0 10 10 0 1 0 1 2 33 04:45 PM 1 7 2 8 18 1 9 2 19 31 0 2 0 10 12 0 0 1 1 2 63 Total 1 9 2 24 36 1 22 3 40 66 1 2 0 41 44 0 1 1 4 6 152 05:00 PM 1 1 0 21 23 0 8 0 22 30 0 0 0 34 34 1 0 0 0 1 88 05:15 PM 0 0 0 41 41 0 2 2 10 14 0 1 0 17 18 0 1 0 0 1 74 05:30 PM 1 2 0 11 14 1 2 2 7 12 0 0 0 12 12 0 3 0 0 3 41 05:45 PM 0 2 0 33 35 0 5 2 6 13 0 0 0 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 67 Total 2 5 0 106 113 1 17 6 45 69 0 1 0 82 83 1 4 0 0 5 270 Grand Total 3 17 4 229 253 5 59 10 190 264 7 17 0 316 340 1 42 2 8 53 910 Apprch % 1.2 6.7 1.6 90.5 1.9 22.3 3.8 72 2.1 5 0 92.9 1.9 79.2 3.8 15.1 Total % 0.3 1.9 0.4 25.2 27.8 0.5 6.5 1.1 20.9 29 0.8 1.9 0 34.7 37.4 0.1 4.6 0.2 0.9 5.8 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Shamrock Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :2 Groups Printed- Bikes - Peds Shamrock Rd JPA Shamrock Rd JPA From North From East From South From West Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Bikes 3 17 4 0 24 5 59 10 0 74 7 17 0 0 24 1 42 2 0 45 167 % Bikes 100 100 100 0 9.5 100 100 100 0 28 100 100 0 0 7.1 100 100 100 0 84.9 18.4 Peds 0 0 0 229 229 0 0 0 190 190 0 0 0 316 316 0 0 0 8 8 743 % Peds 0 0 0 100 90.5 0 0 0 100 72 0 0 0 100 92.9 0 0 0 100 15.1 81.6 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Harmon Site Code : 00000115 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks Harmon JPA Driveway JPA From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 43 1 0 44 1 0 0 0 1 0 76 0 0 76 122 07:15 AM 1 0 0 0 1 1 49 0 0 50 1 0 0 0 1 0 102 0 0 102 154 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 74 0 1 77 0 0 0 0 0 1 122 3 0 126 203 07:45 AM 0 0 2 0 2 0 86 0 1 87 1 0 1 0 2 0 117 4 1 122 213 Total 1 0 3 0 4 3 252 1 2 258 3 0 1 0 4 1 417 7 1 426 692 08:00 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 68 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 0 0 124 193 08:15 AM 1 0 0 0 1 1 59 0 2 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 1 0 117 180 08:30 AM 2 0 0 1 3 0 59 0 0 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 135 1 0 136 198 08:45 AM 1 0 2 0 3 1 49 0 2 52 0 0 1 0 1 0 128 3 2 133 189 Total 5 0 2 1 8 2 235 0 4 241 0 0 1 0 1 0 503 5 2 510 760 *** BREAK *** 11:00 AM 1 0 0 0 1 2 89 1 0 92 1 0 0 0 1 1 83 1 0 85 179 11:15 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 62 0 2 64 0 0 1 0 1 1 70 0 0 71 137 11:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 3 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 2 0 75 157 11:45 AM 2 0 0 0 2 1 75 0 0 76 1 0 0 0 1 0 101 2 0 103 182 Total 3 0 1 0 4 3 305 1 5 314 2 0 1 0 3 2 327 5 0 334 655 12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 0 1 87 0 0 0 0 0 1 106 0 0 107 194 12:15 PM 3 0 1 0 4 0 98 0 1 99 1 0 0 0 1 1 108 3 0 112 216 12:30 PM 3 0 0 0 3 0 81 2 1 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 2 0 94 181 12:45 PM 2 0 1 0 3 1 86 0 3 90 0 0 1 0 1 1 113 1 0 115 209 Total 8 0 2 0 10 1 351 2 6 360 1 0 1 0 2 3 419 6 0 428 800 *** BREAK *** 04:00 PM 2 0 1 0 3 2 116 0 1 119 2 0 0 0 2 0 75 1 0 76 200 04:15 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 130 1 0 131 2 0 0 0 2 0 92 0 0 92 226 04:30 PM 4 0 0 0 4 0 128 0 1 129 1 0 1 0 2 2 80 1 0 83 218 04:45 PM 3 0 1 0 4 1 146 0 1 148 2 0 0 0 2 1 74 3 1 79 233 Total 10 0 2 0 12 3 520 1 3 527 7 0 1 0 8 3 321 5 1 330 877 05:00 PM 7 1 2 0 10 1 151 3 3 158 1 0 0 0 1 0 93 1 0 94 263 05:15 PM 2 0 1 0 3 1 142 0 3 146 1 0 0 0 1 0 76 0 0 76 226 05:30 PM 3 0 2 0 5 1 132 0 3 136 4 0 0 0 4 0 71 2 0 73 218 05:45 PM 3 0 1 0 4 1 117 2 0 120 1 0 0 0 1 0 67 1 1 69 194 Total 15 1 6 0 22 4 542 5 9 560 7 0 0 0 7 0 307 4 1 312 901 Grand Total 42 1 16 1 60 16 2205 10 29 2260 20 0 5 0 25 9 2294 32 5 2340 4685 Apprch % 70 1.7 26.7 1.7 0.7 97.6 0.4 1.3 80 0 20 0 0.4 98 1.4 0.2 Total % 0.9 0 0.3 0 1.3 0.3 47.1 0.2 0.6 48.2 0.4 0 0.1 0 0.5 0.2 49 0.7 0.1 49.9 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Harmon Site Code : 00000115 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :2 Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks Harmon JPA Driveway JPA From North From East From South From West Uturn Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Int. Total s Passenger Veh 40 1 16 1 58 16 2117 10 29 2172 20 0 5 0 25 9 2219 32 5 2265 4520 % Passenger Veh 95.2 100 100 100 96.7 100 96 100 100 96.1 100 0 100 0 100 100 96.7 100 100 96.8 96.5 Trucks 2 0 0 0 2 0 88 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 0 0 75 165 % Trucks 4.8 0 0 0 3.3 0 4 0 0 3.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 0 0 3.2 3.5 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Harmon Site Code : 00000115 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :3 Harmon JPA Driveway JPA From North From East From South From West Uturn Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Int. Total s Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 09:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 74 0 1 77 0 0 0 0 0 1 122 3 0 126 203 07:45 AM 0 0 2 0 2 0 86 0 1 87 1 0 1 0 2 0 117 4 1 122 213 08:00 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 68 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 0 0 124 193 08:15 AM 1 0 0 0 1 1 59 0 2 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 1 0 117 180 Total Volume 2 0 2 0 4 3 287 0 4 294 1 0 1 0 2 1 479 8 1 489 789 % App. Total 50 0 50 0 1 97.6 0 1.4 50 0 50 0 0.2 98 1.6 0.2 PHF .500 .000 .250 .000 .500 .375 .834 .000 .500 .845 .250 .000 .250 .000 .250 .250 .966 .500 .250 .970 .926 Passenger Veh 2 0 2 0 4 3 272 0 4 279 1 0 1 0 2 1 465 8 1 475 760 % Passenger Veh 100 0 100 0 100 100 94.8 0 100 94.9 100 0 100 0 100 100 97.1 100 100 97.1 96.3 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 14 29 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.2 0 0 5.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.9 0 0 2.9 3.7 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Harmon Site Code : 00000115 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :4 Harmon Out In Total 11 4 15 0 0 0 11 4 15 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 Right Thru Left Uturns Peak Hour Data 29 750 779 8 0 8 Right Thru Total Left Out 482 468 3 0 3 14 North 14 465 479 Uturns Right Thru 287 272 14 475 489 15 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM In JPA JPA In 294 279 15 1 0 1 Left Passenger Veh Trucks 0 0 0 15 275 290 Out Total Uturns 1 0 1 776 747 29 4 0 4 Left Thru Right Uturns 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 1 2 3 Out In Total Driveway Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Harmon Site Code : 00000115 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :5 Harmon JPA Driveway JPA From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 10:00 AM to 01:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 0 1 87 0 0 0 0 0 1 106 0 0 107 194 12:15 PM 3 0 1 0 4 0 98 0 1 99 1 0 0 0 1 1 108 3 0 112 216 12:30 PM 3 0 0 0 3 0 81 2 1 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 2 0 94 181 12:45 PM 2 0 1 0 3 1 86 0 3 90 0 0 1 0 1 1 113 1 0 115 209 Total Volume 8 0 2 0 10 1 351 2 6 360 1 0 1 0 2 3 419 6 0 428 800 % App. Total 80 0 20 0 0.3 97.5 0.6 1.7 50 0 50 0 0.7 97.9 1.4 0 PHF .667 .000 .500 .000 .625 .250 .895 .250 .500 .909 .250 .000 .250 .000 .500 .750 .927 .500 .000 .930 .926 Passenger Veh 8 0 2 0 10 1 329 2 6 338 1 0 1 0 2 3 400 6 0 409 759 % Passenger Veh 100 0 100 0 100 100 93.7 100 100 93.9 100 0 100 0 100 100 95.5 100 0 95.6 94.9 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 19 41 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.3 0 0 6.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.5 0 0 4.4 5.1 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Harmon Site Code : 00000115 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :6 Harmon Out In Total 7 10 17 0 0 0 7 10 17 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 2 0 Right Thru Left Uturns Peak Hour Data 41 747 788 6 0 6 Right Thru Total Left Out 422 403 1 0 1 19 North 19 400 419 Uturns Right Thru 351 329 19 409 428 22 Peak Hour Begins at 12:00 PM In JPA JPA In 360 338 22 3 0 3 Left Passenger Veh Trucks 2 0 2 22 338 360 Out Total Uturns 0 0 0 782 741 41 6 0 6 Left Thru Right Uturns 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 2 7 0 0 0 5 2 7 Out In Total Driveway Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Harmon Site Code : 00000115 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :7 Harmon JPA Driveway JPA From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM 04:15 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 130 1 0 131 2 0 0 0 2 0 92 0 0 92 226 04:30 PM 4 0 0 0 4 0 128 0 1 129 1 0 1 0 2 2 80 1 0 83 218 04:45 PM 3 0 1 0 4 1 146 0 1 148 2 0 0 0 2 1 74 3 1 79 233 05:00 PM 7 1 2 0 10 1 151 3 3 158 1 0 0 0 1 0 93 1 0 94 263 Total Volume 15 1 3 0 19 2 555 4 5 566 6 0 1 0 7 3 339 5 1 348 940 % App. Total 78.9 5.3 15.8 0 0.4 98.1 0.7 0.9 85.7 0 14.3 0 0.9 97.4 1.4 0.3 PHF .536 .250 .375 .000 .475 .500 .919 .333 .417 .896 .750 .000 .250 .000 .875 .375 .911 .417 .250 .926 .894 Passenger Veh 14 1 3 0 18 2 542 4 5 553 6 0 1 0 7 3 330 5 1 339 917 % Passenger Veh 93.3 100 100 0 94.7 100 97.7 100 100 97.7 100 0 100 0 100 100 97.3 100 100 97.4 97.6 Trucks 1 0 0 0 1 0 13 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 9 23 % Trucks 6.7 0 0 0 5.3 0 2.3 0 0 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.7 0 0 2.6 2.4 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Harmon Site Code : 00000115 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :8 Harmon Out In Total 7 18 25 0 1 1 7 19 26 14 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 15 1 3 0 Right Thru Left Uturns Peak Hour Data 23 896 919 5 0 5 Right Thru Total Left Out 348 339 2 0 2 9 North 9 330 339 Uturns Right Thru 555 542 9 339 348 13 Peak Hour Begins at 04:15 PM In JPA JPA In 566 553 13 3 0 3 Left Passenger Veh Trucks 4 0 4 14 557 571 Out Total Uturns 1 0 1 914 892 22 5 0 5 Left Thru Right Uturns 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 8 7 15 0 0 0 8 7 15 Out In Total Driveway Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Harmon Site Code : 00000115 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Bikes - Peds Harmon JPA Driveway JPA From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 4 0 2 0 0 2 12 07:15 AM 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 11 11 0 3 0 0 3 18 07:30 AM 0 0 0 8 8 0 1 0 6 7 0 0 0 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 41 07:45 AM 1 0 0 3 4 0 1 0 4 5 0 0 0 15 15 0 8 0 0 8 32 Total 1 0 0 18 19 0 3 0 12 15 0 0 0 56 56 0 13 0 0 13 103 08:00 AM 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 3 1 0 0 4 5 0 7 0 0 7 18 08:15 AM 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 12 12 0 2 0 0 2 22 08:30 AM 0 0 0 4 4 0 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 14 14 0 5 0 0 5 27 08:45 AM 0 0 0 7 7 0 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 12 12 0 9 0 0 9 32 Total 0 0 0 19 19 0 2 0 12 14 1 0 0 42 43 0 23 0 0 23 99 *** BREAK *** 11:00 AM 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 10 11:15 AM 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 10 11:30 AM 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 6 6 0 1 0 0 1 13 11:45 AM 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 4 0 1 0 0 1 11 Total 0 0 0 12 12 0 3 0 11 14 0 0 0 14 14 0 4 0 0 4 44 12:00 PM 0 0 0 3 3 0 2 0 3 5 0 0 0 8 8 0 1 0 0 1 17 12:15 PM 0 0 0 3 3 1 3 0 7 11 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 17 12:30 PM 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 17 12:45 PM 0 0 0 4 4 0 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 11 Total 0 0 0 14 14 1 6 0 22 29 0 0 0 14 14 0 5 0 0 5 62 *** BREAK *** 04:00 PM 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 17 04:15 PM 0 0 0 3 3 0 5 0 2 7 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 0 0 1 14 04:30 PM 0 0 0 4 4 0 8 0 9 17 0 0 0 5 5 0 1 0 0 1 27 04:45 PM 1 0 0 1 2 0 7 0 5 12 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 0 1 18 Total 1 0 0 12 13 0 20 0 22 42 0 0 0 18 18 0 2 1 0 3 76 05:00 PM 0 0 0 2 2 1 7 0 10 18 0 0 0 19 19 0 2 0 0 2 41 05:15 PM 1 0 0 34 35 0 4 0 6 10 0 0 0 13 13 0 1 0 0 1 59 05:30 PM 0 0 0 6 6 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 7 7 0 3 0 0 3 19 05:45 PM 1 0 0 26 27 0 6 0 2 8 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 41 Total 2 0 0 68 70 1 20 0 18 39 0 0 0 45 45 0 6 0 0 6 160 Grand Total 4 0 0 143 147 2 54 0 97 153 1 0 0 189 190 0 53 1 0 54 544 Apprch % 2.7 0 0 97.3 1.3 35.3 0 63.4 0.5 0 0 99.5 0 98.1 1.9 0 Total % 0.7 0 0 26.3 27 0.4 9.9 0 17.8 28.1 0.2 0 0 34.7 34.9 0 9.7 0.2 0 9.9 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Harmon Site Code : 00000115 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :2 Groups Printed- Bikes - Peds Harmon JPA Driveway JPA From North From East From South From West Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Bikes 4 0 0 0 4 2 54 0 0 56 1 0 0 0 1 0 53 1 0 54 115 % Bikes 100 0 0 0 2.7 100 100 0 0 36.6 100 0 0 0 0.5 0 100 100 0 100 21.1 Peds 0 0 0 143 143 0 0 0 97 97 0 0 0 189 189 0 0 0 0 0 429 % Peds 0 0 0 100 97.3 0 0 0 100 63.4 0 0 0 100 99.5 0 0 0 0 0 78.9 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Washington Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks Washington Ave JPA Driveway JPA From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 41 1 0 0 0 1 0 72 0 0 72 114 07:15 AM 1 0 1 0 2 0 50 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 107 1 0 108 160 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 76 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 1 0 121 198 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 89 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 0 1 127 217 Total 1 0 1 0 2 2 256 0 0 258 1 0 0 0 1 0 425 2 1 428 689 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 69 1 0 0 0 1 0 118 1 0 119 189 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 2 0 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 1 0 120 179 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 59 1 0 61 1 0 1 0 2 1 136 0 1 138 201 08:45 AM 2 0 0 0 2 0 55 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 0 0 131 188 Total 2 0 0 0 2 1 240 3 0 244 2 0 1 0 3 1 504 2 1 508 757 09:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 0 0 56 1 0 0 0 1 0 133 2 0 135 192 09:15 AM 1 0 2 0 3 1 59 1 0 61 2 0 0 0 2 0 119 2 0 121 187 09:30 AM 3 0 0 0 3 0 53 0 1 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 3 0 114 171 09:45 AM 2 0 0 0 2 2 58 0 0 60 1 0 0 0 1 0 109 2 0 111 174 Total 6 0 2 0 8 3 226 1 1 231 4 0 0 0 4 0 472 9 0 481 724 10:00 AM 1 0 1 0 2 1 76 0 0 77 1 0 1 0 2 0 98 1 0 99 180 10:15 AM 1 0 1 0 2 1 57 0 0 58 1 0 0 0 1 1 120 1 0 122 183 10:30 AM 1 0 1 0 2 0 59 1 1 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 0 0 104 167 10:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 2 112 1 0 115 179 Total 3 0 3 0 6 2 256 1 1 260 2 0 1 0 3 3 434 3 0 440 709 11:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 0 0 90 3 0 0 0 3 0 81 2 0 83 176 11:15 AM 2 0 0 0 2 0 61 0 0 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 0 0 72 135 11:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 82 0 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 0 0 78 161 11:45 AM 1 1 0 0 2 0 77 0 0 77 1 0 0 0 1 0 103 1 0 104 184 Total 3 1 0 0 4 1 310 0 0 311 4 0 0 0 4 0 334 3 0 337 656 12:00 PM 3 0 1 0 4 1 90 0 0 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 1 0 111 206 12:15 PM 1 1 1 0 3 3 97 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 0 2 110 213 12:30 PM 2 0 1 0 3 0 82 0 0 82 1 0 0 0 1 0 92 0 0 92 178 12:45 PM 1 0 1 0 2 1 91 1 0 93 2 0 0 0 2 0 115 0 0 115 212 Total 7 1 4 0 12 5 360 1 0 366 3 0 0 0 3 0 425 1 2 428 809 01:00 PM 1 0 2 0 3 0 82 1 0 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 1 0 97 183 01:15 PM 1 0 0 0 1 2 82 0 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 1 0 94 179 01:30 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 95 1 0 96 0 0 1 0 1 0 82 2 0 84 182 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Washington Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :2 Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks Washington Ave JPA Driveway JPA From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Int. Total 01:45 PM 0 0 1 0 1 0 91 1 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 1 0 100 193 Total 3 0 3 0 6 2 350 3 0 355 0 0 1 0 1 0 370 5 0 375 737 02:00 PM 0 0 1 0 1 1 110 0 1 112 1 0 0 0 1 0 86 0 0 86 200 02:15 PM 2 0 3 0 5 3 96 0 0 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 1 0 73 177 02:30 PM 0 0 1 0 1 1 92 2 0 95 0 0 1 0 1 0 88 0 0 88 185 02:45 PM 1 0 1 0 2 1 92 0 1 94 3 0 0 0 3 0 101 0 0 101 200 Total 3 0 6 0 9 6 390 2 2 400 4 0 1 0 5 0 347 1 0 348 762 03:00 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 91 0 1 92 1 0 0 0 1 0 103 0 0 103 197 03:15 PM 0 0 1 0 1 1 112 0 1 114 1 0 0 0 1 1 88 0 0 89 205 03:30 PM 4 0 1 0 5 1 150 0 2 153 1 0 0 0 1 0 80 1 0 81 240 03:45 PM 0 1 2 0 3 1 111 0 2 114 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 1 0 80 197 Total 5 1 4 0 10 3 464 0 6 473 3 0 0 0 3 1 350 2 0 353 839 04:00 PM 2 0 0 0 2 2 112 0 0 114 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 0 79 195 04:15 PM 1 0 1 0 2 1 132 0 0 133 1 0 0 0 1 1 93 1 1 96 232 04:30 PM 3 0 0 0 3 0 132 0 0 132 1 0 0 0 1 0 82 2 1 85 221 04:45 PM 1 0 0 0 1 1 152 1 0 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 76 231 Total 7 0 1 0 8 4 528 1 0 533 2 0 0 0 2 1 330 3 2 336 879 05:00 PM 2 0 4 0 6 0 157 0 0 157 0 0 0 0 0 1 92 0 1 94 257 05:15 PM 2 0 0 0 2 1 140 1 0 142 1 0 0 0 1 0 81 0 0 81 226 05:30 PM 2 0 3 0 5 0 141 0 0 141 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 7 0 75 221 05:45 PM 2 0 0 0 2 1 124 0 0 125 0 0 1 0 1 1 69 2 3 75 203 Total 8 0 7 0 15 2 562 1 0 565 1 0 1 0 2 2 310 9 4 325 907 06:00 PM 0 0 1 0 1 1 96 0 0 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 2 2 88 186 06:15 PM 2 0 0 0 2 1 124 2 0 127 1 0 1 0 2 0 90 1 1 92 223 06:30 PM 1 0 1 0 2 0 95 0 1 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 109 0 1 110 208 06:45 PM 4 0 2 0 6 1 79 0 0 80 2 1 0 0 3 0 72 1 2 75 164 Total 7 0 4 0 11 3 394 2 1 400 3 1 1 0 5 0 355 4 6 365 781 Grand Total 55 3 35 0 93 34 4336 15 11 4396 29 1 6 0 36 8 4656 44 16 4724 9249 Apprch % 59.1 3.2 37.6 0 0.8 98.6 0.3 0.3 80.6 2.8 16.7 0 0.2 98.6 0.9 0.3 Total % 0.6 0 0.4 0 1 0.4 46.9 0.2 0.1 47.5 0.3 0 0.1 0 0.4 0.1 50.3 0.5 0.2 51.1 Passenger Veh 53 3 35 0 91 30 4171 15 10 4226 27 1 6 0 34 7 4487 43 15 4552 8903 % Passenger Veh 96.4 100 100 0 97.8 88.2 96.2 100 90.9 96.1 93.1 100 100 0 94.4 87.5 96.4 97.7 93.8 96.4 96.3 Trucks 2 0 0 0 2 4 165 0 1 170 2 0 0 0 2 1 169 1 1 172 346 % Trucks 3.6 0 0 0 2.2 11.8 3.8 0 9.1 3.9 6.9 0 0 0 5.6 12.5 3.6 2.3 6.2 3.6 3.7 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Washington Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :3 Washington Ave JPA Driveway JPA From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 09:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 89 0 0 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 0 1 127 217 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 69 1 0 0 0 1 0 118 1 0 119 189 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 2 0 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 1 0 120 179 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 59 1 0 61 1 0 1 0 2 1 136 0 1 138 201 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 2 274 3 0 279 2 0 1 0 3 1 499 2 2 504 786 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 0.7 98.2 1.1 0 66.7 0 33.3 0 0.2 99 0.4 0.4 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .770 .375 .000 .775 .500 .000 .250 .000 .375 .250 .917 .500 .500 .913 .906 Passenger Veh 0 0 0 0 0 1 259 3 0 263 2 0 1 0 3 1 485 2 1 489 755 % Passenger Veh 0 0 0 0 0 50.0 94.5 100 0 94.3 100 0 100 0 100 100 97.2 100 50.0 97.0 96.1 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 1 15 31 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 50.0 5.5 0 0 5.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.8 0 50.0 3.0 3.9 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Washington Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :4 Washington Ave Out In Total 3 0 3 1 0 1 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right Thru Left U-Turn Peak Hour Data 30 749 779 2 0 2 Right Thru Total Left Out 501 487 2 1 1 14 North 14 485 499 U-Turn Right Thru 274 259 15 489 504 15 Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM In JPA JPA In 279 263 16 1 0 1 Left U-Turn Passenger Veh Trucks 3 0 3 15 260 275 Out Total 1 1 2 780 750 30 0 0 0 Left Thru Right U-Turn 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 4 3 7 0 0 0 4 3 7 Out In Total Driveway Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Washington Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :5 Washington Ave JPA Driveway JPA From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 10:00 AM to 01:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 3 0 1 0 4 1 90 0 0 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 1 0 111 206 12:15 PM 1 1 1 0 3 3 97 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 0 2 110 213 12:30 PM 2 0 1 0 3 0 82 0 0 82 1 0 0 0 1 0 92 0 0 92 178 12:45 PM 1 0 1 0 2 1 91 1 0 93 2 0 0 0 2 0 115 0 0 115 212 Total Volume 7 1 4 0 12 5 360 1 0 366 3 0 0 0 3 0 425 1 2 428 809 % App. Total 58.3 8.3 33.3 0 1.4 98.4 0.3 0 100 0 0 0 0 99.3 0.2 0.5 PHF .583 .250 1.00 .000 .750 .417 .928 .250 .000 .915 .375 .000 .000 .000 .375 .000 .924 .250 .250 .930 .950 Passenger Veh 7 1 4 0 12 5 338 1 0 344 3 0 0 0 3 0 406 0 2 408 767 % Passenger Veh 100 100 100 0 100 100 93.9 100 0 94.0 100 0 0 0 100 0 95.5 0 100 95.3 94.8 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 1 0 20 42 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.1 0 0 6.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.5 100 0 4.7 5.2 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Washington Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :6 Washington Ave Out In Total 5 12 17 1 0 1 6 12 18 7 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 4 0 Right Thru Left U-Turn Peak Hour Data 42 753 795 0 1 1 Right Thru Total Left Out 432 413 5 0 5 19 North 19 406 425 U-Turn Right Thru 360 338 20 408 428 22 Peak Hour Begins at 12:00 PM In JPA JPA In 366 344 22 0 0 0 Left U-Turn Passenger Veh Trucks 1 0 1 22 345 367 Out Total 2 0 2 798 757 41 0 0 0 Left Thru Right U-Turn 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 3 5 0 0 0 2 3 5 Out In Total Driveway Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Washington Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :7 Washington Ave JPA Driveway JPA From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 06:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM 04:15 PM 1 0 1 0 2 1 132 0 0 133 1 0 0 0 1 1 93 1 1 96 232 04:30 PM 3 0 0 0 3 0 132 0 0 132 1 0 0 0 1 0 82 2 1 85 221 04:45 PM 1 0 0 0 1 1 152 1 0 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 76 231 05:00 PM 2 0 4 0 6 0 157 0 0 157 0 0 0 0 0 1 92 0 1 94 257 Total Volume 7 0 5 0 12 2 573 1 0 576 2 0 0 0 2 2 343 3 3 351 941 % App. Total 58.3 0 41.7 0 0.3 99.5 0.2 0 100 0 0 0 0.6 97.7 0.9 0.9 PHF .583 .000 .313 .000 .500 .500 .912 .250 .000 .917 .500 .000 .000 .000 .500 .500 .922 .375 .750 .914 .915 Passenger Veh 7 0 5 0 12 2 560 1 0 563 2 0 0 0 2 2 333 3 3 341 918 % Passenger Veh 100 0 100 0 100 100 97.7 100 0 97.7 100 0 0 0 100 100 97.1 100 100 97.2 97.6 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 23 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 0 0 2.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.9 0 0 2.8 2.4 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Washington Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :8 Washington Ave Out In Total 5 12 17 0 0 0 5 12 17 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 5 0 Right Thru Left U-Turn Peak Hour Data 23 908 931 3 0 3 Right Thru Total Left Out 350 340 2 0 2 10 North 10 333 343 U-Turn Right Thru 573 560 10 341 351 13 Peak Hour Begins at 04:15 PM In JPA JPA In 576 563 13 2 0 2 Left U-Turn Passenger Veh Trucks 1 0 1 13 567 580 Out Total 3 0 3 926 903 23 0 0 0 Left Thru Right U-Turn 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 2 5 0 0 0 3 2 5 Out In Total Driveway Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Washington Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Bikes - Peds Washington Ave JPA Driveway JPA From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 2 8 07:15 AM 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 7 0 3 0 0 3 13 07:30 AM 0 0 0 9 9 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 18 18 0 0 0 0 0 29 07:45 AM 0 0 0 4 4 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 10 10 0 9 0 0 9 25 Total 0 0 0 20 20 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 36 36 0 14 0 0 14 75 08:00 AM 0 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 3 0 7 0 1 8 21 08:15 AM 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 12 12 0 2 0 1 3 20 08:30 AM 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 7 7 0 6 0 2 8 21 08:45 AM 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 8 0 0 8 20 Total 0 0 0 20 20 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 31 31 0 23 0 4 27 82 09:00 AM 0 0 0 16 16 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 32 32 0 8 1 0 9 58 09:15 AM 0 0 0 10 10 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 11 12 0 11 0 0 11 35 09:30 AM 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 8 09:45 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 4 0 0 4 9 Total 0 0 0 32 32 0 2 0 1 3 0 1 0 49 50 0 23 1 1 25 110 10:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 3 0 0 3 10 10:15 AM 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 9 9 0 4 0 0 4 17 10:30 AM 0 0 0 9 9 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 12 12 0 4 0 0 4 26 10:45 AM 0 0 2 5 7 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 6 6 0 8 0 0 8 24 Total 0 0 2 18 20 0 4 0 1 5 0 0 0 33 33 0 19 0 0 19 77 11:00 AM 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 3 0 2 0 0 2 10 11:15 AM 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 5 0 2 0 0 2 12 11:30 AM 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 4 0 1 0 0 1 9 11:45 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 6 Total 0 0 0 12 12 0 3 0 2 5 0 1 0 13 14 0 6 0 0 6 37 12:00 PM 0 0 0 6 6 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 10 10 0 1 0 0 1 19 12:15 PM 0 0 0 6 6 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 9 9 0 2 0 0 2 21 12:30 PM 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 15 12:45 PM 0 0 0 6 6 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 4 0 2 0 0 2 13 Total 0 0 0 24 24 0 7 0 1 8 0 1 0 30 31 0 5 0 0 5 68 01:00 PM 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 0 0 1 7 01:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 01:30 PM 0 0 0 3 3 0 2 0 2 4 0 0 0 11 11 0 2 0 0 2 20 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Washington Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :2 Groups Printed- Bikes - Peds Washington Ave JPA Driveway JPA From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 01:45 PM 0 0 1 6 7 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 4 4 0 3 0 0 3 20 Total 0 0 1 12 13 0 8 0 2 10 0 0 0 27 27 0 6 0 0 6 56 02:00 PM 0 0 0 8 8 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 18 02:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 02:30 PM 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 1 1 10 02:45 PM 0 1 0 2 3 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 6 0 2 0 0 2 13 Total 0 1 0 13 14 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 19 19 0 2 0 1 3 46 03:00 PM 0 0 0 5 5 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 9 9 0 1 0 1 2 18 03:15 PM 0 0 0 6 6 0 3 1 2 6 0 0 0 18 18 0 2 0 0 2 32 03:30 PM 0 0 0 8 8 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 1 1 22 03:45 PM 0 0 0 6 6 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 3 3 17 Total 0 0 0 25 25 0 9 1 3 13 0 0 0 43 43 0 3 0 5 8 89 04:00 PM 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 8 04:15 PM 0 0 0 5 5 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 12 12 1 1 0 0 2 26 04:30 PM 0 0 0 9 9 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 9 9 0 1 0 0 1 26 04:45 PM 0 0 0 5 5 0 9 0 2 11 0 0 0 12 12 0 0 0 2 2 30 Total 0 0 0 25 25 0 23 0 2 25 0 0 0 34 34 1 2 0 3 6 90 05:00 PM 0 0 0 14 14 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 21 21 0 2 0 1 3 46 05:15 PM 0 0 0 38 38 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 20 20 0 1 0 0 1 64 05:30 PM 0 0 0 9 9 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 9 9 0 3 1 1 5 26 05:45 PM 0 0 0 31 31 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 14 14 0 0 1 0 1 52 Total 0 0 0 92 92 0 22 0 0 22 0 0 0 64 64 0 6 2 2 10 188 06:00 PM 0 0 0 4 4 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 19 06:15 PM 0 1 0 11 12 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 17 17 0 1 0 1 2 34 06:30 PM 0 0 0 11 11 1 5 0 0 6 0 0 0 8 8 0 2 0 0 2 27 06:45 PM 0 0 0 11 11 0 3 0 2 5 0 0 0 7 7 0 1 0 1 2 25 Total 0 1 0 37 38 1 15 0 2 18 0 0 0 43 43 0 4 0 2 6 105 Grand Total 0 2 3 330 335 1 108 1 18 128 0 3 0 422 425 1 113 3 18 135 1023 Apprch % 0 0.6 0.9 98.5 0.8 84.4 0.8 14.1 0 0.7 0 99.3 0.7 83.7 2.2 13.3 Total % 0 0.2 0.3 32.3 32.7 0.1 10.6 0.1 1.8 12.5 0 0.3 0 41.3 41.5 0.1 11 0.3 1.8 13.2 Bikes 0 2 3 0 5 1 108 1 0 110 0 3 0 0 3 1 113 3 0 117 235 % Bikes 0 100 100 0 1.5 100 100 100 0 85.9 0 100 0 0 0.7 100 100 100 0 86.7 23 Peds 0 0 0 330 330 0 0 0 18 18 0 0 0 422 422 0 0 0 18 18 788 % Peds 0 0 0 100 98.5 0 0 0 100 14.1 0 0 0 100 99.3 0 0 0 100 13.3 77 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Observatory Site Code : 12222222 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks Observatory JPA Driveway JPA From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 0 0 86 128 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 59 1 0 0 0 1 1 102 0 0 103 163 07:30 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 81 0 0 81 0 0 1 0 1 0 131 0 4 135 218 07:45 AM 0 0 0 2 2 0 80 1 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 0 0 140 223 Total 1 0 0 2 3 0 262 1 0 263 1 0 1 0 2 1 459 0 4 464 732 08:00 AM 1 0 0 0 1 1 66 1 0 68 1 0 0 0 1 0 117 0 0 117 187 08:15 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 51 0 2 53 3 0 0 0 3 0 114 0 2 116 173 08:30 AM 3 0 0 0 3 0 55 0 0 55 1 0 0 0 1 0 132 0 0 132 191 08:45 AM 2 0 0 0 2 2 52 1 1 56 0 0 0 0 0 2 131 2 2 137 195 Total 7 0 0 0 7 3 224 2 3 232 5 0 0 0 5 2 494 2 4 502 746 *** BREAK *** 11:00 AM 0 0 1 0 1 1 92 0 0 93 4 0 0 0 4 1 76 1 0 78 176 11:15 AM 0 0 1 0 1 1 64 0 0 65 2 0 0 0 2 0 74 0 0 74 142 11:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 0 0 85 3 0 1 0 4 2 77 0 0 79 168 11:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 1 0 80 1 0 0 0 1 1 115 0 1 117 198 Total 0 0 2 0 2 2 320 1 0 323 10 0 1 0 11 4 342 1 1 348 684 12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 3 102 0 1 106 1 0 0 0 1 0 104 1 0 105 212 12:15 PM 1 0 0 0 1 3 98 0 0 101 0 0 0 0 0 1 107 0 1 109 211 12:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 0 81 1 0 0 0 1 1 101 0 0 102 184 12:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 2 0 98 1 0 2 0 3 1 114 0 1 116 217 Total 1 0 0 0 1 6 377 2 1 386 3 0 2 0 5 3 426 1 2 432 824 *** BREAK *** 04:00 PM 1 0 0 0 1 1 119 0 1 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 2 0 75 197 04:15 PM 2 0 1 0 3 1 139 0 0 140 1 0 2 0 3 0 89 1 0 90 236 04:30 PM 1 0 0 0 1 1 132 1 1 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 0 0 91 227 04:45 PM 3 0 3 0 6 1 147 0 0 148 1 0 0 0 1 1 70 0 1 72 227 Total 7 0 4 0 11 4 537 1 2 544 2 0 2 0 4 1 323 3 1 328 887 05:00 PM 3 0 0 0 3 1 175 1 1 178 1 0 0 0 1 0 90 0 1 91 273 05:15 PM 1 0 2 0 3 1 133 2 0 136 2 0 1 0 3 1 84 1 2 88 230 05:30 PM 0 1 1 0 2 2 154 1 0 157 2 0 3 0 5 1 67 1 3 72 236 05:45 PM 2 0 2 0 4 4 127 0 1 132 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 3 1 76 212 Total 6 1 5 0 12 8 589 4 2 603 5 0 4 0 9 2 313 5 7 327 951 Grand Total 22 1 11 2 36 23 2309 11 8 2351 26 0 10 0 36 13 2357 12 19 2401 4824 Apprch % 61.1 2.8 30.6 5.6 1 98.2 0.5 0.3 72.2 0 27.8 0 0.5 98.2 0.5 0.8 Total % 0.5 0 0.2 0 0.7 0.5 47.9 0.2 0.2 48.7 0.5 0 0.2 0 0.7 0.3 48.9 0.2 0.4 49.8 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Observatory Site Code : 12222222 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :2 Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks Observatory JPA Driveway JPA From North From East From South From West Uturn Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Int. Total s Passenger Veh 21 1 11 2 35 22 2250 10 8 2290 25 0 10 0 35 13 2295 12 19 2339 4699 % Passenger Veh 95.5 100 100 100 97.2 95.7 97.4 90.9 100 97.4 96.2 0 100 0 97.2 100 97.4 100 100 97.4 97.4 Trucks 1 0 0 0 1 1 59 1 0 61 1 0 0 0 1 0 62 0 0 62 125 % Trucks 4.5 0 0 0 2.8 4.3 2.6 9.1 0 2.6 3.8 0 0 0 2.8 0 2.6 0 0 2.6 2.6 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Observatory Site Code : 12222222 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :3 Observatory JPA Driveway JPA From North From East From South From West Uturn Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Int. Total s Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 09:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 81 0 0 81 0 0 1 0 1 0 131 0 4 135 218 07:45 AM 0 0 0 2 2 0 80 1 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 0 0 140 223 08:00 AM 1 0 0 0 1 1 66 1 0 68 1 0 0 0 1 0 117 0 0 117 187 08:15 AM 1 0 0 0 1 0 51 0 2 53 3 0 0 0 3 0 114 0 2 116 173 Total Volume 3 0 0 2 5 1 278 2 2 283 4 0 1 0 5 0 502 0 6 508 801 % App. Total 60 0 0 40 0.4 98.2 0.7 0.7 80 0 20 0 0 98.8 0 1.2 PHF .750 .000 .000 .250 .625 .250 .858 .500 .250 .873 .333 .000 .250 .000 .417 .000 .896 .000 .375 .907 .898 Passenger Veh 3 0 0 2 5 1 268 1 2 272 3 0 1 0 4 0 491 0 6 497 778 % Passenger Veh 100 0 0 100 100 100 96.4 50.0 100 96.1 75.0 0 100 0 80.0 0 97.8 0 100 97.8 97.1 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 11 1 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 11 23 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 50.0 0 3.9 25.0 0 0 0 20.0 0 2.2 0 0 2.2 2.9 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Observatory Site Code : 12222222 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :4 Observatory Out In Total 1 5 6 0 0 0 1 5 6 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 Right Thru Left Uturns Peak Hour Data 21 769 790 0 0 0 Right Thru Total Left Out 506 494 1 0 1 12 North 11 491 502 Uturns Right Thru 278 268 11 497 508 10 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM In JPA JPA In 283 272 11 0 0 0 Left Passenger Veh Trucks 2 1 1 10 272 282 Out Total Uturns 6 0 6 789 766 23 2 0 2 Left Thru Right Uturns 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 0 1 4 5 1 1 2 2 5 7 Out In Total Driveway Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Observatory Site Code : 12222222 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :5 Observatory JPA Driveway JPA From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 10:00 AM to 01:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 3 102 0 1 106 1 0 0 0 1 0 104 1 0 105 212 12:15 PM 1 0 0 0 1 3 98 0 0 101 0 0 0 0 0 1 107 0 1 109 211 12:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 0 81 1 0 0 0 1 1 101 0 0 102 184 12:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 2 0 98 1 0 2 0 3 1 114 0 1 116 217 Total Volume 1 0 0 0 1 6 377 2 1 386 3 0 2 0 5 3 426 1 2 432 824 % App. Total 100 0 0 0 1.6 97.7 0.5 0.3 60 0 40 0 0.7 98.6 0.2 0.5 PHF .250 .000 .000 .000 .250 .500 .924 .250 .250 .910 .750 .000 .250 .000 .417 .750 .934 .250 .500 .931 .949 Passenger Veh 1 0 0 0 1 6 363 2 1 372 3 0 2 0 5 3 411 1 2 417 795 % Passenger Veh 100 0 0 0 100 100 96.3 100 100 96.4 100 0 100 0 100 100 96.5 100 100 96.5 96.5 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 15 29 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.7 0 0 3.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 0 0 3.5 3.5 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Observatory Site Code : 12222222 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :6 Observatory Out In Total 7 1 8 0 0 0 7 1 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Right Thru Left Uturns Peak Hour Data 29 783 812 1 0 1 Right Thru Total Left Out 429 414 6 0 6 15 North 15 411 426 Uturns Right Thru 377 363 15 417 432 14 Peak Hour Begins at 12:00 PM In JPA JPA In 386 372 14 3 0 3 Left Passenger Veh Trucks 2 0 2 14 366 380 Out Total Uturns 2 0 2 815 786 29 1 0 1 Left Thru Right Uturns 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 5 5 10 0 0 0 5 5 10 Out In Total Driveway Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Observatory Site Code : 12222222 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :7 Observatory JPA Driveway JPA From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 3 0 3 0 6 1 147 0 0 148 1 0 0 0 1 1 70 0 1 72 227 05:00 PM 3 0 0 0 3 1 175 1 1 178 1 0 0 0 1 0 90 0 1 91 273 05:15 PM 1 0 2 0 3 1 133 2 0 136 2 0 1 0 3 1 84 1 2 88 230 05:30 PM 0 1 1 0 2 2 154 1 0 157 2 0 3 0 5 1 67 1 3 72 236 Total Volume 7 1 6 0 14 5 609 4 1 619 6 0 4 0 10 3 311 2 7 323 966 % App. Total 50 7.1 42.9 0 0.8 98.4 0.6 0.2 60 0 40 0 0.9 96.3 0.6 2.2 PHF .583 .250 .500 .000 .583 .625 .870 .500 .250 .869 .750 .000 .333 .000 .500 .750 .864 .500 .583 .887 .885 Passenger Veh 7 1 6 0 14 5 599 4 1 609 6 0 4 0 10 3 307 2 7 319 952 % Passenger Veh 100 100 100 0 100 100 98.4 100 100 98.4 100 0 100 0 100 100 98.7 100 100 98.8 98.6 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 14 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 0 0 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 0 0 1.2 1.4 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Observatory Site Code : 12222222 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :8 Observatory Out In Total 7 14 21 0 0 0 7 14 21 7 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 6 0 Right Thru Left Uturns Peak Hour Data 14 929 943 2 0 2 Right Thru Total Left Out 323 319 5 0 5 4 North 4 307 311 Uturns Right Thru 609 599 4 319 323 10 Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM In JPA JPA In 619 609 10 3 0 3 Left Passenger Veh Trucks 4 0 4 10 610 620 Out Total Uturns 7 0 7 942 928 14 1 0 1 Left Thru Right Uturns 4 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 6 0 8 10 18 0 0 0 8 10 18 Out In Total Driveway Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Observatory Site Code : 12222222 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Bikes - Peds Observatory JPA Driveway JPA From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 3 0 0 3 15 07:15 AM 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 12 12 0 3 1 0 4 19 07:30 AM 0 0 0 12 12 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 22 22 0 3 0 0 3 39 07:45 AM 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 11 11 0 7 0 0 7 22 Total 0 0 0 21 21 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 52 52 0 16 1 0 17 95 08:00 AM 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 5 0 6 0 0 6 23 08:15 AM 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 18 0 1 0 1 2 27 08:30 AM 0 0 0 6 6 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 12 12 0 5 0 0 5 25 08:45 AM 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 11 11 0 9 0 1 10 30 Total 0 0 0 30 30 0 1 0 5 6 0 0 0 46 46 0 21 0 2 23 105 *** BREAK *** 11:00 AM 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 9 11:15 AM 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 1 0 0 1 10 11:30 AM 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 6 11:45 AM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 3 0 0 3 7 Total 0 0 0 10 10 0 2 0 3 5 0 0 0 11 11 0 6 0 0 6 32 12:00 PM 0 0 0 6 6 0 2 0 2 4 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 1 1 19 12:15 PM 0 0 0 6 6 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 7 7 0 3 0 0 3 20 12:30 PM 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 5 5 16 12:45 PM 0 0 0 4 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 3 0 0 3 10 Total 0 0 0 21 21 1 6 0 2 9 0 0 0 23 23 0 6 0 6 12 65 *** BREAK *** 04:00 PM 0 0 0 8 8 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 8 8 0 1 0 1 2 20 04:15 PM 0 0 0 5 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 8 8 0 1 0 0 1 19 04:30 PM 0 0 1 10 11 0 8 0 2 10 0 0 0 7 7 0 1 0 1 2 30 04:45 PM 0 0 0 11 11 0 9 1 0 10 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 24 Total 0 0 1 34 35 0 24 1 2 27 0 0 0 26 26 0 3 0 2 5 93 05:00 PM 0 0 0 11 11 1 5 1 3 10 0 0 0 17 17 0 2 0 0 2 40 05:15 PM 0 0 0 55 55 0 4 0 2 6 0 0 1 15 16 1 2 0 0 3 80 05:30 PM 0 0 0 12 12 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 10 10 0 3 0 1 4 29 05:45 PM 0 0 0 38 38 0 5 0 1 6 0 0 0 16 16 0 1 0 0 1 61 Total 0 0 0 116 116 1 17 1 6 25 0 0 1 58 59 1 8 0 1 10 210 Grand Total 0 0 1 232 233 2 55 2 18 77 0 0 1 216 217 1 60 1 11 73 600 Apprch % 0 0 0.4 99.6 2.6 71.4 2.6 23.4 0 0 0.5 99.5 1.4 82.2 1.4 15.1 Total % 0 0 0.2 38.7 38.8 0.3 9.2 0.3 3 12.8 0 0 0.2 36 36.2 0.2 10 0.2 1.8 12.2 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Observatory Site Code : 12222222 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :2 Groups Printed- Bikes - Peds Observatory JPA Driveway JPA From North From East From South From West Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Bikes 0 0 1 0 1 2 55 2 0 59 0 0 1 0 1 1 60 1 0 62 123 % Bikes 0 0 100 0 0.4 100 100 100 0 76.6 0 0 100 0 0.5 100 100 100 0 84.9 20.5 Peds 0 0 0 232 232 0 0 0 18 18 0 0 0 216 216 0 0 0 11 11 477 % Peds 0 0 0 100 99.6 0 0 0 100 23.4 0 0 0 100 99.5 0 0 0 100 15.1 79.5 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Maury Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks Maury JPA JPA Fontaine From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 3 5 2 0 10 4 28 11 0 43 17 34 30 0 81 18 56 23 0 97 231 07:15 AM 1 11 3 0 15 4 34 12 0 50 39 35 40 0 114 30 62 20 0 112 291 07:30 AM 4 9 2 0 15 3 69 8 0 80 39 68 66 0 173 25 86 23 0 134 402 07:45 AM 2 10 7 0 19 4 62 16 0 82 50 62 98 0 210 31 73 14 0 118 429 Total 10 35 14 0 59 15 193 47 0 255 145 199 234 0 578 104 277 80 0 461 1353 08:00 AM 5 14 8 0 27 11 39 18 0 68 38 55 77 0 170 45 72 18 0 135 400 08:15 AM 3 16 3 0 22 4 44 11 0 59 50 47 68 0 165 35 62 13 0 110 356 08:30 AM 8 19 7 0 34 3 44 15 0 62 54 44 70 0 168 31 70 14 0 115 379 08:45 AM 6 14 4 0 24 3 30 17 0 50 51 47 61 0 159 36 79 10 0 125 358 Total 22 63 22 0 107 21 157 61 0 239 193 193 276 0 662 147 283 55 0 485 1493 11:00 AM 4 23 3 0 30 6 44 39 0 89 24 15 28 0 67 30 54 10 0 94 280 11:15 AM 9 18 3 0 30 6 32 22 0 60 21 23 26 0 70 35 41 6 0 82 242 11:30 AM 8 24 7 0 39 4 51 25 0 80 24 23 32 0 79 33 48 9 0 90 288 11:45 AM 13 28 6 0 47 5 44 24 0 73 33 15 42 0 90 35 74 11 0 120 330 Total 34 93 19 0 146 21 171 110 0 302 102 76 128 0 306 133 217 36 0 386 1140 12:00 PM 6 36 4 0 46 4 58 35 0 97 19 22 30 1 72 31 68 13 0 112 327 12:15 PM 14 29 7 0 50 9 54 34 0 97 43 21 27 0 91 47 58 16 0 121 359 12:30 PM 10 30 11 0 51 8 46 29 0 83 34 19 30 0 83 34 52 9 0 95 312 12:45 PM 12 21 9 0 42 3 58 27 0 88 33 23 44 0 100 32 79 8 0 119 349 Total 42 116 31 0 189 24 216 125 0 365 129 85 131 1 346 144 257 46 0 447 1347 04:00 PM 14 49 8 0 71 7 75 28 0 110 15 20 53 0 88 51 44 5 0 100 369 04:15 PM 12 41 8 0 61 10 81 48 0 139 32 17 37 0 86 65 57 5 0 127 413 04:30 PM 16 64 13 0 93 6 81 51 0 138 30 11 45 0 86 67 43 4 0 114 431 04:45 PM 14 69 11 0 94 5 80 54 0 139 26 29 41 0 96 59 33 9 0 101 430 Total 56 223 40 0 319 28 317 181 0 526 103 77 176 0 356 242 177 23 0 442 1643 05:00 PM 15 74 20 0 109 7 91 62 0 160 26 28 40 0 94 70 38 4 0 112 475 05:15 PM 10 84 11 0 105 13 79 48 0 140 30 25 52 0 107 68 42 6 0 116 468 05:30 PM 10 78 7 0 95 8 77 58 0 143 23 19 50 0 92 58 37 6 0 101 431 05:45 PM 10 59 12 0 81 13 69 57 0 139 27 25 50 0 102 45 42 15 0 102 424 Total 45 295 50 0 390 41 316 225 0 582 106 97 192 0 395 241 159 31 0 431 1798 Grand Total 209 825 176 0 1210 150 1370 749 0 2269 778 727 1137 1 2643 1011 1370 271 0 2652 8774 Apprch % 17.3 68.2 14.5 0 6.6 60.4 33 0 29.4 27.5 43 0 38.1 51.7 10.2 0 Total % 2.4 9.4 2 0 13.8 1.7 15.6 8.5 0 25.9 8.9 8.3 13 0 30.1 11.5 15.6 3.1 0 30.2 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Maury Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :2 Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks Maury JPA JPA Fontaine From North From East From South From West Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Int. Total Passenger Veh 197 814 155 0 1166 119 1331 735 0 2185 766 705 1110 1 2582 985 1325 258 0 2568 8501 % Passenger Veh 94.3 98.7 88.1 0 96.4 79.3 97.2 98.1 0 96.3 98.5 97 97.6 100 97.7 97.4 96.7 95.2 0 96.8 96.9 Trucks 12 11 21 0 44 31 39 14 0 84 12 22 27 0 61 26 45 13 0 84 273 % Trucks 5.7 1.3 11.9 0 3.6 20.7 2.8 1.9 0 3.7 1.5 3 2.4 0 2.3 2.6 3.3 4.8 0 3.2 3.1 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Maury Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :3 Maury JPA JPA Fontaine From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 09:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 4 9 2 0 15 3 69 8 0 80 39 68 66 0 173 25 86 23 0 134 402 07:45 AM 2 10 7 0 19 4 62 16 0 82 50 62 98 0 210 31 73 14 0 118 429 08:00 AM 5 14 8 0 27 11 39 18 0 68 38 55 77 0 170 45 72 18 0 135 400 08:15 AM 3 16 3 0 22 4 44 11 0 59 50 47 68 0 165 35 62 13 0 110 356 Total Volume 14 49 20 0 83 22 214 53 0 289 177 232 309 0 718 136 293 68 0 497 1587 % App. Total 16.9 59 24.1 0 7.6 74 18.3 0 24.7 32.3 43 0 27.4 59 13.7 0 PHF .700 .766 .625 .000 .769 .500 .775 .736 .000 .881 .885 .853 .788 .000 .855 .756 .852 .739 .000 .920 .925 Passenger Veh 12 47 17 0 76 17 206 52 0 275 176 228 305 0 709 134 284 66 0 484 1544 % Passenger Veh 85.7 95.9 85.0 0 91.6 77.3 96.3 98.1 0 95.2 99.4 98.3 98.7 0 98.7 98.5 96.9 97.1 0 97.4 97.3 Trucks 2 2 3 0 7 5 8 1 0 14 1 4 4 0 9 2 9 2 0 13 43 % Trucks 14.3 4.1 15.0 0 8.4 22.7 3.7 1.9 0 4.8 0.6 1.7 1.3 0 1.3 1.5 3.1 2.9 0 2.6 2.7 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Maury Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :4 Maury Out In Total 311 76 387 11 7 18 322 83 405 12 47 17 0 2 2 3 0 14 49 20 0 Right Thru Left U-Turn Peak Hour Data 27 1007 1034 2 66 68 Right Thru Total Left Out 22 17 490 477 5 13 North 9 284 293 U-Turn Right Thru 214 206 13 484 497 Fontaine Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM In JPA 8 In 289 275 14 2 134 136 Left U-Turn Passenger Veh 53 52 Trucks 1 14 523 537 Out Total 0 0 0 779 752 27 0 0 0 Left Thru Right U-Turn 305 228 176 0 4 4 1 0 309 232 177 0 233 709 942 5 9 14 238 718 956 Out In Total JPA Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Maury Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :5 Maury JPA JPA Fontaine From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 10:00 AM to 01:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 6 36 4 0 46 4 58 35 0 97 19 22 30 1 72 31 68 13 0 112 327 12:15 PM 14 29 7 0 50 9 54 34 0 97 43 21 27 0 91 47 58 16 0 121 359 12:30 PM 10 30 11 0 51 8 46 29 0 83 34 19 30 0 83 34 52 9 0 95 312 12:45 PM 12 21 9 0 42 3 58 27 0 88 33 23 44 0 100 32 79 8 0 119 349 Total Volume 42 116 31 0 189 24 216 125 0 365 129 85 131 1 346 144 257 46 0 447 1347 % App. Total 22.2 61.4 16.4 0 6.6 59.2 34.2 0 37.3 24.6 37.9 0.3 32.2 57.5 10.3 0 PHF .750 .806 .705 .000 .926 .667 .931 .893 .000 .941 .750 .924 .744 .250 .865 .766 .813 .719 .000 .924 .938 Passenger Veh 38 116 26 0 180 19 204 121 0 344 126 82 127 1 336 140 248 43 0 431 1291 % Passenger Veh 90.5 100 83.9 0 95.2 79.2 94.4 96.8 0 94.2 97.7 96.5 96.9 100 97.1 97.2 96.5 93.5 0 96.4 95.8 Trucks 4 0 5 0 9 5 12 4 0 21 3 3 4 0 10 4 9 3 0 16 56 % Trucks 9.5 0 16.1 0 4.8 20.8 5.6 3.2 0 5.8 2.3 3.5 3.1 0 2.9 2.8 3.5 6.5 0 3.6 4.2 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Maury Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :6 Maury Out In Total 144 180 324 11 9 20 155 189 344 38 116 26 0 4 0 5 0 42 116 31 0 Right Thru Left U-Turn Peak Hour Data 36 800 836 3 43 46 Right Thru Total Left Out 24 19 417 400 5 17 North 9 248 257 U-Turn Right Thru 216 204 16 431 447 Fontaine 12 Peak Hour Begins at 12:00 PM In JPA In 365 344 21 4 140 144 Left U-Turn Passenger Veh 125 121 Trucks 4 20 369 389 Out Total 0 0 0 782 744 38 0 0 0 Left Thru Right U-Turn 127 82 126 1 4 3 3 0 131 85 129 1 377 336 713 8 10 18 385 346 731 Out In Total JPA Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Maury Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :7 Maury JPA JPA Fontaine From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Right Thru Left U-Turn App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 16 64 13 0 93 6 81 51 0 138 30 11 45 0 86 67 43 4 0 114 431 04:45 PM 14 69 11 0 94 5 80 54 0 139 26 29 41 0 96 59 33 9 0 101 430 05:00 PM 15 74 20 0 109 7 91 62 0 160 26 28 40 0 94 70 38 4 0 112 475 05:15 PM 10 84 11 0 105 13 79 48 0 140 30 25 52 0 107 68 42 6 0 116 468 Total Volume 55 291 55 0 401 31 331 215 0 577 112 93 178 0 383 264 156 23 0 443 1804 % App. Total 13.7 72.6 13.7 0 5.4 57.4 37.3 0 29.2 24.3 46.5 0 59.6 35.2 5.2 0 PHF .859 .866 .688 .000 .920 .596 .909 .867 .000 .902 .933 .802 .856 .000 .895 .943 .907 .639 .000 .955 .949 Passenger Veh 54 289 52 0 395 25 325 213 0 563 112 89 172 0 373 259 153 23 0 435 1766 % Passenger Veh 98.2 99.3 94.5 0 98.5 80.6 98.2 99.1 0 97.6 100 95.7 96.6 0 97.4 98.1 98.1 100 0 98.2 97.9 Trucks 1 2 3 0 6 6 6 2 0 14 0 4 6 0 10 5 3 0 0 8 38 % Trucks 1.8 0.7 5.5 0 1.5 19.4 1.8 0.9 0 2.4 0 4.3 3.4 0 2.6 1.9 1.9 0 0 1.8 2.1 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Maury Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :8 Maury Out In Total 137 395 532 10 6 16 147 401 548 54 289 52 0 1 2 3 0 55 291 55 0 Right Thru Left U-Turn Peak Hour Data 21 986 1007 0 23 23 Right Thru Total Left Out 31 25 323 317 6 6 North 3 153 156 U-Turn Right Thru 331 325 8 435 443 Fontaine Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM In JPA 6 In 577 563 14 5 259 264 Left U-Turn Passenger Veh 215 213 Trucks 2 13 551 564 Out Total 0 0 0 900 880 20 0 0 0 Left Thru Right U-Turn 172 89 112 0 6 4 0 0 178 93 112 0 761 373 1134 9 10 19 770 383 1153 Out In Total JPA Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Maury Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Bikes - Peds Maury JPA JPA Fontaine From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 9 9 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 12 07:15 AM 0 1 0 2 3 0 1 0 6 7 1 1 0 3 5 0 0 0 2 2 17 07:30 AM 0 0 0 3 3 0 2 0 3 5 0 3 0 3 6 0 0 0 1 1 15 07:45 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 3 3 2 0 6 11 0 0 0 6 6 21 Total 0 1 0 7 8 0 4 1 19 24 5 7 0 12 24 0 0 0 9 9 65 08:00 AM 0 2 0 2 4 0 0 0 8 8 6 3 0 2 11 0 1 0 3 4 27 08:15 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 11 0 4 0 0 4 0 1 0 6 7 23 08:30 AM 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 5 1 0 0 2 3 1 1 0 5 7 16 08:45 AM 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 13 14 4 0 1 8 13 1 1 0 1 3 32 Total 0 4 0 4 8 0 1 0 37 38 11 7 1 12 31 2 4 0 15 21 98 11:00 AM 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 3 1 2 0 3 6 1 1 0 1 3 14 11:15 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 5 0 1 0 2 3 1 1 0 2 4 13 11:30 AM 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 10 11:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 2 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 2 8 Total 0 3 0 3 6 0 0 4 9 13 3 6 0 8 17 3 2 0 4 9 45 12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 5 0 1 0 5 6 1 1 0 2 4 15 12:15 PM 1 1 0 1 3 0 0 4 5 9 2 6 0 1 9 0 0 0 2 2 23 12:30 PM 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 3 3 11 12:45 PM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 2 10 Total 1 2 0 5 8 0 0 5 14 19 4 9 1 7 21 1 1 0 9 11 59 04:00 PM 0 2 0 4 6 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 6 6 17 04:15 PM 0 1 0 1 2 1 2 2 8 13 0 0 0 4 4 0 2 0 2 4 23 04:30 PM 0 6 1 0 7 0 0 6 7 13 0 0 1 6 7 0 0 0 2 2 29 04:45 PM 0 2 0 2 4 0 1 6 9 16 0 2 0 6 8 0 0 0 1 1 29 Total 0 11 1 7 19 1 3 14 26 44 0 2 1 19 22 0 2 0 11 13 98 05:00 PM 0 1 1 1 3 0 1 4 7 12 0 0 0 6 6 0 1 0 3 4 25 05:15 PM 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 2 39 41 0 0 1 5 6 0 0 0 5 5 56 05:30 PM 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 3 14 17 1 0 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 3 24 05:45 PM 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 4 31 35 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 42 Total 0 7 1 4 12 0 1 13 91 105 3 1 1 12 17 1 3 0 9 13 147 Grand Total 1 28 2 30 61 1 9 37 196 243 26 32 4 70 132 7 12 0 57 76 512 Apprch % 1.6 45.9 3.3 49.2 0.4 3.7 15.2 80.7 19.7 24.2 3 53 9.2 15.8 0 75 Total % 0.2 5.5 0.4 5.9 11.9 0.2 1.8 7.2 38.3 47.5 5.1 6.2 0.8 13.7 25.8 1.4 2.3 0 11.1 14.8 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : JPA and Maury Site Code : Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :2 Groups Printed- Bikes - Peds Maury JPA JPA Fontaine From North From East From South From West Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Bikes 1 28 2 0 31 1 9 37 0 47 26 32 4 0 62 7 12 0 0 19 159 % Bikes 100 100 100 0 50.8 100 100 100 0 19.3 100 100 100 0 47 100 100 0 0 25 31.1 Peds 0 0 0 30 30 0 0 0 196 196 0 0 0 70 70 0 0 0 57 57 353 % Peds 0 0 0 100 49.2 0 0 0 100 80.7 0 0 0 100 53 0 0 0 100 75 68.9 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Maury and Stadium Site Code : 23333333 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks Alderman Stadium Maury Stadium From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 3 12 7 0 22 3 3 2 0 8 9 65 1 0 75 1 17 31 0 49 154 07:15 AM 8 9 9 0 26 4 1 1 0 6 12 72 1 0 85 1 16 32 0 49 166 07:30 AM 4 10 9 0 23 6 3 5 0 14 16 96 1 0 113 1 20 45 0 66 216 07:45 AM 10 16 6 0 32 9 2 4 0 15 10 84 0 0 94 3 21 45 0 69 210 Total 25 47 31 0 103 22 9 12 0 43 47 317 3 0 367 6 74 153 0 233 746 08:00 AM 6 24 8 0 38 8 2 7 0 17 14 70 1 0 85 1 19 11 0 31 171 08:15 AM 9 21 3 0 33 8 2 2 0 12 9 54 0 0 63 1 10 10 0 21 129 08:30 AM 6 31 4 0 41 5 5 3 0 13 9 58 0 0 67 1 13 15 0 29 150 08:45 AM 7 23 2 0 32 3 2 2 0 7 10 51 2 0 63 0 10 11 0 21 123 Total 28 99 17 0 144 24 11 14 0 49 42 233 3 0 278 3 52 47 0 102 573 *** BREAK *** 11:00 AM 4 32 6 0 42 2 4 6 0 12 4 27 1 0 32 1 6 6 0 13 99 11:15 AM 6 23 2 0 31 5 6 6 0 17 9 24 0 0 33 1 7 5 0 13 94 11:30 AM 13 29 1 0 43 3 8 9 0 20 11 30 1 0 42 1 4 7 0 12 117 11:45 AM 5 44 2 0 51 4 3 8 0 15 2 28 3 0 33 1 6 5 0 12 111 Total 28 128 11 0 167 14 21 29 0 64 26 109 5 0 140 4 23 23 0 50 421 12:00 PM 3 45 4 0 52 6 7 8 0 21 7 44 1 0 52 0 0 4 0 4 129 12:15 PM 11 34 4 0 49 9 3 11 0 23 7 49 0 0 56 0 6 7 0 13 141 12:30 PM 10 38 5 0 53 4 6 16 0 26 4 27 2 0 33 0 3 6 0 9 121 12:45 PM 10 30 3 0 43 2 6 15 0 23 8 27 2 0 37 2 3 3 0 8 111 Total 34 147 16 0 197 21 22 50 0 93 26 147 5 0 178 2 12 20 0 34 502 *** BREAK *** 04:00 PM 16 64 13 0 93 10 14 18 0 42 4 26 1 0 31 0 3 4 0 7 173 04:15 PM 20 59 11 0 90 6 23 24 0 53 2 32 3 0 37 2 3 3 0 8 188 04:30 PM 21 74 8 0 103 2 21 38 0 61 2 15 1 0 18 2 5 7 0 14 196 04:45 PM 23 84 12 0 119 9 30 32 0 71 4 41 1 0 46 1 5 5 0 11 247 Total 80 281 44 0 405 27 88 112 0 227 12 114 6 0 132 5 16 19 0 40 804 05:00 PM 25 76 10 0 111 1 35 34 0 70 6 36 0 0 42 2 2 3 0 7 230 05:15 PM 19 78 12 0 109 5 40 30 0 75 2 38 3 0 43 0 6 3 0 9 236 05:30 PM 20 87 6 0 113 5 24 29 0 58 4 30 2 0 36 0 3 8 0 11 218 05:45 PM 8 70 10 0 88 6 16 15 0 37 6 31 1 0 38 3 4 8 0 15 178 Total 72 311 38 0 421 17 115 108 0 240 18 135 6 0 159 5 15 22 0 42 862 Grand Total 267 1013 157 0 1437 125 266 325 0 716 171 1055 28 0 1254 25 192 284 0 501 3908 Apprch % 18.6 70.5 10.9 0 17.5 37.2 45.4 0 13.6 84.1 2.2 0 5 38.3 56.7 0 Total % 6.8 25.9 4 0 36.8 3.2 6.8 8.3 0 18.3 4.4 27 0.7 0 32.1 0.6 4.9 7.3 0 12.8 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Maury and Stadium Site Code : 23333333 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :2 Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks Alderman Stadium Maury Stadium From North From East From South From West Uturn Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Int. Total s Passenger Veh 232 999 86 0 1317 124 263 306 0 693 171 994 27 0 1192 25 192 282 0 499 3701 % Passenger Veh 86.9 98.6 54.8 0 91.6 99.2 98.9 94.2 0 96.8 100 94.2 96.4 0 95.1 100 100 99.3 0 99.6 94.7 Trucks 35 14 71 0 120 1 3 19 0 23 0 61 1 0 62 0 0 2 0 2 207 % Trucks 13.1 1.4 45.2 0 8.4 0.8 1.1 5.8 0 3.2 0 5.8 3.6 0 4.9 0 0 0.7 0 0.4 5.3 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Maury and Stadium Site Code : 23333333 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :3 Alderman Stadium Maury Stadium From North From East From South From West Uturn Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Int. Total s Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 09:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 8 9 9 0 26 4 1 1 0 6 12 72 1 0 85 1 16 32 0 49 166 07:30 AM 4 10 9 0 23 6 3 5 0 14 16 96 1 0 113 1 20 45 0 66 216 07:45 AM 10 16 6 0 32 9 2 4 0 15 10 84 0 0 94 3 21 45 0 69 210 08:00 AM 6 24 8 0 38 8 2 7 0 17 14 70 1 0 85 1 19 11 0 31 171 Total Volume 28 59 32 0 119 27 8 17 0 52 52 322 3 0 377 6 76 133 0 215 763 % App. Total 23.5 49.6 26.9 0 51.9 15.4 32.7 0 13.8 85.4 0.8 0 2.8 35.3 61.9 0 PHF .700 .615 .889 .000 .783 .750 .667 .607 .000 .765 .813 .839 .750 .000 .834 .500 .905 .739 .000 .779 .883 Passenger Veh 24 57 12 0 93 27 7 13 0 47 52 311 3 0 366 6 76 133 0 215 721 % Passenger Veh 85.7 96.6 37.5 0 78.2 100 87.5 76.5 0 90.4 100 96.6 100 0 97.1 100 100 100 0 100 94.5 Trucks 4 2 20 0 26 0 1 4 0 5 0 11 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 42 % Trucks 14.3 3.4 62.5 0 21.8 0 12.5 23.5 0 9.6 0 3.4 0 0 2.9 0 0 0 0 0 5.5 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Maury and Stadium Site Code : 23333333 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :4 Alderman Out In Total 471 93 564 11 26 37 482 119 601 24 57 12 0 4 2 20 0 28 59 32 0 Right Thru Left Uturns Peak Hour Data 5 249 254 0 133 133 Right Thru Total Left Out 27 27 160 140 0 20 North 0 76 76 Uturns Right Thru 0 215 215 Stadium Stadium Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM In 8 1 7 In 52 47 6 0 6 Left Uturns 5 Passenger Veh 17 13 Trucks 4 5 34 39 Out Total 0 0 0 212 187 25 0 0 0 Left Thru Right Uturns 3 311 52 0 0 11 0 0 3 322 52 0 76 366 442 6 11 17 82 377 459 Out In Total Maury Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Maury and Stadium Site Code : 23333333 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :5 Alderman Stadium Maury Stadium From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 10:00 AM to 01:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 11:45 AM 11:45 AM 5 44 2 0 51 4 3 8 0 15 2 28 3 0 33 1 6 5 0 12 111 12:00 PM 3 45 4 0 52 6 7 8 0 21 7 44 1 0 52 0 0 4 0 4 129 12:15 PM 11 34 4 0 49 9 3 11 0 23 7 49 0 0 56 0 6 7 0 13 141 12:30 PM 10 38 5 0 53 4 6 16 0 26 4 27 2 0 33 0 3 6 0 9 121 Total Volume 29 161 15 0 205 23 19 43 0 85 20 148 6 0 174 1 15 22 0 38 502 % App. Total 14.1 78.5 7.3 0 27.1 22.4 50.6 0 11.5 85.1 3.4 0 2.6 39.5 57.9 0 PHF .659 .894 .750 .000 .967 .639 .679 .672 .000 .817 .714 .755 .500 .000 .777 .250 .625 .786 .000 .731 .890 Passenger Veh 22 159 15 0 196 23 19 40 0 82 20 139 6 0 165 1 15 22 0 38 481 % Passenger Veh 75.9 98.8 100 0 95.6 100 100 93.0 0 96.5 100 93.9 100 0 94.8 100 100 100 0 100 95.8 Trucks 7 2 0 0 9 0 0 3 0 3 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 21 % Trucks 24.1 1.2 0 0 4.4 0 0 7.0 0 3.5 0 6.1 0 0 5.2 0 0 0 0 0 4.2 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Maury and Stadium Site Code : 23333333 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :6 Alderman Out In Total 184 196 380 9 9 18 193 205 398 22 159 15 0 7 2 0 0 29 161 15 0 Right Thru Left Uturns Peak Hour Data 7 85 92 0 22 22 Right Thru Total Left Out 23 23 0 50 50 0 North 0 15 15 Uturns Right Thru 0 38 38 Stadium Stadium 19 19 Peak Hour Begins at 11:45 AM In 0 In 85 82 1 0 1 Left Uturns 3 Passenger Veh 43 40 Trucks 3 7 47 54 Out Total 0 0 0 135 132 3 0 0 0 Left Thru Right Uturns 6 139 20 0 0 9 0 0 6 148 20 0 200 165 365 5 9 14 205 174 379 Out In Total Maury Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Maury and Stadium Site Code : 23333333 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :7 Alderman Stadium Maury Stadium From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 23 84 12 0 119 9 30 32 0 71 4 41 1 0 46 1 5 5 0 11 247 05:00 PM 25 76 10 0 111 1 35 34 0 70 6 36 0 0 42 2 2 3 0 7 230 05:15 PM 19 78 12 0 109 5 40 30 0 75 2 38 3 0 43 0 6 3 0 9 236 05:30 PM 20 87 6 0 113 5 24 29 0 58 4 30 2 0 36 0 3 8 0 11 218 Total Volume 87 325 40 0 452 20 129 125 0 274 16 145 6 0 167 3 16 19 0 38 931 % App. Total 19.2 71.9 8.8 0 7.3 47.1 45.6 0 9.6 86.8 3.6 0 7.9 42.1 50 0 PHF .870 .934 .833 .000 .950 .556 .806 .919 .000 .913 .667 .884 .500 .000 .908 .375 .667 .594 .000 .864 .942 Passenger Veh 80 322 19 0 421 20 129 122 0 271 16 136 6 0 158 3 16 18 0 37 887 % Passenger Veh 92.0 99.1 47.5 0 93.1 100 100 97.6 0 98.9 100 93.8 100 0 94.6 100 100 94.7 0 97.4 95.3 Trucks 7 3 21 0 31 0 0 3 0 3 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 1 44 % Trucks 8.0 0.9 52.5 0 6.9 0 0 2.4 0 1.1 0 6.2 0 0 5.4 0 0 5.3 0 2.6 4.7 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Maury and Stadium Site Code : 23333333 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :8 Alderman Out In Total 174 421 595 10 31 41 184 452 636 80 322 19 0 7 3 21 0 87 325 40 0 Right Thru Left Uturns Peak Hour Data 8 252 260 1 18 19 Right Thru Total Left Out 20 20 0 72 21 51 North 0 16 16 Uturns Right Thru 129 129 1 37 38 Stadium Stadium Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM In 0 In 274 271 3 0 3 Left Uturns 3 Passenger Veh 125 122 Trucks 3 7 215 222 Out Total 0 0 0 346 322 24 0 0 0 Left Thru Right Uturns 6 136 16 0 0 9 0 0 6 145 16 0 447 158 605 6 9 15 453 167 620 Out In Total Maury Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Maury and Stadium Site Code : 23333333 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Bikes - Peds Alderman Stadium Maury Stadium From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 2 0 2 4 0 0 0 9 9 2 5 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 1 21 07:15 AM 0 1 0 6 7 0 0 0 7 7 0 2 0 1 3 0 1 1 3 5 22 07:30 AM 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 10 11 0 1 0 3 4 0 0 3 2 5 22 07:45 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 6 6 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 1 5 6 18 Total 0 3 0 11 14 1 0 0 32 33 2 13 0 4 19 0 1 5 11 17 83 08:00 AM 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 16 16 0 2 0 2 4 0 1 3 1 5 27 08:15 AM 2 0 1 12 15 0 1 0 15 16 0 5 0 3 8 0 1 4 7 12 51 08:30 AM 0 1 0 12 13 0 0 0 16 16 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 1 7 8 40 08:45 AM 0 0 0 12 12 0 0 0 19 19 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 5 9 44 Total 2 1 1 38 42 0 1 0 66 67 0 12 0 7 19 0 2 12 20 34 162 *** BREAK *** 11:00 AM 1 2 0 5 8 1 1 0 11 13 0 3 0 4 7 0 0 1 3 4 32 11:15 AM 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 4 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 3 11 11:30 AM 1 1 0 5 7 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 3 5 16 11:45 AM 0 2 0 7 9 0 0 0 8 8 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 21 Total 2 6 0 19 27 2 1 0 25 28 0 6 0 6 12 0 0 3 10 13 80 12:00 PM 0 0 1 12 13 0 0 1 8 9 0 3 1 5 9 0 0 1 2 3 34 12:15 PM 2 3 0 9 14 0 1 0 15 16 1 8 0 3 12 0 1 1 6 8 50 12:30 PM 1 2 0 8 11 0 0 0 12 12 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 8 8 33 12:45 PM 2 1 0 5 8 0 0 0 4 4 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 16 Total 5 6 1 34 46 0 1 1 39 41 1 13 1 11 26 0 1 2 17 20 133 *** BREAK *** 04:00 PM 1 1 0 6 8 0 1 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 04:15 PM 1 3 0 3 7 0 0 0 12 12 0 1 1 3 5 0 0 1 9 10 34 04:30 PM 0 7 0 12 19 1 0 0 13 14 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 2 2 38 04:45 PM 3 6 0 5 14 0 1 1 13 15 1 0 0 3 4 0 0 3 6 9 42 Total 5 17 0 26 48 1 2 1 44 48 1 1 1 9 12 0 0 4 17 21 129 05:00 PM 3 2 0 14 19 0 0 0 16 16 0 1 0 2 3 0 1 1 4 6 44 05:15 PM 1 9 0 7 17 0 2 0 6 8 0 4 0 10 14 0 0 1 5 6 45 05:30 PM 2 5 0 4 11 0 0 0 11 11 0 1 0 4 5 0 0 2 2 4 31 05:45 PM 1 0 0 12 13 0 1 0 12 13 0 3 0 5 8 0 0 0 5 5 39 Total 7 16 0 37 60 0 3 0 45 48 0 9 0 21 30 0 1 4 16 21 159 Grand Total 21 49 2 165 237 4 8 2 251 265 4 54 2 58 118 0 5 30 91 126 746 Apprch % 8.9 20.7 0.8 69.6 1.5 3 0.8 94.7 3.4 45.8 1.7 49.2 0 4 23.8 72.2 Total % 2.8 6.6 0.3 22.1 31.8 0.5 1.1 0.3 33.6 35.5 0.5 7.2 0.3 7.8 15.8 0 0.7 4 12.2 16.9 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Maury and Stadium Site Code : 23333333 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :2 Groups Printed- Bikes - Peds Alderman Stadium Maury Stadium From North From East From South From West Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Bikes 21 49 2 0 72 4 8 2 0 14 4 54 2 0 60 0 5 30 0 35 181 % Bikes 100 100 100 0 30.4 100 100 100 0 5.3 100 100 100 0 50.8 0 100 100 0 27.8 24.3 Peds 0 0 0 165 165 0 0 0 251 251 0 0 0 58 58 0 0 0 91 91 565 % Peds 0 0 0 100 69.6 0 0 0 100 94.7 0 0 0 100 49.2 0 0 0 100 72.2 75.7 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Stadium and Washington Site Code : 11111111 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks Stadium Washington Stadium From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 34 40 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 1 1 34 0 0 35 44 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 46 0 0 47 56 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 14 1 0 1 0 2 0 35 0 0 35 51 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 37 1 0 2 0 3 2 149 0 0 151 191 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 0 17 2 0 0 0 2 1 42 0 0 43 62 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 11 1 0 0 0 1 1 20 0 0 21 33 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 14 1 0 1 0 2 0 24 0 0 24 40 08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 4 0 11 0 0 1 0 1 1 17 0 0 18 30 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 5 0 53 4 0 2 0 6 3 103 0 0 106 165 *** BREAK *** 11:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 0 17 1 0 1 0 2 1 15 0 0 16 35 11:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 1 0 15 0 0 2 0 2 3 14 0 0 17 34 11:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 15 0 0 1 0 1 2 16 0 0 18 34 11:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 2 0 18 2 0 1 0 3 1 11 0 0 12 33 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 4 0 65 3 0 5 0 8 7 56 0 0 63 136 12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 1 0 23 1 0 1 0 2 2 9 0 0 11 36 12:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 3 0 23 0 0 2 0 2 2 13 0 0 15 40 12:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 1 0 28 1 0 0 0 1 4 11 0 0 15 44 12:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 2 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 0 0 15 41 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 7 0 100 2 0 3 0 5 9 47 0 0 56 161 *** BREAK *** 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 37 2 0 0 0 2 2 17 0 0 19 58 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 1 0 58 1 0 1 0 2 0 13 0 0 13 73 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 63 2 0 0 0 2 0 16 0 0 16 81 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 3 0 73 1 0 2 0 3 1 23 0 0 24 100 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 227 4 0 231 6 0 3 0 9 3 69 0 0 72 312 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 1 0 72 1 0 2 0 3 0 20 0 0 20 95 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 1 0 62 5 0 0 0 5 1 22 0 0 23 90 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 0 0 57 3 0 1 0 4 0 15 0 0 15 76 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 2 0 41 1 0 2 0 3 5 15 0 0 20 64 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 228 4 0 232 10 0 5 0 15 6 72 0 0 78 325 Grand Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 694 24 0 718 26 0 20 0 46 30 496 0 0 526 1290 Apprch % 0 0 0 0 0 96.7 3.3 0 56.5 0 43.5 0 5.7 94.3 0 0 Total % 0 0 0 0 0 0 53.8 1.9 0 55.7 2 0 1.6 0 3.6 2.3 38.4 0 0 40.8 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Stadium and Washington Site Code : 11111111 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :2 Groups Printed- Passenger Veh - Trucks Stadium Washington Stadium From North From East From South From West Uturn Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Int. Total s Passenger Veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 673 23 0 696 25 0 19 0 44 30 425 0 0 455 1195 % Passenger Veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 95.8 0 96.9 96.2 0 95 0 95.7 100 85.7 0 0 86.5 92.6 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 1 0 22 1 0 1 0 2 0 71 0 0 71 95 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4.2 0 3.1 3.8 0 5 0 4.3 0 14.3 0 0 13.5 7.4 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Stadium and Washington Site Code : 11111111 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :3 Stadium Washington Stadium From North From East From South From West Uturn Start Time Right Thru Left App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Int. Total s Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 09:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 1 1 34 0 0 35 44 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 46 0 0 47 56 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 14 1 0 1 0 2 0 35 0 0 35 51 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 0 17 2 0 0 0 2 1 42 0 0 43 62 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 1 0 48 3 0 2 0 5 3 157 0 0 160 213 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 0 97.9 2.1 0 60 0 40 0 1.9 98.1 0 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .734 .250 .000 .706 .375 .000 .500 .000 .625 .750 .853 .000 .000 .851 .859 Passenger Veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 1 0 43 3 0 2 0 5 3 138 0 0 141 189 % Passenger Veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 89.4 100 0 89.6 100 0 100 0 100 100 87.9 0 0 88.1 88.7 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 19 24 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.6 0 0 10.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 12.1 0 0 11.9 11.3 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Stadium and Washington Site Code : 11111111 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :4 Out In Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right Thru Left Uturns Peak Hour Data 24 185 209 0 0 0 Right Thru Total Left Out 160 141 0 0 0 19 North 19 138 157 Uturns Right Thru 19 141 160 Stadium Stadium 47 42 Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM In 5 In 48 43 3 0 3 Left 5 Passenger Veh Trucks 1 0 1 5 44 49 Out Total Uturns 0 0 0 208 184 24 0 0 0 Left Thru Right Uturns 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 4 5 9 0 0 0 4 5 9 Out In Total Washington Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Stadium and Washington Site Code : 11111111 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :5 Stadium Washington Stadium From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 10:00 AM to 01:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 1 0 23 1 0 1 0 2 2 9 0 0 11 36 12:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 3 0 23 0 0 2 0 2 2 13 0 0 15 40 12:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 1 0 28 1 0 0 0 1 4 11 0 0 15 44 12:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 2 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 0 0 15 41 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 7 0 100 2 0 3 0 5 9 47 0 0 56 161 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 0 93 7 0 40 0 60 0 16.1 83.9 0 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .861 .583 .000 .893 .500 .000 .375 .000 .625 .563 .839 .000 .000 .933 .915 Passenger Veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 7 0 97 1 0 3 0 4 9 46 0 0 55 156 % Passenger Veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 96.8 100 0 97.0 50.0 0 100 0 80.0 100 97.9 0 0 98.2 96.9 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 5 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 0 0 3.0 50.0 0 0 0 20.0 0 2.1 0 0 1.8 3.1 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Stadium and Washington Site Code : 11111111 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :6 Out In Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right Thru Left Uturns Peak Hour Data 4 148 152 0 0 0 Right Thru Total Left Out 0 0 0 49 47 2 North 1 46 47 Uturns Right Thru 1 55 56 Stadium Stadium 93 90 Peak Hour Begins at 12:00 PM In 3 In 100 97 9 0 9 Left 3 Passenger Veh Trucks 7 0 7 3 93 96 Out Total Uturns 0 0 0 149 144 5 0 0 0 Left Thru Right Uturns 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 16 4 20 0 1 1 16 5 21 Out In Total Washington Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Stadium and Washington Site Code : 11111111 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :7 Stadium Washington Stadium From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Right Thru Left Uturns App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 63 2 0 0 0 2 0 16 0 0 16 81 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 3 0 73 1 0 2 0 3 1 23 0 0 24 100 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 1 0 72 1 0 2 0 3 0 20 0 0 20 95 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 1 0 62 5 0 0 0 5 1 22 0 0 23 90 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 265 5 0 270 9 0 4 0 13 2 81 0 0 83 366 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 0 98.1 1.9 0 69.2 0 30.8 0 2.4 97.6 0 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .933 .417 .000 .925 .450 .000 .500 .000 .650 .500 .880 .000 .000 .865 .915 Passenger Veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 263 5 0 268 9 0 4 0 13 2 57 0 0 59 340 % Passenger Veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 99.2 100 0 99.3 100 0 100 0 100 100 70.4 0 0 71.1 92.9 Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 24 26 % Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 29.6 0 0 28.9 7.1 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Stadium and Washington Site Code : 11111111 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :8 Out In Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Right Thru Left Uturns Peak Hour Data 26 326 352 0 0 0 Right Thru Total Left Out 0 0 0 90 24 66 North 57 24 81 Uturns Right Thru 265 263 59 24 83 Stadium Stadium Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM In 2 In 270 268 2 0 2 Left 2 Passenger Veh Trucks 5 0 5 2 267 269 Out Total Uturns 0 0 0 360 334 26 0 0 0 Left Thru Right Uturns 4 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 9 0 7 13 20 0 0 0 7 13 20 Out In Total Washington Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Stadium and Washington Site Code : 11111111 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :1 Groups Printed- Bikes - Peds Stadium Washington Stadium From North From East From South From West Start Time Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 4 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 0 0 1 5 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 6 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 11 11 0 3 0 0 3 18 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 4 0 2 0 1 3 8 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 4 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 0 0 0 9 9 0 4 0 2 6 19 *** BREAK *** 11:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 8 11:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 7 11:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 5 0 1 0 1 2 8 11:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 6 1 0 1 18 20 0 1 0 1 2 28 12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 3 0 0 12 15 0 1 0 0 1 21 12:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 6 10 0 0 0 14 14 0 2 0 0 2 26 12:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 10 12:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 1 1 5 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 13 17 3 0 0 38 41 0 3 0 1 4 62 *** BREAK *** 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 9 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 5 2 0 0 8 10 0 0 0 0 0 15 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 6 13 2 0 0 23 25 0 0 0 0 0 38 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 6 0 0 0 6 6 0 2 0 0 2 14 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 21 21 0 0 0 0 0 24 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 7 8 0 0 0 1 1 10 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 5 2 0 0 8 10 0 0 0 0 0 15 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 10 15 3 0 0 42 45 0 2 0 1 3 63 Grand Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 8 38 59 9 0 1 141 151 0 13 0 5 18 228 Apprch % 0 0 0 0 0 22 13.6 64.4 6 0 0.7 93.4 0 72.2 0 27.8 Total % 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.7 3.5 16.7 25.9 3.9 0 0.4 61.8 66.2 0 5.7 0 2.2 7.9 Attachment E Data Collection Group LSmith@DataCollectionGroup.net File Name : Stadium and Washington Site Code : 11111111 Start Date : 8/31/2021 Page No :2 Groups Printed- Bikes - Peds Stadium Washington Stadium From North From East From South From West Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Right Thru Left Peds App. Total Int. Total Bikes 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 8 0 21 9 0 1 0 10 0 13 0 1 14 45 % Bikes 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 35.6 100 0 100 0 6.6 0 100 0 20 77.8 19.7 Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 38 0 0 0 141 141 0 0 0 4 4 183 % Peds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 64.4 0 0 0 100 93.4 0 0 0 80 22.2 80.3 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville Appendix B Traffic Signal Timings Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville Attachment E Attachment E Attachment E Attachment E Attachment E Attachment E Attachment E Attachment E Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville Appendix C Synchro/SimTraffic Outputs for 2021 Existing Conditions Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing AM 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Queues Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 517 33 259 192 27 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.06 0.24 0.66 0.09 Control Delay 17.0 6.4 7.1 41.9 24.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.0 6.4 7.1 41.9 24.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 162 5 46 92 10 Queue Length 95th (ft) 320 18 104 157 31 Internal Link Dist (ft) 301 481 515 490 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 Base Capacity (vph) 883 516 1065 447 469 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 0.06 0.24 0.43 0.06 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights Existing - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing AM 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 451 32 31 243 3 65 45 73 4 19 3 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 451 32 31 243 3 65 45 73 4 19 3 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.96 0.91 1.00 0.93 0.96 0.95 0.97 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1707 1870 1811 1856 1811 1900 1870 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 475 34 33 256 3 68 47 77 4 20 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 13 2 6 3 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 49 916 65 575 1180 14 143 97 121 74 283 38 Arrive On Green 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.05 0.66 0.66 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 8 1701 120 1767 1784 21 436 505 630 122 1475 200 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 517 0 0 33 0 259 192 0 0 27 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1829 0 0 1767 0 1805 1571 0 0 1797 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.6 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.6 9.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.02 0.07 1.00 0.01 0.35 0.40 0.15 0.11 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1030 0 0 575 0 1194 361 0 0 396 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.22 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1030 0 0 575 0 1194 517 0 0 571 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.1 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 5.5 30.2 0.0 0.0 27.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.5 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.8 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 5.9 31.4 0.0 0.0 27.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A A A C A A C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 517 292 192 27 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.8 6.0 31.4 27.1 Approach LOS B A C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 50.0 21.7 60.0 21.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 44.0 24.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 16.8 3.0 6.6 11.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.5 0.0 1.6 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.2 HCM 6th LOS B JPA Aspen Heights Existing - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing AM 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 479 1 4 287 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 Future Vol, veh/h 9 479 1 4 287 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 57 0 19 19 0 57 0 0 16 16 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 10 515 1 4 309 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 369 0 0 535 0 0 875 932 551 928 931 368 Stage 1 - - - - - - 555 555 - 376 376 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 320 377 - 552 555 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1201 - - 1043 - - 272 269 538 250 269 682 Stage 1 - - - - - - 520 516 - 649 620 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 696 619 - 522 516 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1136 - - 1024 - - 263 246 520 229 246 645 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 263 246 - 229 246 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 504 501 - 606 583 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 690 582 - 507 501 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0.1 15.4 15.8 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 349 1136 - - 1024 - - 338 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 0.009 - - 0.004 - - 0.013 HCM Control Delay (s) 15.4 8.2 0 - 8.5 0 - 15.8 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 JPA Aspen Heights Existing - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing AM 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 483 2 2 291 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 5 483 2 2 291 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 43 0 26 26 0 43 2 0 2 2 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 20 3 100 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 6 537 2 2 323 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 368 0 0 565 0 0 906 948 566 924 948 369 Stage 1 - - - - - - 576 576 - 371 371 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 330 372 - 553 577 - Critical Hdwy 4.3 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.38 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1098 - - 1017 - - 259 263 528 252 263 681 Stage 1 - - - - - - 506 505 - 653 623 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 687 622 - 521 505 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1053 - - 992 - - 250 244 514 239 244 652 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 250 244 - 239 244 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 489 488 - 621 596 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 684 595 - 515 488 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 12 0 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 514 1053 - - 992 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 0.005 - - 0.002 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 12 8.4 0 - 8.6 0 - 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - - JPA Aspen Heights Existing - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 4 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing AM 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 502 0 4 278 1 1 0 3 2 0 3 Future Vol, veh/h 6 502 0 4 278 1 1 0 3 2 0 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 56 0 32 32 0 56 2 0 1 1 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 0 25 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 7 558 0 4 309 1 1 0 3 2 0 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 366 0 0 590 0 0 925 978 591 949 978 368 Stage 1 - - - - - - 604 604 - 374 374 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 321 374 - 575 604 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.35 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.425 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1204 - - 882 - - 252 252 511 242 252 682 Stage 1 - - - - - - 489 491 - 651 621 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 695 621 - 507 491 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1140 - - 855 - - 240 228 495 225 228 644 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 240 228 - 225 228 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 470 472 - 611 584 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 686 584 - 499 472 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 14.3 14.9 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 391 1140 - - 855 - - 369 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 0.006 - - 0.005 - - 0.015 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.3 8.2 0 - 9.2 0 - 14.9 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 JPA Aspen Heights Existing - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 5 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing AM 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Queues Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 318 148 58 257 336 252 192 22 53 15 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.50 0.15 0.16 0.33 0.77 0.55 0.38 0.12 0.24 0.05 Control Delay 26.8 28.9 1.6 18.4 18.9 41.8 32.4 6.8 34.0 36.0 0.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.8 28.9 1.6 18.4 18.9 41.8 32.4 6.8 34.0 36.0 0.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 135 0 17 82 152 107 0 10 26 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 77 275 19 52 186 #319 215 53 31 59 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 751 428 732 533 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 120 88 355 225 117 125 Base Capacity (vph) 382 641 1048 359 786 559 582 595 491 571 530 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.50 0.14 0.16 0.33 0.60 0.43 0.32 0.04 0.09 0.03 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. JPA Aspen Heights Existing - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 6 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing AM 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 68 293 136 53 214 22 309 232 177 20 49 14 Future Volume (veh/h) 68 293 136 53 214 22 309 232 177 20 49 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1885 1870 1841 1559 1885 1870 1885 1678 1841 1693 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 74 318 148 58 233 24 336 252 0 22 53 15 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 1 2 4 23 1 2 1 15 4 14 Cap, veh/h 445 596 868 324 712 73 409 427 172 199 143 Arrive On Green 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.04 0.43 0.43 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 Sat Flow, veh/h 1100 1856 1570 1781 1639 169 1795 1870 1598 1598 1841 1328 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 74 318 148 58 0 257 336 252 0 22 53 15 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1100 1856 1570 1781 0 1808 1795 1870 1598 1598 1841 1328 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.8 11.0 3.7 1.6 0.0 7.3 13.9 9.4 0.0 1.0 2.1 0.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.8 11.0 3.7 1.6 0.0 7.3 13.9 9.4 0.0 1.0 2.1 0.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 445 596 868 324 0 785 409 427 172 199 143 V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.53 0.17 0.18 0.00 0.33 0.82 0.59 0.13 0.27 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 445 596 868 349 0 785 550 573 490 564 407 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.4 21.8 8.8 16.6 0.0 14.6 28.7 27.0 0.0 31.6 32.1 31.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 3.4 0.4 0.1 0.0 1.1 5.3 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 5.0 2.0 0.6 0.0 3.0 6.4 4.1 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.2 25.2 9.2 16.7 0.0 15.7 34.1 27.5 0.0 31.7 32.3 31.6 LnGrp LOS C C A B A B C C C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 540 315 588 A 90 Approach Delay, s/veh 20.1 15.9 31.2 32.1 Approach LOS C B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 31.1 14.4 40.0 23.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 24.0 24.0 34.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 13.0 4.1 9.3 15.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.0 0.2 1.4 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.2 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. JPA Aspen Heights Existing - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 7 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing AM 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh12.9 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 111 70 6 18 9 31 2 304 49 26 71 29 Future Vol, veh/h 111 70 6 18 9 31 2 304 49 26 71 29 Peak Hour Factor 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 22 11 0 0 3 0 54 4 21 Mvmt Flow 132 83 7 21 11 37 2 362 58 31 85 35 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 11.7 9.8 14.6 11.4 HCM LOS B A B B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 1% 59% 31% 21% Vol Thru, % 86% 37% 16% 56% Vol Right, % 14% 3% 53% 23% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 355 187 58 126 LT Vol 2 111 18 26 Through Vol 304 70 9 71 RT Vol 49 6 31 29 Lane Flow Rate 423 223 69 150 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.581 0.35 0.115 0.258 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.948 5.659 5.982 6.202 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 731 634 598 579 Service Time 2.978 3.696 4.028 4.241 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.579 0.352 0.115 0.259 HCM Control Delay 14.6 11.7 9.8 11.4 HCM Lane LOS B B A B HCM 95th-tile Q 3.8 1.6 0.4 1 JPA Aspen Heights Existing - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 8 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing AM 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 143 3 1 50 1 4 Future Vol, veh/h 143 3 1 50 1 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 13 13 0 4 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 81 81 81 81 81 81 Heavy Vehicles, % 10 0 0 8 0 0 Mvmt Flow 177 4 1 62 1 5 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 194 0 260 193 Stage 1 - - - - 192 - Stage 2 - - - - 68 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1391 - 733 854 Stage 1 - - - - 845 - Stage 2 - - - - 960 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1374 - 721 843 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 721 - Stage 1 - - - - 835 - Stage 2 - - - - 955 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 9.5 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 815 - - 1374 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 - - 0.001 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.5 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 - JPA Aspen Heights Existing - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 9 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing AM 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 8 4 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 8 4 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 9 4 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 13 4 4 0 - 0 Stage 1 4 - - - - - Stage 2 9 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1011 1085 1631 - - - Stage 1 1024 - - - - - Stage 2 1019 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1011 1085 1631 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 1011 - - - - - Stage 1 1024 - - - - - Stage 2 1019 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1631 - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - JPA Aspen Heights Existing - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 10 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing AM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR L TR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 299 66 140 197 63 Average Queue (ft) 143 16 54 103 18 95th Queue (ft) 260 45 112 169 51 Link Distance (ft) 304 532 559 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 Intersection: 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 68 56 27 31 Average Queue (ft) 7 4 2 4 95th Queue (ft) 37 25 12 20 Link Distance (ft) 77 304 320 536 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 65 38 22 Average Queue (ft) 5 2 1 95th Queue (ft) 35 20 9 Link Distance (ft) 174 77 261 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights Existing - AM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing AM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 55 61 31 29 Average Queue (ft) 3 4 4 5 95th Queue (ft) 24 30 20 22 Link Distance (ft) 432 174 314 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 133 292 120 87 211 269 221 111 67 93 66 Average Queue (ft) 38 117 39 36 93 152 112 6 14 32 14 95th Queue (ft) 92 223 113 82 178 237 188 63 47 72 45 Link Distance (ft) 774 432 770 538 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 120 88 355 225 117 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 7 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 14 1 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 Intersection: 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 101 73 224 101 Average Queue (ft) 49 33 106 47 95th Queue (ft) 79 64 183 83 Link Distance (ft) 544 504 452 665 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights Existing - AM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing AM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 3 6 30 Average Queue (ft) 0 0 4 95th Queue (ft) 3 4 22 Link Distance (ft) 504 658 455 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 24 JPA Aspen Heights Existing - AM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing Midday 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Queues Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 482 59 379 106 30 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.10 0.32 0.49 0.12 Control Delay 11.6 5.2 6.1 37.6 25.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 11.6 5.2 6.1 37.6 25.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 126 7 57 48 11 Queue Length 95th (ft) 272 25 147 93 32 Internal Link Dist (ft) 301 481 515 490 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 Base Capacity (vph) 1084 612 1198 444 499 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.44 0.10 0.32 0.24 0.06 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights Existing - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing Midday 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 406 33 54 342 6 38 22 38 2 21 5 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 406 33 54 342 6 38 22 38 2 21 5 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.97 0.92 0.99 0.93 0.89 0.88 0.91 0.88 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1841 1856 1841 1811 1900 1826 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5 441 36 59 372 7 41 24 41 2 23 5 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 3 4 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 47 910 74 576 1162 22 149 90 112 53 287 59 Arrive On Green 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.04 0.66 0.66 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 4 1660 134 1753 1769 33 445 458 570 30 1455 297 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 482 0 0 59 0 379 106 0 0 30 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1799 0 0 1753 0 1802 1474 0 0 1783 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 7.5 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.6 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 7.5 4.7 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.01 0.07 1.00 0.02 0.39 0.39 0.07 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1030 0 0 576 0 1184 351 0 0 398 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.32 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1030 0 0 598 0 1184 486 0 0 563 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.5 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 6.1 28.3 0.0 0.0 26.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.8 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 6.8 28.8 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A A A C A A C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 482 438 106 30 Approach Delay, s/veh 11.8 6.8 28.8 27.0 Approach LOS B A C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 51.0 22.2 60.0 22.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 44.0 24.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 15.6 3.1 9.5 6.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.2 0.0 2.5 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.9 HCM 6th LOS B JPA Aspen Heights Existing - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing Midday 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 419 3 8 351 1 1 0 1 2 0 8 Future Vol, veh/h 6 419 3 8 351 1 1 0 1 2 0 8 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 22 0 24 24 0 22 0 0 22 22 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 6 451 3 9 377 1 1 0 1 2 0 9 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 400 0 0 478 0 0 889 907 499 905 908 400 Stage 1 - - - - - - 489 489 - 418 418 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 400 418 - 487 490 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1170 - - 1095 - - 266 278 576 260 277 654 Stage 1 - - - - - - 564 553 - 616 594 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 630 594 - 566 552 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1145 - - 1070 - - 253 261 551 245 260 640 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 253 261 - 245 260 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 547 536 - 599 575 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 615 575 - 549 535 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.2 15.4 12.6 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 347 1145 - - 1070 - - 484 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 0.006 - - 0.008 - - 0.022 HCM Control Delay (s) 15.4 8.2 0 - 8.4 0 - 12.6 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0.1 JPA Aspen Heights Existing - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing Midday 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 425 1 1 360 5 2 0 3 4 1 7 Future Vol, veh/h 3 425 1 1 360 5 2 0 3 4 1 7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 30 0 24 24 0 30 0 0 1 1 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 33 4 100 0 6 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 3 447 1 1 379 5 2 0 3 4 1 7 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 414 0 0 472 0 0 866 894 473 870 892 412 Stage 1 - - - - - - 478 478 - 414 414 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 388 416 - 456 478 - Critical Hdwy 4.43 - - 4.1 - - 8.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 7.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 7.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.497 - - 2.2 - - 4.4 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 997 - - 1100 - - 189 283 595 274 283 644 Stage 1 - - - - - - 421 559 - 620 597 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 478 595 - 588 559 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 969 - - 1075 - - 181 267 581 264 267 626 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 181 267 - 264 267 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 410 544 - 600 579 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 471 577 - 582 544 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 16.9 14.3 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 308 969 - - 1075 - - 399 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 0.003 - - 0.001 - - 0.032 HCM Control Delay (s) 16.9 8.7 0 - 8.4 0 - 14.3 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.1 JPA Aspen Heights Existing - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 4 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing Midday 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 426 3 3 377 6 2 0 3 0 0 1 Future Vol, veh/h 3 426 3 3 377 6 2 0 3 0 0 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 23 0 21 21 0 23 0 0 1 1 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 3 448 3 3 397 6 2 0 3 0 0 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 426 0 0 472 0 0 884 909 472 887 907 423 Stage 1 - - - - - - 477 477 - 429 429 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 407 432 - 458 478 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1144 - - 1100 - - 268 277 596 267 278 635 Stage 1 - - - - - - 573 559 - 608 587 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 625 586 - 587 559 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1119 - - 1078 - - 260 263 584 258 264 621 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 260 263 - 258 264 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 559 546 - 592 572 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 621 571 - 581 546 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 14.4 10.8 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 390 1119 - - 1078 - - 621 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 0.003 - - 0.003 - - 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.4 8.2 0 - 8.3 0 - 10.8 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 JPA Aspen Heights Existing - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 5 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing Midday 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Queues Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 49 273 153 133 256 140 90 137 33 123 45 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.44 0.18 0.31 0.30 0.51 0.31 0.36 0.14 0.44 0.12 Control Delay 23.0 24.9 1.8 17.1 15.8 36.3 31.5 6.3 30.3 35.2 0.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 23.0 24.9 1.8 17.1 15.8 36.3 31.5 6.3 30.3 35.2 0.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 92 0 31 63 58 36 0 13 51 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 53 226 20 97 178 126 86 32 40 111 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 751 428 732 533 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 120 88 355 225 117 125 Base Capacity (vph) 363 627 1100 436 846 601 639 627 534 652 639 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.44 0.14 0.31 0.30 0.23 0.14 0.22 0.06 0.19 0.07 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights Existing - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 6 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing Midday 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 46 257 144 125 216 24 132 85 129 31 116 42 Future Volume (veh/h) 46 257 144 125 216 24 132 85 129 31 116 42 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1796 1841 1856 1856 1811 1589 1856 1870 1885 1663 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 49 273 153 133 230 26 140 90 0 33 123 45 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 7 4 3 3 6 21 3 2 1 16 0 0 Cap, veh/h 470 631 743 421 775 88 235 249 197 236 189 Arrive On Green 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.06 0.49 0.49 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 1071 1841 1556 1767 1597 180 1767 1870 1598 1584 1900 1519 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 273 153 133 0 256 140 90 0 33 123 45 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1071 1841 1556 1767 0 1777 1767 1870 1598 1584 1900 1519 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 8.0 4.0 3.3 0.0 6.1 5.2 3.1 0.0 1.3 4.2 1.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 8.0 4.0 3.3 0.0 6.1 5.2 3.1 0.0 1.3 4.2 1.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 470 631 743 421 0 863 235 249 197 236 189 V/C Ratio(X) 0.10 0.43 0.21 0.32 0.00 0.30 0.60 0.36 0.17 0.52 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 470 631 743 421 0 863 606 641 543 651 521 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.8 17.7 10.7 13.2 0.0 10.8 28.6 27.6 0.0 27.4 28.7 27.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 2.2 0.6 2.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 3.5 1.8 1.4 0.0 2.3 2.2 1.3 0.0 0.5 1.9 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.3 19.9 11.3 15.2 0.0 11.7 29.5 28.0 0.0 27.6 29.4 27.9 LnGrp LOS B B B B A B C C C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 475 389 230 A 201 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.8 12.9 28.9 28.7 Approach LOS B B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 30.0 14.7 40.0 15.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 24.0 24.0 34.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.3 10.0 6.2 8.1 7.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.9 0.5 1.5 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.6 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. JPA Aspen Heights Existing - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 7 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing Midday 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.2 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 12 2 53 22 21 5 157 26 17 150 40 Future Vol, veh/h 20 12 2 53 22 21 5 157 26 17 150 40 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 6 2 15 Mvmt Flow 22 13 2 60 25 24 6 176 29 19 169 45 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.5 9 9.1 9.4 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 3% 59% 55% 8% Vol Thru, % 84% 35% 23% 72% Vol Right, % 14% 6% 22% 19% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 188 34 96 207 LT Vol 5 20 53 17 Through Vol 157 12 22 150 RT Vol 26 2 21 40 Lane Flow Rate 211 38 108 233 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.261 0.054 0.151 0.291 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.455 5.134 5.028 4.509 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 805 695 711 795 Service Time 2.489 3.186 3.073 2.541 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.262 0.055 0.152 0.293 HCM Control Delay 9.1 8.5 9 9.4 HCM Lane LOS A A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 1 0.2 0.5 1.2 JPA Aspen Heights Existing - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 8 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing Midday 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 47 9 7 93 3 2 Future Vol, veh/h 47 9 7 93 3 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 38 38 0 13 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 0 0 3 0 50 Mvmt Flow 52 10 8 102 3 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 100 0 226 96 Stage 1 - - - - 95 - Stage 2 - - - - 131 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.7 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.75 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1505 - 767 844 Stage 1 - - - - 934 - Stage 2 - - - - 900 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1451 - 726 813 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 726 - Stage 1 - - - - 900 - Stage 2 - - - - 884 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 9.8 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 758 - - 1451 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - 0.005 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.8 - - 7.5 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 - JPA Aspen Heights Existing - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 9 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing Midday 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 8 16 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 8 16 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 9 17 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 26 17 17 0 - 0 Stage 1 17 - - - - - Stage 2 9 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 995 1068 1613 - - - Stage 1 1011 - - - - - Stage 2 1019 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 995 1068 1613 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 995 - - - - - Stage 1 1011 - - - - - Stage 2 1019 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1613 - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - JPA Aspen Heights Existing - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 10 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing Midday Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR L TR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 248 74 199 146 65 Average Queue (ft) 113 28 78 60 18 95th Queue (ft) 218 64 156 112 50 Link Distance (ft) 304 532 559 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 6 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 3 Intersection: 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 67 78 27 33 Average Queue (ft) 7 9 2 9 95th Queue (ft) 36 45 14 32 Link Distance (ft) 77 304 320 536 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 68 14 62 35 Average Queue (ft) 3 0 8 12 95th Queue (ft) 32 8 37 36 Link Distance (ft) 174 77 261 281 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights Existing - MID.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing Midday Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 11 46 35 14 Average Queue (ft) 1 3 4 1 95th Queue (ft) 7 22 22 10 Link Distance (ft) 432 174 314 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR L T L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 117 237 120 87 241 153 113 86 157 107 Average Queue (ft) 28 105 45 57 93 72 44 23 68 25 95th Queue (ft) 77 195 118 96 184 127 90 62 121 69 Link Distance (ft) 774 432 770 538 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 120 88 355 117 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 5 0 2 7 0 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 9 1 5 9 0 1 0 Intersection: 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 42 72 103 88 Average Queue (ft) 21 37 54 49 95th Queue (ft) 47 61 85 76 Link Distance (ft) 544 504 452 665 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights Existing - MID.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing Midday Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 6 12 39 Average Queue (ft) 0 1 4 95th Queue (ft) 5 10 24 Link Distance (ft) 504 658 455 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 30 JPA Aspen Heights Existing - MID.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing - PM 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Queues Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 374 111 597 133 72 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.18 0.53 0.56 0.27 Control Delay 13.3 6.2 9.6 39.4 28.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.3 6.2 9.6 39.4 28.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 93 15 119 61 29 Queue Length 95th (ft) 212 47 296 113 63 Internal Link Dist (ft) 301 481 515 490 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 Base Capacity (vph) 841 606 1130 424 479 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.44 0.18 0.53 0.31 0.15 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights Existing - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing - PM 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 21 275 55 104 549 12 43 25 56 9 52 7 Future Volume (veh/h) 21 275 55 104 549 12 43 25 56 9 52 7 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 0.89 0.99 0.91 0.89 0.88 0.91 0.88 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 1885 1870 1781 1870 1900 1841 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 22 293 59 111 584 13 46 27 60 10 55 7 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 1 2 8 2 0 4 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 68 715 138 642 1138 25 149 94 154 77 346 40 Arrive On Green 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.05 0.63 0.63 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 47 1402 271 1795 1818 40 397 399 654 124 1474 172 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 374 0 0 111 0 597 133 0 0 72 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1720 0 0 1795 0 1858 1451 0 0 1769 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 15.3 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.2 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 15.3 6.2 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.06 0.16 1.00 0.02 0.35 0.45 0.14 0.10 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 922 0 0 642 0 1164 397 0 0 463 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.51 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 922 0 0 642 0 1164 458 0 0 537 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.1 0.0 0.0 8.1 0.0 8.9 27.5 0.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 5.7 2.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.4 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 10.5 28.0 0.0 0.0 26.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A A B C A A C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 374 708 133 72 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.4 10.2 28.0 26.4 Approach LOS B B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 50.0 26.2 60.0 26.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 44.0 24.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.4 13.2 4.7 17.3 8.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.5 0.1 4.4 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.2 HCM 6th LOS B JPA Aspen Heights Existing - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing - PM 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 314 1 13 571 4 0 0 8 6 1 15 Future Vol, veh/h 7 314 1 13 571 4 0 0 8 6 1 15 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 42 0 43 43 0 42 0 0 21 21 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Mvmt Flow 8 353 1 15 642 4 0 0 9 7 1 17 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 688 0 0 397 0 0 1096 1131 418 1111 1129 686 Stage 1 - - - - - - 413 413 - 716 716 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 683 718 - 395 413 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.27 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.363 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 916 - - 1173 - - 193 205 639 188 206 439 Stage 1 - - - - - - 620 597 - 424 437 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 442 436 - 634 597 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 879 - - 1125 - - 173 183 601 170 184 421 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 173 183 - 170 184 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 588 566 - 402 411 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 414 410 - 605 566 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0.2 11.1 18.7 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 601 879 - - 1125 - - 288 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 0.009 - - 0.013 - - 0.086 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.1 9.1 0 - 8.2 0 - 18.7 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0.3 JPA Aspen Heights Existing - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing - PM 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 317 1 2 590 2 0 0 1 7 0 7 Future Vol, veh/h 8 317 1 2 590 2 0 0 1 7 0 7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 50 0 66 66 0 50 4 0 2 2 0 4 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 9 348 1 2 648 2 0 0 1 8 0 8 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 700 0 0 415 0 0 1094 1137 417 1072 1136 703 Stage 1 - - - - - - 433 433 - 703 703 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 661 704 - 369 433 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 906 - - 1155 - - 193 203 640 200 204 441 Stage 1 - - - - - - 605 585 - 431 443 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 455 443 - 655 585 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 863 - - 1082 - - 175 178 599 187 179 418 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 175 178 - 187 179 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 560 541 - 405 420 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 444 420 - 644 541 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 11 19.8 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 599 863 - - 1082 - - 258 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 0.01 - - 0.002 - - 0.06 HCM Control Delay (s) 11 9.2 0 - 8.3 0 - 19.8 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0.2 JPA Aspen Heights Existing - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 4 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing - PM 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 311 3 8 609 5 4 0 6 6 1 7 Future Vol, veh/h 9 311 3 8 609 5 4 0 6 6 1 7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 45 0 89 89 0 45 4 0 2 2 0 4 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 10 349 3 9 684 6 4 0 7 7 1 8 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 735 0 0 441 0 0 1174 1213 442 1126 1211 736 Stage 1 - - - - - - 460 460 - 750 750 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 714 753 - 376 461 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 879 - - 1130 - - 170 183 620 184 184 422 Stage 1 - - - - - - 585 569 - 407 422 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 425 420 - 649 569 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 841 - - 1034 - - 148 156 566 170 156 402 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 148 156 - 170 156 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 528 513 - 384 398 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 408 396 - 630 513 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0.1 19.1 21.3 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 266 841 - - 1034 - - 237 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.042 0.012 - - 0.009 - - 0.066 HCM Control Delay (s) 19.1 9.3 0 - 8.5 0 - 21.3 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.2 JPA Aspen Heights Existing - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 5 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing - PM 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Queues Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 158 268 234 379 193 106 111 52 321 52 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.30 0.33 0.55 0.52 0.63 0.34 0.31 0.14 0.80 0.12 Control Delay 28.0 28.8 4.2 27.4 24.5 43.3 34.5 3.7 29.4 48.7 0.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 28.0 28.8 4.2 27.4 24.5 43.3 34.5 3.7 29.4 48.7 0.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 10 67 16 85 149 98 51 0 23 163 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 35 142 50 178 294 174 101 15 57 284 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 751 428 732 533 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 120 88 355 225 117 125 Base Capacity (vph) 288 529 966 426 732 502 524 493 483 534 540 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.30 0.28 0.55 0.52 0.38 0.20 0.23 0.11 0.60 0.10 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights Existing - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 6 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing - PM 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 25 150 255 222 327 33 183 101 105 49 305 49 Future Volume (veh/h) 25 150 255 222 327 33 183 101 105 49 305 49 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 0.97 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.84 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 1885 1870 1678 1870 1856 1900 1811 1885 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 26 158 268 234 344 35 193 106 0 52 321 52 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 1 2 15 2 3 0 6 1 4 Cap, veh/h 308 509 731 359 642 65 340 355 379 414 289 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.05 0.39 0.39 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1002 1870 1557 1795 1666 169 1781 1856 1610 1725 1885 1315 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 26 158 268 234 0 379 193 106 0 52 321 52 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1002 1870 1557 1795 0 1835 1781 1856 1610 1725 1885 1315 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 5.9 9.8 4.0 0.0 14.1 8.7 4.3 0.0 2.1 14.1 2.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.9 5.9 9.8 4.0 0.0 14.1 8.7 4.3 0.0 2.1 14.1 2.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 308 509 731 359 0 707 340 355 379 414 289 V/C Ratio(X) 0.08 0.31 0.37 0.65 0.00 0.54 0.57 0.30 0.14 0.78 0.18 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 308 509 731 359 0 707 485 505 469 513 358 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.2 25.5 15.4 27.3 0.0 21.0 32.4 30.6 0.0 27.7 32.4 28.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 1.6 1.4 8.9 0.0 2.9 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.1 4.5 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 2.8 5.1 3.3 0.0 6.3 3.7 1.9 0.0 0.9 6.9 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.7 27.1 16.8 36.2 0.0 23.9 32.9 30.8 0.0 27.8 36.9 28.1 LnGrp LOS C C B D A C C C C D C Approach Vol, veh/h 452 613 299 A 425 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.0 28.6 32.2 34.7 Approach LOS C C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 30.0 25.4 40.0 22.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 24.0 24.0 34.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 11.8 16.1 16.1 10.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.6 1.0 2.1 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.7 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. JPA Aspen Heights Existing - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 7 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing - PM 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh21.8 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 16 3 128 129 20 6 154 16 61 328 94 Future Vol, veh/h 20 16 3 128 129 20 6 154 16 61 328 94 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 34 1 7 Mvmt Flow 21 17 3 136 137 21 6 164 17 65 349 100 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 10.4 15.1 11.4 30.4 HCM LOS B C B D Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 3% 51% 46% 13% Vol Thru, % 88% 41% 47% 68% Vol Right, % 9% 8% 7% 19% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 176 39 277 483 LT Vol 6 20 128 61 Through Vol 154 16 129 328 RT Vol 16 3 20 94 Lane Flow Rate 187 41 295 514 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.302 0.079 0.497 0.825 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.802 6.859 6.074 5.778 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 616 526 589 627 Service Time 3.879 4.859 4.145 3.834 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.304 0.078 0.501 0.82 HCM Control Delay 11.4 10.4 15.1 30.4 HCM Lane LOS B B C D HCM 95th-tile Q 1.3 0.3 2.8 8.6 JPA Aspen Heights Existing - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 8 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing - PM 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 80 2 5 259 5 10 Future Vol, veh/h 80 2 5 259 5 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 42 42 0 9 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 81 81 81 81 81 81 Heavy Vehicles, % 26 0 0 1 0 0 Mvmt Flow 99 2 6 320 6 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 143 0 483 143 Stage 1 - - - - 142 - Stage 2 - - - - 341 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1452 - 546 910 Stage 1 - - - - 890 - Stage 2 - - - - 725 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1394 - 517 873 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 517 - Stage 1 - - - - 854 - Stage 2 - - - - 715 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 10.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 710 - - 1394 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 - - 0.004 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.2 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - JPA Aspen Heights Existing - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 9 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing - PM 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 10 7 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 10 7 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 11 8 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 19 8 8 0 - 0 Stage 1 8 - - - - - Stage 2 11 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1004 1080 1625 - - - Stage 1 1020 - - - - - Stage 2 1017 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1004 1080 1625 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 1004 - - - - - Stage 1 1020 - - - - - Stage 2 1017 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1625 - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - JPA Aspen Heights Existing - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 10 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing - PM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR L TR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 253 74 354 152 96 Average Queue (ft) 125 41 154 73 40 95th Queue (ft) 225 78 288 128 80 Link Distance (ft) 304 532 559 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 17 Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 18 Intersection: 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 52 159 33 66 Average Queue (ft) 6 34 8 19 95th Queue (ft) 31 161 31 49 Link Distance (ft) 77 304 320 536 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 3 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 80 79 25 42 Average Queue (ft) 7 14 1 14 95th Queue (ft) 40 65 12 41 Link Distance (ft) 174 77 261 281 Upstream Blk Time (%) 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 22 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights Existing - PM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing - PM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 91 157 41 46 Average Queue (ft) 6 41 9 13 95th Queue (ft) 39 149 33 42 Link Distance (ft) 432 174 314 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 25 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR L T L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 90 210 120 87 445 187 133 117 339 125 Average Queue (ft) 18 78 62 83 296 96 58 42 184 46 95th Queue (ft) 56 156 122 99 489 163 112 112 295 125 Link Distance (ft) 774 432 770 538 Upstream Blk Time (%) 7 Queuing Penalty (veh) 43 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 120 88 355 117 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2 0 21 38 0 27 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 5 1 76 85 0 26 1 Intersection: 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 60 165 124 271 Average Queue (ft) 25 67 65 117 95th Queue (ft) 53 121 105 213 Link Distance (ft) 544 504 452 665 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights Existing - PM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2021 Existing - PM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive Movement WB NB Directions Served LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 18 35 Average Queue (ft) 1 13 95th Queue (ft) 9 37 Link Distance (ft) 658 455 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 311 JPA Aspen Heights Existing - PM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/11/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville Appendix D Synchro/SimTraffic Outputs for 2023/2028 Background Conditions Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background AM 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Queues Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 519 33 260 192 27 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.06 0.24 0.66 0.09 Control Delay 17.1 6.4 7.1 41.9 24.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.1 6.4 7.1 41.9 24.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 164 5 46 92 10 Queue Length 95th (ft) 321 18 105 157 31 Internal Link Dist (ft) 301 481 515 490 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 Base Capacity (vph) 882 515 1064 447 469 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 0.06 0.24 0.43 0.06 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background AM 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 453 32 31 244 3 65 45 73 4 19 3 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 453 32 31 244 3 65 45 73 4 19 3 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.96 0.91 1.00 0.93 0.96 0.93 0.97 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1707 1870 1811 1856 1811 1900 1870 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 477 34 33 257 3 68 47 77 4 20 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 13 2 6 3 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 49 915 64 572 1179 14 143 96 120 74 284 39 Arrive On Green 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.05 0.66 0.66 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 8 1700 120 1767 1785 21 431 499 623 123 1476 200 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 519 0 0 33 0 260 192 0 0 27 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1829 0 0 1767 0 1806 1554 0 0 1798 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.7 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.9 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.7 9.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.02 0.07 1.00 0.01 0.35 0.40 0.15 0.11 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1029 0 0 572 0 1192 359 0 0 397 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.22 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1029 0 0 572 0 1192 512 0 0 571 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.2 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 5.5 30.2 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.5 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 13.9 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 5.9 31.4 0.0 0.0 27.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A A A C A A C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 519 293 192 27 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.9 6.0 31.4 27.1 Approach LOS B A C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 50.0 21.8 60.0 21.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 44.0 24.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 16.9 3.0 6.7 11.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.5 0.0 1.6 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.3 HCM 6th LOS B JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background AM 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 481 1 4 288 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 Future Vol, veh/h 9 481 1 4 288 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 58 0 19 19 0 58 0 0 16 16 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 10 517 1 4 310 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 371 0 0 537 0 0 878 936 553 932 935 370 Stage 1 - - - - - - 557 557 - 378 378 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 321 379 - 554 557 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1199 - - 1041 - - 271 267 537 249 267 680 Stage 1 - - - - - - 518 515 - 648 619 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 695 618 - 520 515 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1133 - - 1022 - - 262 244 519 228 244 642 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 262 244 - 228 244 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 502 500 - 605 582 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 689 581 - 505 500 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0.1 15.4 15.9 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 348 1133 - - 1022 - - 336 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 0.009 - - 0.004 - - 0.013 HCM Control Delay (s) 15.4 8.2 0 - 8.5 0 - 15.9 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background AM 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 485 2 2 292 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 5 485 2 2 292 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 44 0 27 27 0 44 2 0 2 2 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 20 3 100 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 5 527 2 2 317 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 363 0 0 556 0 0 889 932 557 907 932 364 Stage 1 - - - - - - 565 565 - 366 366 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 324 367 - 541 566 - Critical Hdwy 4.3 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.38 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1103 - - 1025 - - 266 269 534 259 269 685 Stage 1 - - - - - - 513 511 - 657 626 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 692 626 - 529 511 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1057 - - 999 - - 257 249 519 246 249 655 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 257 249 - 246 249 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 496 494 - 625 598 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 689 598 - 523 494 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 12 0 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 519 1057 - - 999 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 0.005 - - 0.002 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 12 8.4 0 - 8.6 0 - 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - - JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 4 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background AM 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 504 0 4 279 1 1 0 3 2 0 3 Future Vol, veh/h 6 504 0 4 279 1 1 0 3 2 0 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 57 0 32 32 0 57 2 0 1 1 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 0 25 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 7 548 0 4 303 1 1 0 3 2 0 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 361 0 0 580 0 0 909 963 581 934 963 363 Stage 1 - - - - - - 594 594 - 369 369 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 315 369 - 565 594 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.35 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.425 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1209 - - 890 - - 258 258 517 248 258 686 Stage 1 - - - - - - 495 496 - 655 624 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 700 624 - 513 496 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1143 - - 863 - - 246 233 501 230 233 648 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 246 233 - 230 233 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 476 477 - 614 587 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 691 587 - 505 477 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 14.1 14.7 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 398 1143 - - 863 - - 375 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 0.006 - - 0.005 - - 0.014 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.1 8.2 0 - 9.2 0 - 14.7 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 5 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background AM 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Queues Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 320 149 58 258 337 253 193 22 53 15 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.50 0.15 0.16 0.33 0.77 0.55 0.38 0.12 0.24 0.05 Control Delay 26.8 29.1 1.5 18.4 19.0 41.9 32.5 6.9 34.0 36.0 0.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.8 29.1 1.5 18.4 19.0 41.9 32.5 6.9 34.0 36.0 0.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 136 0 17 83 153 108 0 10 26 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 77 276 19 52 187 #320 216 53 31 59 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 751 428 732 533 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 120 88 355 225 117 125 Base Capacity (vph) 382 641 1047 358 785 559 582 587 491 571 528 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.50 0.14 0.16 0.33 0.60 0.43 0.33 0.04 0.09 0.03 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 6 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background AM 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 68 294 137 53 215 22 310 233 178 20 49 14 Future Volume (veh/h) 68 294 137 53 215 22 310 233 178 20 49 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1885 1870 1841 1559 1885 1870 1885 1678 1841 1693 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 74 320 149 58 234 24 337 253 0 22 53 15 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 1 2 4 23 1 2 1 15 4 14 Cap, veh/h 438 586 848 315 699 72 408 425 190 219 150 Arrive On Green 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.04 0.43 0.43 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 1099 1856 1535 1781 1636 168 1795 1870 1598 1598 1841 1258 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 74 320 149 58 0 258 337 253 0 22 53 15 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1099 1856 1535 1781 0 1803 1795 1870 1598 1598 1841 1258 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 11.3 3.9 1.7 0.0 7.6 14.2 9.6 0.0 1.0 2.1 0.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 11.3 3.9 1.7 0.0 7.6 14.2 9.6 0.0 1.0 2.1 0.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 438 586 848 315 0 771 408 425 190 219 150 V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.55 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.33 0.83 0.60 0.12 0.24 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 438 586 848 339 0 771 542 564 482 555 379 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.0 22.5 9.2 17.1 0.0 15.2 29.2 27.5 0.0 31.3 31.8 31.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 3.6 0.5 0.1 0.0 1.2 5.9 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 5.2 2.1 0.6 0.0 3.1 6.6 4.2 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.8 26.1 9.6 17.2 0.0 16.4 35.1 28.0 0.0 31.4 32.0 31.4 LnGrp LOS C C A B A B D C C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 543 316 590 A 90 Approach Delay, s/veh 20.9 16.5 32.1 31.7 Approach LOS C B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 31.1 15.5 40.0 24.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 24.0 24.0 34.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.7 13.3 4.1 9.6 16.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.0 0.2 1.4 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.9 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 7 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background AM 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh11.8 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 111 70 6 18 9 31 2 305 49 26 71 29 Future Vol, veh/h 111 70 6 18 9 31 2 305 49 26 71 29 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 22 11 0 0 3 0 54 4 21 Mvmt Flow 121 76 7 20 10 34 2 332 53 28 77 32 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 11 9.4 13 10.8 HCM LOS B A B B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 1% 59% 31% 21% Vol Thru, % 86% 37% 16% 56% Vol Right, % 14% 3% 53% 23% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 356 187 58 126 LT Vol 2 111 18 26 Through Vol 305 70 9 71 RT Vol 49 6 31 29 Lane Flow Rate 387 203 63 137 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.52 0.31 0.101 0.229 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.84 5.485 5.761 6.029 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 751 657 622 596 Service Time 2.84 3.515 3.798 4.058 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.515 0.309 0.101 0.23 HCM Control Delay 13 11 9.4 10.8 HCM Lane LOS B B A B HCM 95th-tile Q 3 1.3 0.3 0.9 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 8 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background AM 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 144 3 1 50 1 4 Future Vol, veh/h 144 3 1 50 1 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 13 13 0 4 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 10 0 0 8 0 0 Mvmt Flow 157 3 1 54 1 4 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 173 0 232 173 Stage 1 - - - - 172 - Stage 2 - - - - 60 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1416 - 761 876 Stage 1 - - - - 863 - Stage 2 - - - - 968 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1398 - 748 864 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 748 - Stage 1 - - - - 853 - Stage 2 - - - - 963 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 9.3 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 838 - - 1398 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - 0.001 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.3 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 - JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 9 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background AM 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 8 4 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 8 4 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 9 4 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 13 4 4 0 - 0 Stage 1 4 - - - - - Stage 2 9 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1011 1085 1631 - - - Stage 1 1024 - - - - - Stage 2 1019 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1011 1085 1631 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 1011 - - - - - Stage 1 1024 - - - - - Stage 2 1019 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1631 - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 10 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background AM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR L TR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 293 61 144 200 63 Average Queue (ft) 142 15 54 98 19 95th Queue (ft) 264 44 113 169 51 Link Distance (ft) 304 532 559 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 Intersection: 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 73 37 21 33 Average Queue (ft) 9 3 2 3 95th Queue (ft) 41 25 15 19 Link Distance (ft) 77 304 320 536 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 93 35 22 Average Queue (ft) 7 2 2 95th Queue (ft) 50 15 12 Link Distance (ft) 174 77 261 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - AM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background AM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 37 26 30 31 Average Queue (ft) 3 2 4 5 95th Queue (ft) 18 15 20 23 Link Distance (ft) 432 174 314 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 143 306 120 87 203 269 225 156 65 96 67 Average Queue (ft) 43 128 42 40 93 147 114 8 15 37 13 95th Queue (ft) 105 256 117 86 170 230 192 76 45 79 45 Link Distance (ft) 774 432 770 538 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 120 88 355 225 117 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 9 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 18 1 0 4 2 0 0 0 Intersection: 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 97 78 222 105 Average Queue (ft) 48 33 108 48 95th Queue (ft) 78 63 186 86 Link Distance (ft) 544 504 452 665 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - AM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background AM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 3 8 30 Average Queue (ft) 0 0 4 95th Queue (ft) 3 6 20 Link Distance (ft) 504 658 455 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 30 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - AM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background Midday 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Queues Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 484 59 380 106 30 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.10 0.32 0.49 0.12 Control Delay 11.6 5.2 6.1 37.7 25.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 11.6 5.2 6.1 37.7 25.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 127 7 58 48 11 Queue Length 95th (ft) 274 25 147 93 32 Internal Link Dist (ft) 301 481 515 490 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 Base Capacity (vph) 1084 610 1198 443 498 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.45 0.10 0.32 0.24 0.06 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background Midday 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 408 33 54 343 6 38 22 38 2 21 5 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 408 33 54 343 6 38 22 38 2 21 5 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.97 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.89 0.86 0.91 0.86 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1841 1856 1841 1811 1900 1826 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5 443 36 59 373 7 41 24 41 2 23 5 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 3 4 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 47 909 73 573 1160 22 148 90 112 53 287 59 Arrive On Green 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.04 0.66 0.66 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 4 1662 134 1753 1769 33 441 452 563 30 1447 295 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 484 0 0 59 0 380 106 0 0 30 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1800 0 0 1753 0 1802 1456 0 0 1772 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 7.6 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 13.7 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 7.6 4.8 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.01 0.07 1.00 0.02 0.39 0.39 0.07 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1029 0 0 573 0 1182 350 0 0 398 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.32 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1029 0 0 595 0 1182 481 0 0 559 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.5 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 6.2 28.3 0.0 0.0 26.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.9 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 6.9 28.8 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A A A C A A C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 484 439 106 30 Approach Delay, s/veh 11.9 6.9 28.8 27.0 Approach LOS B A C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 51.0 22.3 60.0 22.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 44.0 24.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 15.7 3.1 9.6 6.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.2 0.0 2.5 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.9 HCM 6th LOS B JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background Midday 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 421 3 8 352 1 1 0 1 2 0 8 Future Vol, veh/h 6 421 3 8 352 1 1 0 1 2 0 8 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 22 0 25 25 0 22 0 0 22 22 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 6 453 3 9 378 1 1 0 1 2 0 9 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 401 0 0 481 0 0 893 911 502 908 912 401 Stage 1 - - - - - - 492 492 - 419 419 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 401 419 - 489 493 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1169 - - 1092 - - 264 276 573 258 276 653 Stage 1 - - - - - - 562 551 - 616 593 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 630 593 - 564 550 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1145 - - 1066 - - 251 259 548 244 259 639 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 251 259 - 244 259 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 545 534 - 599 574 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 615 574 - 547 533 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.2 15.5 12.6 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 344 1145 - - 1066 - - 483 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 0.006 - - 0.008 - - 0.022 HCM Control Delay (s) 15.5 8.2 0 - 8.4 0 - 12.6 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0.1 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background Midday 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 427 1 1 361 5 2 0 3 4 1 7 Future Vol, veh/h 3 427 1 1 361 5 2 0 3 4 1 7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 31 0 25 25 0 31 0 0 1 1 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 33 4 100 0 6 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 3 449 1 1 380 5 2 0 3 4 1 7 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 416 0 0 475 0 0 870 899 476 874 897 414 Stage 1 - - - - - - 481 481 - 416 416 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 389 418 - 458 481 - Critical Hdwy 4.43 - - 4.1 - - 8.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 7.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 7.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.497 - - 2.2 - - 4.4 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 995 - - 1098 - - 188 281 593 272 281 643 Stage 1 - - - - - - 419 557 - 618 595 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 477 594 - 587 557 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 966 - - 1072 - - 180 265 578 261 265 624 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 180 265 - 261 265 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 407 541 - 598 577 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 470 576 - 581 541 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 16.9 14.4 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 307 966 - - 1072 - - 396 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 0.003 - - 0.001 - - 0.032 HCM Control Delay (s) 16.9 8.7 0 - 8.4 0 - 14.4 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.1 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 4 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background Midday 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 428 3 3 379 6 2 0 3 0 0 1 Future Vol, veh/h 3 428 3 3 379 6 2 0 3 0 0 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 23 0 21 21 0 23 0 0 1 1 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 3 451 3 3 399 6 2 0 3 0 0 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 428 0 0 475 0 0 889 914 475 892 912 425 Stage 1 - - - - - - 480 480 - 431 431 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 409 434 - 461 481 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1142 - - 1098 - - 266 275 594 265 276 634 Stage 1 - - - - - - 571 558 - 607 586 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 623 585 - 584 557 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1117 - - 1076 - - 259 262 582 256 262 620 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 259 262 - 256 262 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 557 545 - 591 571 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 619 570 - 578 544 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 14.4 10.8 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 388 1117 - - 1076 - - 620 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 0.003 - - 0.003 - - 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.4 8.2 0 - 8.4 0 - 10.8 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 5 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background Midday 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Queues Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 49 274 154 134 257 141 90 138 33 123 45 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.44 0.18 0.31 0.30 0.51 0.31 0.37 0.14 0.44 0.12 Control Delay 23.0 24.9 1.8 17.2 15.8 36.3 31.5 6.5 30.3 35.2 0.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 23.0 24.9 1.8 17.2 15.8 36.3 31.5 6.5 30.3 35.2 0.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 92 0 31 64 59 36 0 13 51 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 53 227 20 98 178 127 86 33 40 111 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 751 428 732 533 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 120 88 355 225 117 125 Base Capacity (vph) 362 627 1099 434 846 601 639 620 534 652 637 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.44 0.14 0.31 0.30 0.23 0.14 0.22 0.06 0.19 0.07 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 6 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background Midday 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 46 258 145 126 217 24 133 85 130 31 116 42 Future Volume (veh/h) 46 258 145 126 217 24 133 85 130 31 116 42 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1796 1841 1856 1856 1811 1589 1856 1870 1885 1663 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 49 274 154 134 231 26 141 90 0 33 123 45 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 7 4 3 3 6 21 3 2 1 16 0 0 Cap, veh/h 470 631 732 420 775 87 236 250 197 236 184 Arrive On Green 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.06 0.49 0.49 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 1070 1841 1524 1767 1597 180 1767 1870 1598 1584 1900 1480 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 274 154 134 0 257 141 90 0 33 123 45 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1070 1841 1524 1767 0 1777 1767 1870 1598 1584 1900 1480 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 8.1 4.1 3.3 0.0 6.1 5.3 3.1 0.0 1.3 4.2 1.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 8.1 4.1 3.3 0.0 6.1 5.3 3.1 0.0 1.3 4.2 1.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 470 631 732 420 0 863 236 250 197 236 184 V/C Ratio(X) 0.10 0.43 0.21 0.32 0.00 0.30 0.60 0.36 0.17 0.52 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 470 631 732 420 0 863 606 641 543 651 507 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.9 17.8 10.7 13.2 0.0 10.8 28.6 27.6 0.0 27.4 28.7 27.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 2.2 0.7 2.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 3.5 1.8 1.4 0.0 2.3 2.2 1.3 0.0 0.5 1.9 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.3 20.0 11.3 15.2 0.0 11.7 29.5 28.0 0.0 27.6 29.4 28.0 LnGrp LOS B B B B A B C C C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 477 391 231 A 201 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.8 12.9 28.9 28.8 Approach LOS B B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 30.0 14.7 40.0 15.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 24.0 24.0 34.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.3 10.1 6.2 8.1 7.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.0 0.5 1.5 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.6 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 7 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background Midday 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.1 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 12 2 53 22 21 5 158 26 17 151 40 Future Vol, veh/h 20 12 2 53 22 21 5 158 26 17 151 40 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 6 2 15 Mvmt Flow 22 13 2 58 24 23 5 172 28 18 164 43 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.4 8.9 9 9.3 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 3% 59% 55% 8% Vol Thru, % 84% 35% 23% 73% Vol Right, % 14% 6% 22% 19% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 189 34 96 208 LT Vol 5 20 53 17 Through Vol 158 12 22 151 RT Vol 26 2 21 40 Lane Flow Rate 205 37 104 226 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.253 0.052 0.145 0.282 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.432 5.097 4.997 4.486 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 809 700 716 800 Service Time 2.464 3.147 3.04 2.518 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.253 0.053 0.145 0.282 HCM Control Delay 9 8.4 8.9 9.3 HCM Lane LOS A A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 1 0.2 0.5 1.2 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 8 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background Midday 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 47 9 7 93 3 2 Future Vol, veh/h 47 9 7 93 3 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 39 39 0 13 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 0 0 3 0 50 Mvmt Flow 52 10 8 102 3 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 101 0 227 97 Stage 1 - - - - 96 - Stage 2 - - - - 131 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.7 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.75 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1504 - 766 843 Stage 1 - - - - 933 - Stage 2 - - - - 900 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1448 - 725 811 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 725 - Stage 1 - - - - 898 - Stage 2 - - - - 884 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 9.8 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 757 - - 1448 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - 0.005 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.8 - - 7.5 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 - JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 9 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background Midday 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 8 16 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 8 16 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 9 17 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 26 17 17 0 - 0 Stage 1 17 - - - - - Stage 2 9 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 995 1068 1613 - - - Stage 1 1011 - - - - - Stage 2 1019 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 995 1068 1613 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 995 - - - - - Stage 1 1011 - - - - - Stage 2 1019 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1613 - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 10 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background Midday Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR L TR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 284 68 207 133 53 Average Queue (ft) 121 25 76 61 18 95th Queue (ft) 243 59 153 112 48 Link Distance (ft) 304 532 559 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 7 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 4 Intersection: 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 63 82 21 35 Average Queue (ft) 8 6 2 8 95th Queue (ft) 39 36 14 31 Link Distance (ft) 77 304 320 536 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 32 11 55 38 Average Queue (ft) 2 1 7 10 95th Queue (ft) 15 9 34 34 Link Distance (ft) 174 77 261 281 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - MID.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background Midday Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 29 51 33 9 Average Queue (ft) 1 2 5 0 95th Queue (ft) 19 24 24 6 Link Distance (ft) 432 174 314 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR L T L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 141 282 120 87 256 145 105 95 174 92 Average Queue (ft) 34 114 48 58 102 71 47 26 70 28 95th Queue (ft) 93 218 122 99 209 122 90 71 133 71 Link Distance (ft) 774 432 770 538 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 120 88 355 117 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 6 0 2 7 0 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 11 1 5 9 0 1 0 Intersection: 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 49 73 120 119 Average Queue (ft) 22 38 57 54 95th Queue (ft) 46 63 93 93 Link Distance (ft) 544 504 452 665 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - MID.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background Midday Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 6 15 46 Average Queue (ft) 0 0 6 95th Queue (ft) 5 6 29 Link Distance (ft) 504 658 455 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 35 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - MID.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background PM 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Queues Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 375 111 599 133 72 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.18 0.53 0.56 0.27 Control Delay 13.3 6.2 9.6 39.5 28.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.3 6.2 9.6 39.5 28.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 94 15 119 61 29 Queue Length 95th (ft) 212 47 298 114 63 Internal Link Dist (ft) 301 481 515 490 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 Base Capacity (vph) 841 604 1130 423 478 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.45 0.18 0.53 0.31 0.15 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background PM 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 21 276 55 104 551 12 43 25 56 9 52 7 Future Volume (veh/h) 21 276 55 104 551 12 43 25 56 9 52 7 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 0.90 0.99 0.90 0.89 0.85 0.91 0.84 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 1885 1870 1781 1870 1900 1841 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 22 294 59 111 586 13 46 27 60 10 55 7 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 1 2 8 2 0 4 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 68 715 138 640 1137 25 149 93 152 77 346 40 Arrive On Green 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.05 0.63 0.63 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 47 1404 271 1795 1818 40 392 393 646 124 1466 171 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 375 0 0 111 0 599 133 0 0 72 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1722 0 0 1795 0 1858 1432 0 0 1761 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 15.4 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.3 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 15.4 6.3 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.06 0.16 1.00 0.02 0.35 0.45 0.14 0.10 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 922 0 0 640 0 1162 394 0 0 463 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.52 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 922 0 0 640 0 1162 452 0 0 534 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.2 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 8.9 27.5 0.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 5.7 2.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.5 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 10.6 28.0 0.0 0.0 26.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A A B C A A C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 375 710 133 72 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.5 10.3 28.0 26.4 Approach LOS B B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 50.0 26.4 60.0 26.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 44.0 24.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.4 13.3 4.7 17.4 8.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.5 0.1 4.4 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.2 HCM 6th LOS B JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background PM 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 315 1 13 573 4 0 0 8 6 1 15 Future Vol, veh/h 7 315 1 13 573 4 0 0 8 6 1 15 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 43 0 44 44 0 43 0 0 21 21 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Mvmt Flow 8 342 1 14 623 4 0 0 9 7 1 16 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 670 0 0 387 0 0 1065 1101 408 1080 1099 668 Stage 1 - - - - - - 403 403 - 696 696 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 662 698 - 384 403 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.27 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.363 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 930 - - 1183 - - 202 214 648 197 214 450 Stage 1 - - - - - - 628 603 - 435 446 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 454 445 - 643 603 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 892 - - 1133 - - 181 191 608 178 191 432 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 181 191 - 178 191 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 595 571 - 412 420 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 427 419 - 614 571 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0.2 11 18.1 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 608 892 - - 1133 - - 299 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 0.009 - - 0.012 - - 0.08 HCM Control Delay (s) 11 9.1 0 - 8.2 0 - 18.1 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0.3 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background PM 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 318 1 2 592 2 0 0 1 7 0 7 Future Vol, veh/h 8 318 1 2 592 2 0 0 1 7 0 7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 51 0 67 67 0 51 4 0 2 2 0 4 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 9 346 1 2 643 2 0 0 1 8 0 8 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 696 0 0 414 0 0 1088 1132 416 1066 1131 699 Stage 1 - - - - - - 432 432 - 699 699 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 656 700 - 367 432 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 909 - - 1156 - - 195 205 641 202 205 443 Stage 1 - - - - - - 606 586 - 434 445 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 458 444 - 657 586 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 865 - - 1082 - - 176 180 599 189 180 420 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 176 180 - 189 180 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 560 541 - 408 422 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 447 421 - 646 541 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 11 19.6 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 599 865 - - 1082 - - 261 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 0.01 - - 0.002 - - 0.058 HCM Control Delay (s) 11 9.2 0 - 8.3 0 - 19.6 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0.2 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 4 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background PM 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 312 3 8 611 5 4 0 6 6 1 7 Future Vol, veh/h 9 312 3 8 611 5 4 0 6 6 1 7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 46 0 91 91 0 46 4 0 2 2 0 4 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 10 339 3 9 664 5 4 0 7 7 1 8 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 715 0 0 433 0 0 1145 1185 434 1097 1184 717 Stage 1 - - - - - - 452 452 - 731 731 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 693 733 - 366 453 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 895 - - 1137 - - 178 191 626 192 191 433 Stage 1 - - - - - - 591 574 - 416 430 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 437 429 - 657 573 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 856 - - 1038 - - 155 162 571 177 162 412 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 155 162 - 177 162 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 532 517 - 392 405 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 420 405 - 639 516 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0.1 18.6 20.7 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 275 856 - - 1038 - - 245 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.04 0.011 - - 0.008 - - 0.062 HCM Control Delay (s) 18.6 9.3 0 - 8.5 0 - 20.7 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.2 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 5 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background PM 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Queues Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 159 269 235 380 194 106 111 52 322 52 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.30 0.34 0.55 0.52 0.64 0.34 0.31 0.14 0.80 0.12 Control Delay 28.2 29.0 4.3 27.7 24.7 43.7 34.7 3.8 29.3 48.1 0.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 28.2 29.0 4.3 27.7 24.7 43.7 34.7 3.8 29.3 48.1 0.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 10 67 17 86 150 98 51 0 23 164 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 35 143 50 179 295 175 101 15 57 285 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 751 428 732 533 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 120 88 355 225 117 125 Base Capacity (vph) 287 528 963 425 730 501 523 490 482 533 533 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.30 0.28 0.55 0.52 0.39 0.20 0.23 0.11 0.60 0.10 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 6 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background PM 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 25 151 256 223 328 33 184 101 105 49 306 49 Future Volume (veh/h) 25 151 256 223 328 33 184 101 105 49 306 49 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 0.94 0.99 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 1885 1870 1678 1870 1856 1900 1811 1885 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 26 159 269 235 345 35 194 106 0 52 322 52 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 1 2 15 2 3 0 6 1 4 Cap, veh/h 305 508 721 358 640 65 342 356 379 414 278 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.05 0.38 0.38 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 1002 1870 1519 1795 1662 169 1781 1856 1610 1725 1885 1265 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 26 159 269 235 0 380 194 106 0 52 322 52 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1002 1870 1519 1795 0 1831 1781 1856 1610 1725 1885 1265 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 6.0 10.2 4.0 0.0 14.2 8.7 4.3 0.0 2.1 14.2 3.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 6.0 10.2 4.0 0.0 14.2 8.7 4.3 0.0 2.1 14.2 3.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 305 508 721 358 0 704 342 356 379 414 278 V/C Ratio(X) 0.09 0.31 0.37 0.66 0.00 0.54 0.57 0.30 0.14 0.78 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 305 508 721 358 0 704 484 504 469 512 344 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.3 25.6 15.5 27.5 0.0 21.1 32.4 30.6 0.0 27.7 32.4 28.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 1.6 1.5 9.1 0.0 3.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.1 4.6 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 2.8 5.1 3.4 0.0 6.3 3.7 1.9 0.0 0.9 6.9 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.9 27.2 16.9 36.6 0.0 24.0 32.9 30.8 0.0 27.8 37.0 28.2 LnGrp LOS C C B D A C C C C D C Approach Vol, veh/h 454 615 300 A 426 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.2 28.8 32.2 34.8 Approach LOS C C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 30.0 25.4 40.0 22.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 24.0 24.0 34.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 12.2 16.2 16.2 10.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.6 1.0 2.1 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.9 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 7 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background PM 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 22 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 16 3 129 130 20 6 155 16 61 329 94 Future Vol, veh/h 20 16 3 129 130 20 6 155 16 61 329 94 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 34 1 7 Mvmt Flow 21 17 3 137 138 21 6 165 17 65 350 100 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 10.5 15.2 11.4 30.8 HCM LOS B C B D Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 3% 51% 46% 13% Vol Thru, % 88% 41% 47% 68% Vol Right, % 9% 8% 7% 19% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 177 39 279 484 LT Vol 6 20 129 61 Through Vol 155 16 130 329 RT Vol 16 3 20 94 Lane Flow Rate 188 41 297 515 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.304 0.079 0.502 0.828 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.817 6.877 6.085 5.79 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 614 524 591 623 Service Time 3.894 4.877 4.154 3.847 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.306 0.078 0.503 0.827 HCM Control Delay 11.4 10.5 15.2 30.8 HCM Lane LOS B B C D HCM 95th-tile Q 1.3 0.3 2.8 8.7 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 8 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background PM 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 80 2 5 260 5 10 Future Vol, veh/h 80 2 5 260 5 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 42 42 0 9 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 26 0 0 1 0 0 Mvmt Flow 87 2 5 283 5 11 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 131 0 432 131 Stage 1 - - - - 130 - Stage 2 - - - - 302 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1467 - 584 924 Stage 1 - - - - 901 - Stage 2 - - - - 755 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1408 - 554 886 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 554 - Stage 1 - - - - 865 - Stage 2 - - - - 745 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 10 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 738 - - 1408 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 - - 0.004 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 9 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background PM 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 10 7 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 10 7 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 11 8 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 19 8 8 0 - 0 Stage 1 8 - - - - - Stage 2 11 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1004 1080 1625 - - - Stage 1 1020 - - - - - Stage 2 1017 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1004 1080 1625 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 1004 - - - - - Stage 1 1020 - - - - - Stage 2 1017 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1625 - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 10 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background PM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR L TR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 261 74 326 159 111 Average Queue (ft) 123 45 154 75 40 95th Queue (ft) 228 80 273 133 84 Link Distance (ft) 304 532 559 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 18 Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 19 Intersection: 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 62 199 33 55 Average Queue (ft) 8 29 7 19 95th Queue (ft) 39 130 28 47 Link Distance (ft) 77 304 320 536 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 119 78 19 44 Average Queue (ft) 12 13 1 12 95th Queue (ft) 59 60 10 38 Link Distance (ft) 174 77 261 281 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 13 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - PM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background PM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 77 166 46 42 Average Queue (ft) 7 41 11 11 95th Queue (ft) 38 152 47 35 Link Distance (ft) 432 174 314 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 19 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR L T L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 80 198 120 88 442 190 129 117 350 125 Average Queue (ft) 19 76 59 81 298 98 58 44 191 54 95th Queue (ft) 52 155 116 102 491 164 110 115 305 139 Link Distance (ft) 774 432 770 538 Upstream Blk Time (%) 6 Queuing Penalty (veh) 40 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 120 88 355 117 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2 0 20 37 0 28 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 6 1 72 82 1 28 1 Intersection: 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 59 133 135 294 Average Queue (ft) 25 70 66 131 95th Queue (ft) 52 113 109 245 Link Distance (ft) 544 504 452 665 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - PM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background PM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 11 20 40 Average Queue (ft) 0 1 13 95th Queue (ft) 6 13 38 Link Distance (ft) 504 658 455 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 288 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Background - PM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background AM 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Queues Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 523 33 262 195 27 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.06 0.25 0.67 0.09 Control Delay 17.3 6.4 7.2 42.2 24.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.3 6.4 7.2 42.2 24.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 167 5 47 93 10 Queue Length 95th (ft) 325 18 106 160 31 Internal Link Dist (ft) 301 481 515 490 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 Base Capacity (vph) 881 512 1063 446 469 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 0.06 0.25 0.44 0.06 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background AM 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 457 32 31 246 3 66 46 74 4 19 3 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 457 32 31 246 3 66 46 74 4 19 3 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.96 0.91 1.00 0.93 0.96 0.93 0.97 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1707 1870 1811 1856 1811 1900 1870 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 481 34 33 259 3 69 48 78 4 20 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 13 2 6 3 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 49 914 64 568 1177 14 143 97 121 74 286 39 Arrive On Green 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.05 0.66 0.66 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 8 1701 119 1767 1785 21 433 500 622 124 1476 200 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 523 0 0 33 0 262 195 0 0 27 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1828 0 0 1767 0 1806 1554 0 0 1799 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.7 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.1 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.7 9.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.02 0.07 1.00 0.01 0.35 0.40 0.15 0.11 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1027 0 0 568 0 1191 361 0 0 399 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.22 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1027 0 0 568 0 1191 511 0 0 570 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.3 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 5.6 30.2 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.1 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 6.0 31.5 0.0 0.0 27.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A A A C A A C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 523 295 195 27 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.1 6.0 31.5 27.1 Approach LOS B A C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 50.0 21.9 60.0 21.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 44.0 24.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 17.1 3.0 6.7 11.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.5 0.0 1.6 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.4 HCM 6th LOS B JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background AM 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 486 1 4 291 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 Future Vol, veh/h 9 486 1 4 291 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 61 0 20 20 0 61 0 0 17 17 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 10 523 1 4 313 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 377 0 0 544 0 0 888 949 561 945 948 376 Stage 1 - - - - - - 564 564 - 384 384 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 324 385 - 561 564 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1193 - - 1035 - - 267 262 531 244 263 675 Stage 1 - - - - - - 514 512 - 643 615 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 692 614 - 516 512 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1124 - - 1015 - - 257 238 512 223 239 636 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 257 238 - 223 239 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 498 496 - 598 576 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 686 575 - 500 496 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 15.6 16.1 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 342 1124 - - 1015 - - 330 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 0.009 - - 0.004 - - 0.013 HCM Control Delay (s) 15.6 8.2 0 - 8.6 0 - 16.1 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background AM 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 490 2 2 295 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 5 490 2 2 295 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 46 0 27 27 0 46 2 0 2 2 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 20 3 100 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 5 533 2 2 321 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 369 0 0 562 0 0 899 944 563 919 944 370 Stage 1 - - - - - - 571 571 - 372 372 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 328 373 - 547 572 - Critical Hdwy 4.3 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.38 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1097 - - 1019 - - 262 264 530 254 264 680 Stage 1 - - - - - - 509 508 - 653 622 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 689 622 - 525 508 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1049 - - 993 - - 253 244 515 240 244 649 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 253 244 - 240 244 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 492 491 - 620 593 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 686 593 - 519 491 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 12 0 HCM LOS B A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 515 1049 - - 993 - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 0.005 - - 0.002 - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 12 8.4 0 - 8.6 0 - 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - - JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 4 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background AM 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 509 0 4 282 1 1 0 3 2 0 3 Future Vol, veh/h 6 509 0 4 282 1 1 0 3 2 0 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 60 0 34 34 0 60 2 0 1 1 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 0 25 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 7 553 0 4 307 1 1 0 3 2 0 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 368 0 0 587 0 0 920 977 588 946 977 370 Stage 1 - - - - - - 601 601 - 376 376 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 319 376 - 570 601 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.35 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.425 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1202 - - 884 - - 254 253 513 243 253 680 Stage 1 - - - - - - 491 493 - 649 620 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 697 620 - 510 493 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1133 - - 855 - - 241 227 496 225 227 640 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 241 227 - 225 227 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 471 473 - 606 581 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 688 581 - 502 473 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 14.3 14.9 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 392 1133 - - 855 - - 368 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 0.006 - - 0.005 - - 0.015 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.3 8.2 0 - 9.2 0 - 14.9 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 5 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background AM 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Queues Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 75 323 150 59 260 340 255 195 22 54 15 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.50 0.15 0.17 0.33 0.77 0.56 0.39 0.12 0.24 0.05 Control Delay 26.9 29.2 1.6 18.5 19.1 42.1 32.5 6.9 34.1 36.1 0.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.9 29.2 1.6 18.5 19.1 42.1 32.5 6.9 34.1 36.1 0.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 138 0 17 84 155 109 0 11 26 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 78 280 19 52 188 #326 218 54 31 60 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 751 428 732 533 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 120 88 355 225 117 125 Base Capacity (vph) 381 640 1046 354 785 558 581 585 490 570 526 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.50 0.14 0.17 0.33 0.61 0.44 0.33 0.04 0.09 0.03 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 6 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background AM 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 69 297 138 54 217 22 313 235 179 20 50 14 Future Volume (veh/h) 69 297 138 54 217 22 313 235 179 20 50 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1885 1870 1841 1559 1885 1870 1885 1678 1841 1693 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 75 323 150 59 236 24 340 255 0 22 54 15 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 1 2 4 23 1 2 1 15 4 14 Cap, veh/h 433 581 845 309 695 71 411 428 195 224 152 Arrive On Green 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.42 0.42 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 1096 1856 1532 1781 1637 166 1795 1870 1598 1598 1841 1250 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 75 323 150 59 0 260 340 255 0 22 54 15 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1096 1856 1532 1781 0 1803 1795 1870 1598 1598 1841 1250 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.0 11.6 4.0 1.7 0.0 7.8 14.4 9.7 0.0 1.0 2.1 0.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.0 11.6 4.0 1.7 0.0 7.8 14.4 9.7 0.0 1.0 2.1 0.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 433 581 845 309 0 766 411 428 195 224 152 V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.56 0.18 0.19 0.00 0.34 0.83 0.60 0.11 0.24 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 433 581 845 333 0 766 538 561 479 552 375 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.3 22.9 9.3 17.4 0.0 15.5 29.4 27.6 0.0 31.3 31.8 31.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 3.8 0.5 0.1 0.0 1.2 6.3 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 5.4 2.1 0.7 0.0 3.2 6.7 4.3 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.1 26.7 9.8 17.5 0.0 16.7 35.7 28.1 0.0 31.4 32.0 31.4 LnGrp LOS C C A B A B D C C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 548 319 595 A 91 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.3 16.9 32.4 31.8 Approach LOS C B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 31.1 15.8 40.0 24.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 24.0 24.0 34.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.7 13.6 4.1 9.8 16.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.0 0.2 1.5 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 7 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background AM 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 12 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 113 71 6 18 9 31 2 308 50 26 72 29 Future Vol, veh/h 113 71 6 18 9 31 2 308 50 26 72 29 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 22 11 0 0 3 0 54 4 21 Mvmt Flow 123 77 7 20 10 34 2 335 54 28 78 32 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 11.1 9.5 13.2 10.9 HCM LOS B A B B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 1% 59% 31% 20% Vol Thru, % 86% 37% 16% 57% Vol Right, % 14% 3% 53% 23% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 360 190 58 127 LT Vol 2 113 18 26 Through Vol 308 71 9 72 RT Vol 50 6 31 29 Lane Flow Rate 391 207 63 138 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.528 0.316 0.101 0.232 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.855 5.504 5.787 6.048 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 747 653 618 594 Service Time 2.855 3.536 3.827 4.08 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.523 0.317 0.102 0.232 HCM Control Delay 13.2 11.1 9.5 10.9 HCM Lane LOS B B A B HCM 95th-tile Q 3.1 1.4 0.3 0.9 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 8 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background AM 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 145 3 1 51 1 4 Future Vol, veh/h 145 3 1 51 1 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 14 14 0 4 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 10 0 0 8 0 0 Mvmt Flow 158 3 1 55 1 4 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 175 0 235 175 Stage 1 - - - - 174 - Stage 2 - - - - 61 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1414 - 758 874 Stage 1 - - - - 861 - Stage 2 - - - - 967 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1395 - 744 862 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 744 - Stage 1 - - - - 850 - Stage 2 - - - - 962 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 9.3 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 835 - - 1395 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - 0.001 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.3 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 - JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 9 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background AM 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 8 4 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 8 4 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 9 4 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 13 4 4 0 - 0 Stage 1 4 - - - - - Stage 2 9 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1011 1085 1631 - - - Stage 1 1024 - - - - - Stage 2 1019 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1011 1085 1631 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 1011 - - - - - Stage 1 1024 - - - - - Stage 2 1019 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1631 - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 10 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background AM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR L TR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 298 58 146 187 59 Average Queue (ft) 149 16 51 100 19 95th Queue (ft) 270 45 110 163 50 Link Distance (ft) 304 532 559 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 Intersection: 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 64 44 27 33 Average Queue (ft) 9 4 2 5 95th Queue (ft) 41 24 15 24 Link Distance (ft) 77 304 320 536 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 48 17 21 Average Queue (ft) 4 1 1 95th Queue (ft) 24 10 9 Link Distance (ft) 174 77 261 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - AM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background AM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 58 39 31 33 Average Queue (ft) 3 3 4 5 95th Queue (ft) 25 26 20 22 Link Distance (ft) 432 174 314 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 141 358 120 87 219 312 293 133 75 118 65 Average Queue (ft) 43 123 45 37 96 164 117 8 14 35 13 95th Queue (ft) 100 252 123 83 182 265 215 75 47 82 43 Link Distance (ft) 774 432 770 538 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 120 88 355 225 117 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 8 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 16 1 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 Intersection: 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 87 78 225 102 Average Queue (ft) 47 32 107 48 95th Queue (ft) 74 64 183 81 Link Distance (ft) 544 504 452 665 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - AM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background AM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 3 6 30 Average Queue (ft) 0 0 6 95th Queue (ft) 3 6 25 Link Distance (ft) 504 658 455 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 28 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - AM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background Midday 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Queues Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 489 60 384 108 30 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.10 0.32 0.50 0.12 Control Delay 11.7 5.3 6.2 37.9 25.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 11.7 5.3 6.2 37.9 25.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 129 7 59 49 11 Queue Length 95th (ft) 278 26 149 95 32 Internal Link Dist (ft) 301 481 515 490 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 Base Capacity (vph) 1083 605 1197 440 497 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.45 0.10 0.32 0.25 0.06 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background Midday 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 412 33 55 347 6 39 22 39 2 21 5 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 412 33 55 347 6 39 22 39 2 21 5 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.97 0.93 0.99 0.93 0.88 0.85 0.90 0.85 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1841 1856 1841 1811 1900 1826 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5 448 36 60 377 7 42 24 42 2 23 5 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 3 4 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 46 905 72 566 1155 21 150 89 114 53 292 60 Arrive On Green 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.04 0.65 0.65 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 4 1663 133 1753 1769 33 444 440 563 31 1444 295 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 489 0 0 60 0 384 108 0 0 30 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1800 0 0 1753 0 1802 1447 0 0 1769 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 7.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 7.8 4.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.01 0.07 1.00 0.02 0.39 0.39 0.07 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1023 0 0 566 0 1176 353 0 0 404 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.33 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1023 0 0 587 0 1176 476 0 0 556 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.8 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 6.3 28.2 0.0 0.0 26.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.6 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.1 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 7.1 28.7 0.0 0.0 26.9 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A A A C A A C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 489 444 108 30 Approach Delay, s/veh 12.1 7.0 28.7 26.9 Approach LOS B A C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 51.0 22.7 60.0 22.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 44.0 24.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 16.0 3.1 9.8 6.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.3 0.0 2.5 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.1 HCM 6th LOS B JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background Midday 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 425 3 8 362 1 1 0 1 2 0 8 Future Vol, veh/h 6 425 3 8 362 1 1 0 1 2 0 8 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 24 0 26 26 0 24 0 0 24 24 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 6 457 3 9 389 1 1 0 1 2 0 9 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 414 0 0 486 0 0 909 929 509 927 930 414 Stage 1 - - - - - - 497 497 - 432 432 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 412 432 - 495 498 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1156 - - 1087 - - 258 270 568 251 269 643 Stage 1 - - - - - - 559 548 - 606 586 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 621 586 - 560 548 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1130 - - 1060 - - 245 253 541 236 252 628 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 245 253 - 236 252 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 541 530 - 588 566 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 606 566 - 542 530 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.2 15.8 12.8 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 337 1130 - - 1060 - - 471 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 0.006 - - 0.008 - - 0.023 HCM Control Delay (s) 15.8 8.2 0 - 8.4 0 - 12.8 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0.1 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background Midday 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 431 1 1 365 5 2 0 3 4 1 7 Future Vol, veh/h 3 431 1 1 365 5 2 0 3 4 1 7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 32 0 26 26 0 32 0 0 1 1 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 33 4 100 0 6 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 3 454 1 1 384 5 2 0 3 4 1 7 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 421 0 0 481 0 0 880 910 482 884 908 419 Stage 1 - - - - - - 487 487 - 421 421 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 393 423 - 463 487 - Critical Hdwy 4.43 - - 4.1 - - 8.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 7.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 7.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.497 - - 2.2 - - 4.4 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 990 - - 1092 - - 184 277 588 268 277 638 Stage 1 - - - - - - 416 554 - 614 592 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 475 591 - 583 554 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 960 - - 1065 - - 176 261 573 257 261 619 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 176 261 - 257 261 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 404 538 - 593 574 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 468 573 - 577 538 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 17.2 14.5 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 301 960 - - 1065 - - 391 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 0.003 - - 0.001 - - 0.032 HCM Control Delay (s) 17.2 8.8 0 - 8.4 0 - 14.5 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.1 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 4 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background Midday 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 432 3 3 382 6 2 0 3 0 0 1 Future Vol, veh/h 3 432 3 3 382 6 2 0 3 0 0 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 25 0 23 23 0 25 0 0 1 1 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 3 455 3 3 402 6 2 0 3 0 0 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 433 0 0 481 0 0 898 925 481 901 923 430 Stage 1 - - - - - - 486 486 - 436 436 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 412 439 - 465 487 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1137 - - 1092 - - 262 271 589 261 272 629 Stage 1 - - - - - - 566 554 - 603 583 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 621 582 - 581 554 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1110 - - 1068 - - 254 257 576 252 258 614 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 254 257 - 252 258 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 551 540 - 586 567 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 617 566 - 575 540 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 14.6 10.9 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 382 1110 - - 1068 - - 614 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 0.003 - - 0.003 - - 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.6 8.3 0 - 8.4 0 - 10.9 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 5 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background Midday 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Queues Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 50 278 155 135 259 143 91 139 33 126 46 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.44 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.51 0.31 0.37 0.14 0.45 0.13 Control Delay 23.1 25.1 1.8 17.4 15.9 36.4 31.6 6.6 30.3 35.4 0.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 23.1 25.1 1.8 17.4 15.9 36.4 31.6 6.6 30.3 35.4 0.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 94 0 32 64 60 37 0 13 53 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 55 230 20 98 180 129 86 34 40 113 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 751 428 732 533 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 120 88 355 225 117 125 Base Capacity (vph) 361 625 1096 429 845 600 638 617 533 650 635 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.44 0.14 0.31 0.31 0.24 0.14 0.23 0.06 0.19 0.07 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 6 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background Midday 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 47 261 146 127 219 24 134 86 131 31 118 43 Future Volume (veh/h) 47 261 146 127 219 24 134 86 131 31 118 43 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1796 1841 1856 1856 1811 1589 1856 1870 1885 1663 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 50 278 155 135 233 26 143 91 0 33 126 46 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 7 4 3 3 6 21 3 2 1 16 0 0 Cap, veh/h 466 628 732 414 772 86 240 254 199 238 185 Arrive On Green 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.06 0.48 0.48 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 1067 1841 1521 1767 1599 178 1767 1870 1598 1584 1900 1475 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 50 278 155 135 0 259 143 91 0 33 126 46 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1067 1841 1521 1767 0 1777 1767 1870 1598 1584 1900 1475 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 8.3 4.2 3.3 0.0 6.2 5.4 3.1 0.0 1.3 4.4 2.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 8.3 4.2 3.3 0.0 6.2 5.4 3.1 0.0 1.3 4.4 2.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 466 628 732 414 0 858 240 254 199 238 185 V/C Ratio(X) 0.11 0.44 0.21 0.33 0.00 0.30 0.60 0.36 0.17 0.53 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 466 628 732 414 0 858 602 638 540 648 503 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.0 18.0 10.7 13.4 0.0 11.0 28.6 27.6 0.0 27.5 28.8 27.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 2.3 0.7 2.1 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 3.6 1.8 1.4 0.0 2.3 2.2 1.4 0.0 0.5 2.0 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.5 20.3 11.4 15.5 0.0 11.9 29.5 27.9 0.0 27.6 29.5 28.0 LnGrp LOS B C B B A B C C C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 483 394 234 A 205 Approach Delay, s/veh 17.0 13.1 28.9 28.9 Approach LOS B B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 30.0 14.8 40.0 15.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 24.0 24.0 34.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.3 10.3 6.4 8.2 7.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.0 0.5 1.5 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.8 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 7 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background Midday 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.1 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 12 2 54 22 21 5 159 26 17 152 41 Future Vol, veh/h 20 12 2 54 22 21 5 159 26 17 152 41 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 6 2 15 Mvmt Flow 22 13 2 59 24 23 5 173 28 18 165 45 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.4 8.9 9 9.3 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 3% 59% 56% 8% Vol Thru, % 84% 35% 23% 72% Vol Right, % 14% 6% 22% 20% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 190 34 97 210 LT Vol 5 20 54 17 Through Vol 159 12 22 152 RT Vol 26 2 21 41 Lane Flow Rate 207 37 105 228 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.255 0.052 0.147 0.285 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.438 5.107 5.007 4.49 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 808 698 714 799 Service Time 2.472 3.159 3.052 2.522 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.256 0.053 0.147 0.285 HCM Control Delay 9 8.4 8.9 9.3 HCM Lane LOS A A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 1 0.2 0.5 1.2 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 8 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background Midday 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 48 9 7 94 3 2 Future Vol, veh/h 48 9 7 94 3 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 41 41 0 14 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 0 0 3 0 50 Mvmt Flow 52 10 8 102 3 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 103 0 230 99 Stage 1 - - - - 98 - Stage 2 - - - - 132 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.7 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.75 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1502 - 763 840 Stage 1 - - - - 931 - Stage 2 - - - - 899 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1443 - 720 806 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 720 - Stage 1 - - - - 895 - Stage 2 - - - - 882 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 9.8 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 752 - - 1443 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - 0.005 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.8 - - 7.5 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 - JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 9 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background Midday 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 8 16 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 8 16 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 9 17 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 26 17 17 0 - 0 Stage 1 17 - - - - - Stage 2 9 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 995 1068 1613 - - - Stage 1 1011 - - - - - Stage 2 1019 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 995 1068 1613 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 995 - - - - - Stage 1 1011 - - - - - Stage 2 1019 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1613 - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 10 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background Midday Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR L TR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 283 73 188 138 63 Average Queue (ft) 126 27 80 62 19 95th Queue (ft) 247 63 155 111 52 Link Distance (ft) 304 532 559 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 7 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 4 Intersection: 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 69 82 21 31 Average Queue (ft) 8 9 1 9 95th Queue (ft) 39 42 10 31 Link Distance (ft) 77 304 320 536 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 39 3 60 31 Average Queue (ft) 2 0 7 9 95th Queue (ft) 21 3 33 31 Link Distance (ft) 174 77 261 281 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - MID.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background Midday Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 28 52 31 20 Average Queue (ft) 1 3 5 2 95th Queue (ft) 15 24 22 12 Link Distance (ft) 432 174 314 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR L T L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 132 295 120 87 237 145 102 98 174 99 Average Queue (ft) 31 118 51 58 99 70 44 24 68 26 95th Queue (ft) 82 226 125 96 198 124 85 68 128 67 Link Distance (ft) 774 432 770 538 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 120 88 355 117 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 7 0 2 9 0 2 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 13 1 4 11 0 1 0 Intersection: 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 41 81 100 94 Average Queue (ft) 22 39 55 52 95th Queue (ft) 46 65 86 83 Link Distance (ft) 544 504 452 665 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - MID.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background Midday Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 6 20 46 Average Queue (ft) 0 1 4 95th Queue (ft) 6 12 24 Link Distance (ft) 504 658 455 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 36 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - MID.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background PM 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Queues Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 379 112 606 135 73 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.19 0.54 0.57 0.27 Control Delay 13.5 6.3 9.8 39.7 28.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.5 6.3 9.8 39.7 28.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 96 15 123 62 29 Queue Length 95th (ft) 216 47 303 115 64 Internal Link Dist (ft) 301 481 515 490 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 Base Capacity (vph) 837 597 1128 421 479 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.45 0.19 0.54 0.32 0.15 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background PM 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 21 279 56 105 557 12 44 25 57 9 53 7 Future Volume (veh/h) 21 279 56 105 557 12 44 25 57 9 53 7 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 0.89 0.99 0.90 0.89 0.87 0.90 0.87 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 1885 1870 1781 1870 1900 1841 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 22 297 60 112 593 13 47 27 61 10 56 7 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 1 2 8 2 0 4 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 68 710 138 633 1133 25 151 93 155 76 352 40 Arrive On Green 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.05 0.62 0.62 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 46 1399 272 1795 1818 40 399 390 651 122 1477 170 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 379 0 0 112 0 606 135 0 0 73 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1717 0 0 1795 0 1858 1440 0 0 1768 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 15.8 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 11.6 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 15.8 6.4 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.06 0.16 1.00 0.02 0.35 0.45 0.14 0.10 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 916 0 0 633 0 1158 399 0 0 469 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.52 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 916 0 0 633 0 1158 453 0 0 535 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.3 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 9.1 27.5 0.0 0.0 26.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 5.9 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.7 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 10.8 28.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A A B C A A C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 379 718 135 73 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.7 10.5 28.0 26.3 Approach LOS B B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 50.0 26.7 60.0 26.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 44.0 24.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.4 13.6 4.7 17.8 8.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.6 0.1 4.4 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.4 HCM 6th LOS B JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background PM 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 318 1 13 579 4 0 0 8 6 1 15 Future Vol, veh/h 7 318 1 13 579 4 0 0 8 6 1 15 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 45 0 46 46 0 45 0 0 23 23 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Mvmt Flow 8 346 1 14 629 4 0 0 9 7 1 16 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 678 0 0 393 0 0 1077 1115 416 1094 1113 676 Stage 1 - - - - - - 409 409 - 704 704 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 668 706 - 390 409 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.27 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.363 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 923 - - 1177 - - 198 210 641 193 210 445 Stage 1 - - - - - - 623 600 - 431 443 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 451 442 - 638 600 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 883 - - 1125 - - 177 186 599 174 186 426 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 177 186 - 174 186 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 589 567 - 408 416 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 424 415 - 608 567 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0.2 11.1 18.4 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 599 883 - - 1125 - - 293 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 0.009 - - 0.013 - - 0.082 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.1 9.1 0 - 8.2 0 - 18.4 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0.3 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background PM 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 321 1 2 598 2 0 0 1 7 0 7 Future Vol, veh/h 8 321 1 2 598 2 0 0 1 7 0 7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 54 0 71 71 0 54 4 0 2 2 0 4 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 9 349 1 2 650 2 0 0 1 8 0 8 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 706 0 0 421 0 0 1102 1149 423 1079 1148 709 Stage 1 - - - - - - 439 439 - 709 709 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 663 710 - 370 439 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 902 - - 1149 - - 191 200 635 198 200 438 Stage 1 - - - - - - 601 582 - 428 440 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 454 440 - 654 582 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 856 - - 1071 - - 172 174 591 185 174 414 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 172 174 - 185 174 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 553 535 - 401 416 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 443 416 - 643 535 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 11.1 19.9 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 591 856 - - 1071 - - 256 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 0.01 - - 0.002 - - 0.059 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.1 9.2 0 - 8.4 0 - 19.9 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0.2 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 4 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background PM 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 315 3 8 618 5 4 0 6 6 1 7 Future Vol, veh/h 9 315 3 8 618 5 4 0 6 6 1 7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 48 0 95 95 0 48 4 0 2 2 0 4 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 10 342 3 9 672 5 4 0 7 7 1 8 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 725 0 0 440 0 0 1160 1202 441 1110 1201 727 Stage 1 - - - - - - 459 459 - 741 741 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 701 743 - 369 460 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 887 - - 1131 - - 174 186 621 188 186 427 Stage 1 - - - - - - 586 570 - 411 426 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 433 425 - 655 569 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 846 - - 1029 - - 151 157 564 173 157 406 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 151 157 - 173 157 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 525 511 - 386 401 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 416 400 - 636 510 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0.1 18.9 21 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 269 846 - - 1029 - - 240 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.04 0.012 - - 0.008 - - 0.063 HCM Control Delay (s) 18.9 9.3 0 - 8.5 0 - 21 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.2 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 5 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background PM 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Queues Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 160 273 237 384 196 107 112 53 325 53 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.30 0.34 0.56 0.53 0.64 0.34 0.31 0.14 0.80 0.12 Control Delay 28.3 29.1 4.5 28.1 25.1 43.7 34.7 3.9 29.4 48.5 0.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 28.3 29.1 4.5 28.1 25.1 43.7 34.7 3.9 29.4 48.5 0.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 10 68 18 87 154 100 51 0 23 166 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 35 144 52 181 299 176 102 15 59 #289 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 751 428 732 533 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 120 88 355 225 117 125 Base Capacity (vph) 285 526 958 423 727 500 521 485 480 531 537 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.30 0.28 0.56 0.53 0.39 0.21 0.23 0.11 0.61 0.10 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 6 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background PM 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 25 152 259 225 332 33 186 102 106 50 309 50 Future Volume (veh/h) 25 152 259 225 332 33 186 102 106 50 309 50 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 1885 1870 1678 1870 1856 1900 1811 1885 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 26 160 273 237 349 35 196 107 0 53 325 53 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 1 2 15 2 3 0 6 1 4 Cap, veh/h 300 506 732 354 639 64 345 360 380 416 286 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.05 0.38 0.38 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 997 1870 1554 1795 1668 167 1781 1856 1610 1725 1885 1298 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 26 160 273 237 0 384 196 107 0 53 325 53 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 997 1870 1554 1795 0 1835 1781 1856 1610 1725 1885 1298 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 6.1 10.1 4.0 0.0 14.5 8.8 4.4 0.0 2.2 14.4 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.4 6.1 10.1 4.0 0.0 14.5 8.8 4.4 0.0 2.2 14.4 2.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 300 506 732 354 0 703 345 360 380 416 286 V/C Ratio(X) 0.09 0.32 0.37 0.67 0.00 0.55 0.57 0.30 0.14 0.78 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 300 506 732 354 0 703 482 502 466 510 351 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.8 25.8 15.5 27.9 0.0 21.4 32.4 30.6 0.0 27.8 32.6 28.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 1.6 1.5 9.7 0.0 3.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 4.9 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 2.8 5.2 3.5 0.0 6.5 3.8 1.9 0.0 0.9 7.1 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.3 27.5 16.9 37.6 0.0 24.4 33.0 30.8 0.0 27.9 37.5 28.2 LnGrp LOS C C B D A C C C C D C Approach Vol, veh/h 459 621 303 A 431 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.3 29.4 32.2 35.2 Approach LOS C C C D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 30.0 25.6 40.0 23.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 24.0 24.0 34.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 12.1 16.4 16.5 10.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.6 1.0 2.1 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.2 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 7 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background PM 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh22.8 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 16 3 130 131 20 6 156 16 62 333 95 Future Vol, veh/h 20 16 3 130 131 20 6 156 16 62 333 95 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 34 1 7 Mvmt Flow 21 17 3 138 139 21 6 166 17 66 354 101 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 10.5 15.4 11.5 32.2 HCM LOS B C B D Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 3% 51% 46% 13% Vol Thru, % 88% 41% 47% 68% Vol Right, % 9% 8% 7% 19% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 178 39 281 490 LT Vol 6 20 130 62 Through Vol 156 16 131 333 RT Vol 16 3 20 95 Lane Flow Rate 189 41 299 521 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.307 0.08 0.507 0.841 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.844 6.919 6.109 5.806 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 610 521 586 620 Service Time 3.923 4.919 4.184 3.863 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.31 0.079 0.51 0.84 HCM Control Delay 11.5 10.5 15.4 32.2 HCM Lane LOS B B C D HCM 95th-tile Q 1.3 0.3 2.9 9.1 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 8 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background PM 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 81 2 5 263 5 10 Future Vol, veh/h 81 2 5 263 5 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 45 45 0 10 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 26 0 0 1 0 0 Mvmt Flow 88 2 5 286 5 11 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 135 0 440 135 Stage 1 - - - - 134 - Stage 2 - - - - 306 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1462 - 578 919 Stage 1 - - - - 897 - Stage 2 - - - - 751 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1399 - 546 879 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 546 - Stage 1 - - - - 858 - Stage 2 - - - - 741 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 10 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 730 - - 1399 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 - - 0.004 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 9 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background PM 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 10 7 0 Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 10 7 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 0 0 0 11 8 0 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 19 8 8 0 - 0 Stage 1 8 - - - - - Stage 2 11 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1004 1080 1625 - - - Stage 1 1020 - - - - - Stage 2 1017 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1004 1080 1625 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 1004 - - - - - Stage 1 1020 - - - - - Stage 2 1017 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1625 - - - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - - - HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - 0 - - HCM Lane LOS A - A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - - JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 10 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background PM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR L TR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 262 74 326 162 97 Average Queue (ft) 117 42 154 77 40 95th Queue (ft) 215 78 284 135 82 Link Distance (ft) 304 532 559 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 18 Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 19 Intersection: 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 61 201 31 61 Average Queue (ft) 7 39 7 20 95th Queue (ft) 36 162 28 55 Link Distance (ft) 77 304 320 536 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 5 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 97 82 21 42 Average Queue (ft) 8 18 1 11 95th Queue (ft) 46 72 10 37 Link Distance (ft) 174 77 261 281 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 25 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - PM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background PM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 97 184 54 55 Average Queue (ft) 7 59 13 13 95th Queue (ft) 45 183 47 46 Link Distance (ft) 432 174 314 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) 6 Queuing Penalty (veh) 34 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR L T L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 68 195 119 87 446 206 144 117 384 125 Average Queue (ft) 19 78 62 83 329 105 60 42 203 55 95th Queue (ft) 51 156 124 100 512 175 117 111 330 138 Link Distance (ft) 774 432 770 538 Upstream Blk Time (%) 10 Queuing Penalty (veh) 66 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 120 88 355 117 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 2 1 24 41 0 30 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 5 1 87 92 1 30 1 Intersection: 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 60 161 150 422 Average Queue (ft) 24 73 67 148 95th Queue (ft) 52 126 117 313 Link Distance (ft) 544 504 452 665 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - PM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background PM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 12 18 35 Average Queue (ft) 0 1 13 95th Queue (ft) 9 8 37 Link Distance (ft) 504 658 455 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance Movement Directions Served Maximum Queue (ft) Average Queue (ft) 95th Queue (ft) Link Distance (ft) Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 373 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Background - PM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville Appendix E Synchro/SimTraffic Outputs for 2023/2028 Total Future Conditions Attachment E December 2021 Aspen Heights TIA – City of Charlottesville Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total AM 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Queues Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 528 33 266 192 27 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.06 0.25 0.66 0.09 Control Delay 17.4 6.4 7.2 41.9 24.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.4 6.4 7.2 41.9 24.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 168 5 47 92 10 Queue Length 95th (ft) 330 18 108 157 31 Internal Link Dist (ft) 301 481 515 490 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 Base Capacity (vph) 882 511 1064 447 469 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.60 0.06 0.25 0.43 0.06 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total AM 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 462 32 31 250 3 65 45 73 4 19 3 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 462 32 31 250 3 65 45 73 4 19 3 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.96 0.91 1.00 0.93 0.96 0.93 0.97 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1707 1870 1811 1856 1811 1900 1870 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 486 34 33 263 3 68 47 77 4 20 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 13 2 6 3 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 49 917 63 566 1179 13 143 96 120 74 284 39 Arrive On Green 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.05 0.66 0.66 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 8 1703 118 1767 1785 20 431 499 623 123 1476 200 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 528 0 0 33 0 266 192 0 0 27 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1829 0 0 1767 0 1806 1554 0 0 1798 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.8 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.8 9.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.02 0.06 1.00 0.01 0.35 0.40 0.15 0.11 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1029 0 0 566 0 1193 359 0 0 397 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.22 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1029 0 0 566 0 1193 512 0 0 571 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.2 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 5.5 30.2 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.6 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.1 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 6.0 31.4 0.0 0.0 27.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A A A C A A C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 528 299 192 27 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.1 6.0 31.4 27.1 Approach LOS B A C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 50.0 21.8 60.0 21.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 44.0 24.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 17.3 3.0 6.8 11.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.6 0.0 1.6 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.3 HCM 6th LOS B JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total AM 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 490 1 4 294 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 Future Vol, veh/h 9 490 1 4 294 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 58 0 19 19 0 58 0 0 16 16 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 10 527 1 4 316 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 377 0 0 547 0 0 894 952 563 948 951 376 Stage 1 - - - - - - 567 567 - 384 384 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 327 385 - 564 567 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1193 - - 1033 - - 264 261 530 243 262 675 Stage 1 - - - - - - 512 510 - 643 615 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 690 614 - 514 510 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1127 - - 1014 - - 255 238 512 223 239 638 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 255 238 - 223 239 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 496 494 - 599 578 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 684 577 - 499 494 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 15.7 16.1 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 340 1127 - - 1014 - - 330 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 0.009 - - 0.004 - - 0.013 HCM Control Delay (s) 15.7 8.2 0 - 8.6 0 - 16.1 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total AM 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 485 2 2 292 8 0 0 1 9 0 4 Future Vol, veh/h 8 485 2 2 292 8 0 0 1 9 0 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 44 0 27 27 0 44 2 0 2 2 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 20 3 100 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 9 527 2 2 317 9 0 0 1 10 0 4 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 370 0 0 556 0 0 903 947 557 919 944 368 Stage 1 - - - - - - 573 573 - 370 370 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 330 374 - 549 574 - Critical Hdwy 4.3 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.38 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1096 - - 1025 - - 260 263 534 254 264 682 Stage 1 - - - - - - 508 507 - 654 624 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 687 621 - 524 506 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1050 - - 999 - - 249 242 519 240 243 652 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 249 242 - 240 243 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 489 488 - 619 597 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 680 594 - 516 487 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 12 17.7 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 519 1050 - - 999 - - 298 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 0.008 - - 0.002 - - 0.047 HCM Control Delay (s) 12 8.5 0 - 8.6 0 - 17.7 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0.1 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 4 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total AM 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 507 0 4 283 1 1 0 3 2 0 3 Future Vol, veh/h 6 507 0 4 283 1 1 0 3 2 0 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 57 0 32 32 0 57 2 0 1 1 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 0 25 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 7 551 0 4 308 1 1 0 3 2 0 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 366 0 0 583 0 0 917 971 584 942 971 368 Stage 1 - - - - - - 597 597 - 374 374 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 320 374 - 568 597 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.35 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.425 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1204 - - 887 - - 255 255 515 245 255 682 Stage 1 - - - - - - 493 495 - 651 621 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 696 621 - 511 495 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1139 - - 860 - - 243 231 499 227 231 644 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 243 231 - 227 231 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 474 476 - 610 584 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 687 584 - 503 476 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 14.2 14.8 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 395 1139 - - 860 - - 371 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 0.006 - - 0.005 - - 0.015 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.2 8.2 0 - 9.2 0 - 14.8 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 5 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total AM 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Queues Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 322 149 60 260 337 253 196 22 53 15 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.50 0.15 0.17 0.33 0.77 0.55 0.39 0.12 0.24 0.05 Control Delay 26.8 29.1 1.5 18.5 19.0 41.9 32.5 6.8 34.0 36.0 0.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.8 29.1 1.5 18.5 19.0 41.9 32.5 6.8 34.0 36.0 0.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 137 0 18 84 153 108 0 10 26 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 77 279 19 53 188 #320 216 53 31 59 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 751 428 732 533 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 120 88 355 225 117 125 Base Capacity (vph) 382 641 1047 356 786 559 582 589 491 571 528 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.19 0.50 0.14 0.17 0.33 0.60 0.43 0.33 0.04 0.09 0.03 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 6 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total AM 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 68 296 137 55 217 22 310 233 180 20 49 14 Future Volume (veh/h) 68 296 137 55 217 22 310 233 180 20 49 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1885 1870 1841 1559 1885 1870 1885 1678 1841 1693 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 74 322 149 60 236 24 337 253 0 22 53 15 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 1 2 4 23 1 2 1 15 4 14 Cap, veh/h 436 585 847 314 700 71 408 425 190 219 150 Arrive On Green 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.04 0.43 0.43 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 1097 1856 1535 1781 1637 166 1795 1870 1598 1598 1841 1258 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 74 322 149 60 0 260 337 253 0 22 53 15 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1097 1856 1535 1781 0 1804 1795 1870 1598 1598 1841 1258 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.9 11.4 3.9 1.7 0.0 7.7 14.2 9.6 0.0 1.0 2.1 0.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.9 11.4 3.9 1.7 0.0 7.7 14.2 9.6 0.0 1.0 2.1 0.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 436 585 847 314 0 771 408 425 190 219 150 V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.55 0.18 0.19 0.00 0.34 0.83 0.60 0.12 0.24 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 436 585 847 337 0 771 542 564 482 555 379 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.0 22.6 9.2 17.2 0.0 15.2 29.2 27.5 0.0 31.3 31.8 31.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 3.7 0.5 0.1 0.0 1.2 5.9 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 5.3 2.1 0.7 0.0 3.1 6.6 4.2 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.8 26.3 9.7 17.3 0.0 16.4 35.1 28.0 0.0 31.4 32.0 31.4 LnGrp LOS C C A B A B D C C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 545 320 590 A 90 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.0 16.6 32.1 31.7 Approach LOS C B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.9 31.1 15.5 40.0 24.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 24.0 24.0 34.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.7 13.4 4.1 9.7 16.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.0 0.2 1.5 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 24.9 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 7 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total AM 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh11.8 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 111 70 6 18 9 33 2 305 49 28 71 29 Future Vol, veh/h 111 70 6 18 9 33 2 305 49 28 71 29 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 22 11 0 0 3 0 54 4 21 Mvmt Flow 121 76 7 20 10 36 2 332 53 30 77 32 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 11 9.5 13 10.9 HCM LOS B A B B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 1% 59% 30% 22% Vol Thru, % 86% 37% 15% 55% Vol Right, % 14% 3% 55% 23% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 356 187 60 128 LT Vol 2 111 18 28 Through Vol 305 70 9 71 RT Vol 49 6 33 29 Lane Flow Rate 387 203 65 139 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.521 0.31 0.104 0.233 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.85 5.498 5.759 6.041 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 747 654 622 595 Service Time 2.85 3.528 3.796 4.07 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.518 0.31 0.105 0.234 HCM Control Delay 13 11 9.5 10.9 HCM Lane LOS B B A B HCM 95th-tile Q 3.1 1.3 0.3 0.9 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 8 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total AM 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 144 5 6 50 3 11 Future Vol, veh/h 144 5 6 50 3 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 13 13 0 4 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 10 0 0 8 0 0 Mvmt Flow 157 5 7 54 3 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 175 0 245 174 Stage 1 - - - - 173 - Stage 2 - - - - 72 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1414 - 748 875 Stage 1 - - - - 862 - Stage 2 - - - - 956 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1396 - 732 863 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 732 - Stage 1 - - - - 852 - Stage 2 - - - - 947 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.8 9.4 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 831 - - 1396 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.018 - - 0.005 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.4 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 9 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total AM 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 13 10 8 4 6 Future Vol, veh/h 9 13 10 8 4 6 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 10 14 11 9 4 7 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 39 8 11 0 - 0 Stage 1 8 - - - - - Stage 2 31 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 978 1080 1621 - - - Stage 1 1020 - - - - - Stage 2 997 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 971 1080 1621 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 971 - - - - - Stage 1 1013 - - - - - Stage 2 997 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.6 4 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1621 - 1033 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - 0.023 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.2 0 8.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 10 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total AM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR L TR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 297 63 142 189 64 Average Queue (ft) 151 16 50 98 19 95th Queue (ft) 268 46 107 166 50 Link Distance (ft) 304 532 559 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 Intersection: 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 60 62 31 31 Average Queue (ft) 7 4 3 5 95th Queue (ft) 33 30 17 24 Link Distance (ft) 77 304 320 536 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 72 31 12 38 Average Queue (ft) 7 2 0 11 95th Queue (ft) 39 17 6 35 Link Distance (ft) 174 77 261 281 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - AM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total AM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 34 52 31 29 Average Queue (ft) 2 3 5 4 95th Queue (ft) 16 27 24 19 Link Distance (ft) 432 174 314 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 149 289 120 87 211 289 221 111 71 96 61 Average Queue (ft) 42 114 41 38 94 154 117 4 13 33 12 95th Queue (ft) 102 220 116 83 178 247 191 52 44 74 41 Link Distance (ft) 774 432 770 538 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 120 88 355 225 117 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 6 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 12 1 1 5 0 1 0 0 Intersection: 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 102 75 208 106 Average Queue (ft) 50 33 109 51 95th Queue (ft) 81 61 183 89 Link Distance (ft) 544 504 452 665 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - AM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total AM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 3 24 30 Average Queue (ft) 0 1 11 95th Queue (ft) 3 10 35 Link Distance (ft) 504 658 455 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance Movement EB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 35 Average Queue (ft) 17 95th Queue (ft) 42 Link Distance (ft) 156 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 24 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - AM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total Midday 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Queues Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 498 59 391 106 30 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.10 0.33 0.49 0.12 Control Delay 11.8 5.2 6.2 37.7 25.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 11.8 5.2 6.2 37.7 25.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 132 7 60 48 11 Queue Length 95th (ft) 285 25 152 93 32 Internal Link Dist (ft) 301 481 515 490 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 Base Capacity (vph) 1084 602 1198 443 499 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 0.10 0.33 0.24 0.06 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total Midday 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 420 33 54 353 6 38 22 38 2 21 5 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 420 33 54 353 6 38 22 38 2 21 5 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.97 0.92 1.00 0.93 0.89 0.88 0.91 0.88 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1841 1856 1841 1811 1900 1826 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5 457 36 59 384 7 41 24 41 2 23 5 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 3 4 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 47 911 71 563 1161 21 149 91 113 53 288 59 Arrive On Green 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.04 0.66 0.66 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 4 1666 130 1753 1770 32 445 457 569 30 1455 297 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 498 0 0 59 0 391 106 0 0 30 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1800 0 0 1753 0 1803 1471 0 0 1782 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 7.8 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.2 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 7.8 4.7 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.01 0.07 1.00 0.02 0.39 0.39 0.07 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1029 0 0 563 0 1182 352 0 0 400 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.33 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1029 0 0 586 0 1182 485 0 0 562 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.7 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 6.2 28.3 0.0 0.0 26.9 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.6 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 0.0 7.0 28.7 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A A A C A A C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 498 450 106 30 Approach Delay, s/veh 12.0 6.9 28.7 27.0 Approach LOS B A C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 51.0 22.3 60.0 22.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 44.0 24.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 16.2 3.1 9.8 6.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.3 0.0 2.6 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.0 HCM 6th LOS B JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total Midday 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 433 3 8 362 1 1 0 1 2 0 8 Future Vol, veh/h 6 433 3 8 362 1 1 0 1 2 0 8 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 22 0 25 25 0 22 0 0 22 22 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 6 466 3 9 389 1 1 0 1 2 0 9 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 412 0 0 494 0 0 917 935 515 932 936 412 Stage 1 - - - - - - 505 505 - 430 430 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 412 430 - 502 506 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1158 - - 1080 - - 255 267 564 249 267 644 Stage 1 - - - - - - 553 544 - 607 587 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 621 587 - 555 543 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1134 - - 1054 - - 242 250 539 235 250 631 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 242 250 - 235 250 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 536 527 - 590 568 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 606 568 - 538 526 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.2 15.8 12.8 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 334 1134 - - 1054 - - 472 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 0.006 - - 0.008 - - 0.023 HCM Control Delay (s) 15.8 8.2 0 - 8.4 0 - 12.8 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0.1 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total Midday 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 427 1 1 361 15 2 0 3 16 1 13 Future Vol, veh/h 8 427 1 1 361 15 2 0 3 16 1 13 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 31 0 25 25 0 31 0 0 1 1 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 33 4 100 0 6 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 8 449 1 1 380 16 2 0 3 17 1 14 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 427 0 0 475 0 0 889 920 476 889 912 419 Stage 1 - - - - - - 491 491 - 421 421 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 398 429 - 468 491 - Critical Hdwy 4.43 - - 4.1 - - 8.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 7.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 7.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.497 - - 2.2 - - 4.4 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 985 - - 1098 - - 182 273 593 266 276 638 Stage 1 - - - - - - 413 552 - 614 592 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 471 587 - 579 552 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 956 - - 1072 - - 172 255 578 254 258 619 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 172 255 - 254 258 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 399 533 - 589 574 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 459 569 - 569 533 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 17.3 16.6 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 297 956 - - 1072 - - 341 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.018 0.009 - - 0.001 - - 0.093 HCM Control Delay (s) 17.3 8.8 0 - 8.4 0 - 16.6 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.3 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 4 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total Midday 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 433 3 3 385 6 2 0 3 0 0 1 Future Vol, veh/h 3 433 3 3 385 6 2 0 3 0 0 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 23 0 21 21 0 23 0 0 1 1 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 3 456 3 3 405 6 2 0 3 0 0 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 434 0 0 480 0 0 900 925 480 903 923 431 Stage 1 - - - - - - 485 485 - 437 437 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 415 440 - 466 486 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1136 - - 1093 - - 262 271 590 260 272 629 Stage 1 - - - - - - 567 555 - 602 583 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 619 581 - 581 554 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1111 - - 1071 - - 255 258 578 251 259 615 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 255 258 - 251 259 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 553 542 - 586 568 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 615 566 - 575 541 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 14.5 10.9 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 384 1111 - - 1071 - - 615 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 0.003 - - 0.003 - - 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.5 8.2 0 - 8.4 0 - 10.9 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 5 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total Midday 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Queues Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 49 278 154 137 260 141 90 141 33 123 45 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.44 0.18 0.32 0.31 0.51 0.31 0.38 0.14 0.44 0.12 Control Delay 23.0 25.0 1.8 17.3 15.9 36.3 31.5 6.8 30.3 35.2 0.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 23.0 25.0 1.8 17.3 15.9 36.3 31.5 6.8 30.3 35.2 0.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 94 0 32 64 59 36 0 13 51 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 53 230 20 99 180 127 86 35 40 111 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 751 428 732 533 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 120 88 355 225 117 125 Base Capacity (vph) 362 627 1099 431 846 601 639 620 534 652 637 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.44 0.14 0.32 0.31 0.23 0.14 0.23 0.06 0.19 0.07 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 6 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total Midday 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 46 261 145 129 220 24 133 85 133 31 116 42 Future Volume (veh/h) 46 261 145 129 220 24 133 85 133 31 116 42 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1796 1841 1856 1856 1811 1589 1856 1870 1885 1663 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 49 278 154 137 234 26 141 90 0 33 123 45 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 7 4 3 3 6 21 3 2 1 16 0 0 Cap, veh/h 469 631 732 417 777 86 236 250 197 236 184 Arrive On Green 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.06 0.49 0.49 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 1067 1841 1524 1767 1600 178 1767 1870 1598 1584 1900 1480 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 49 278 154 137 0 260 141 90 0 33 123 45 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1067 1841 1524 1767 0 1778 1767 1870 1598 1584 1900 1480 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.2 8.2 4.1 3.4 0.0 6.2 5.3 3.1 0.0 1.3 4.2 1.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.2 8.2 4.1 3.4 0.0 6.2 5.3 3.1 0.0 1.3 4.2 1.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 469 631 732 417 0 863 236 250 197 236 184 V/C Ratio(X) 0.10 0.44 0.21 0.33 0.00 0.30 0.60 0.36 0.17 0.52 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 469 631 732 417 0 863 606 641 543 651 507 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 15.9 17.8 10.7 13.3 0.0 10.9 28.6 27.6 0.0 27.4 28.7 27.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 2.2 0.7 2.1 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 3.6 1.8 1.4 0.0 2.3 2.2 1.3 0.0 0.5 1.9 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.3 20.1 11.3 15.4 0.0 11.8 29.5 28.0 0.0 27.6 29.4 28.0 LnGrp LOS B C B B A B C C C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 481 397 231 A 201 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.9 13.0 28.9 28.8 Approach LOS B B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 30.0 14.7 40.0 15.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 24.0 24.0 34.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 10.2 6.2 8.2 7.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.0 0.5 1.5 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.6 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 7 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total Midday 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.1 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 12 2 53 22 24 5 158 26 20 151 40 Future Vol, veh/h 20 12 2 53 22 24 5 158 26 20 151 40 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 6 2 15 Mvmt Flow 22 13 2 58 24 26 5 172 28 22 164 43 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.4 8.9 9 9.3 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 3% 59% 54% 9% Vol Thru, % 84% 35% 22% 72% Vol Right, % 14% 6% 24% 19% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 189 34 99 211 LT Vol 5 20 53 20 Through Vol 158 12 22 151 RT Vol 26 2 24 40 Lane Flow Rate 205 37 108 229 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.254 0.052 0.149 0.287 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.443 5.111 4.988 4.499 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 807 698 717 798 Service Time 2.477 3.163 3.033 2.531 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.254 0.053 0.151 0.287 HCM Control Delay 9 8.4 8.9 9.3 HCM Lane LOS A A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 1 0.2 0.5 1.2 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 8 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total Midday 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 47 12 15 93 6 11 Future Vol, veh/h 47 12 15 93 6 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 39 39 0 13 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 0 0 3 0 50 Mvmt Flow 52 13 16 102 7 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 104 0 245 99 Stage 1 - - - - 98 - Stage 2 - - - - 147 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.7 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.75 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1500 - 748 840 Stage 1 - - - - 931 - Stage 2 - - - - 885 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1444 - 703 808 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 703 - Stage 1 - - - - 897 - Stage 2 - - - - 864 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1 9.8 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 768 - - 1444 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 - - 0.011 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.8 - - 7.5 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 9 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total Midday 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 17 16 8 16 10 Future Vol, veh/h 12 17 16 8 16 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 13 18 17 9 17 11 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 66 23 28 0 - 0 Stage 1 23 - - - - - Stage 2 43 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 944 1060 1599 - - - Stage 1 1005 - - - - - Stage 2 985 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 934 1060 1599 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 934 - - - - - Stage 1 994 - - - - - Stage 2 985 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 4.9 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1599 - 1004 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 - 0.031 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 10 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total Midday Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR L TR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 268 75 213 124 58 Average Queue (ft) 119 29 83 58 20 95th Queue (ft) 236 64 169 108 51 Link Distance (ft) 304 532 559 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 7 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 4 Intersection: 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 64 89 26 35 Average Queue (ft) 8 8 2 10 95th Queue (ft) 36 46 13 34 Link Distance (ft) 77 304 320 536 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 73 11 58 51 Average Queue (ft) 7 0 7 22 95th Queue (ft) 44 8 34 49 Link Distance (ft) 174 77 261 281 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - MID.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total Midday Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 15 59 31 14 Average Queue (ft) 1 4 5 1 95th Queue (ft) 9 32 22 8 Link Distance (ft) 432 174 314 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR L T L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 133 268 120 87 246 160 109 92 146 108 Average Queue (ft) 30 108 43 59 94 69 49 23 64 27 95th Queue (ft) 82 206 113 100 184 128 92 63 118 69 Link Distance (ft) 774 432 770 538 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 120 88 355 117 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 6 0 2 6 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 12 1 5 8 0 1 0 Intersection: 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 40 80 106 101 Average Queue (ft) 21 39 56 50 95th Queue (ft) 46 64 89 80 Link Distance (ft) 544 504 452 665 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - MID.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total Midday Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 6 24 64 Average Queue (ft) 0 2 19 95th Queue (ft) 4 13 55 Link Distance (ft) 504 658 455 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance Movement EB NB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft) 40 12 Average Queue (ft) 19 0 95th Queue (ft) 44 6 Link Distance (ft) 156 281 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 31 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - MID.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total PM 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Queues Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 393 111 617 133 72 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.19 0.55 0.56 0.27 Control Delay 13.7 6.3 9.9 39.5 28.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.7 6.3 9.9 39.5 28.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 100 15 125 61 29 Queue Length 95th (ft) 226 47 312 114 63 Internal Link Dist (ft) 301 481 515 490 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 Base Capacity (vph) 843 593 1131 423 478 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.47 0.19 0.55 0.31 0.15 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total PM 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 21 293 55 104 568 12 43 25 56 9 52 7 Future Volume (veh/h) 21 293 55 104 568 12 43 25 56 9 52 7 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 0.89 0.99 0.90 0.89 0.85 0.91 0.84 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 1885 1870 1781 1870 1900 1841 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 22 312 59 111 604 13 46 27 60 10 55 7 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 1 2 8 2 0 4 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 67 723 132 626 1137 24 149 93 152 77 346 40 Arrive On Green 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.05 0.63 0.63 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 45 1420 259 1795 1819 39 392 393 646 124 1466 171 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 393 0 0 111 0 617 133 0 0 72 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1723 0 0 1795 0 1858 1432 0 0 1761 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 16.1 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 16.1 6.3 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.06 0.15 1.00 0.02 0.35 0.45 0.14 0.10 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 922 0 0 626 0 1162 394 0 0 463 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.53 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 922 0 0 626 0 1162 452 0 0 534 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.3 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 9.1 27.5 0.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 6.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.8 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 10.8 28.0 0.0 0.0 26.4 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A A B C A A C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 393 728 133 72 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.8 10.5 28.0 26.4 Approach LOS B B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 50.0 26.4 60.0 26.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 44.0 24.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.4 14.0 4.7 18.1 8.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.7 0.1 4.6 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.4 HCM 6th LOS B JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total PM 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 332 1 13 590 4 0 0 8 6 1 15 Future Vol, veh/h 7 332 1 13 590 4 0 0 8 6 1 15 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 43 0 44 44 0 43 0 0 21 21 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Mvmt Flow 8 361 1 14 641 4 0 0 9 7 1 16 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 688 0 0 406 0 0 1102 1138 427 1117 1136 686 Stage 1 - - - - - - 422 422 - 714 714 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 680 716 - 403 422 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.27 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.363 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 916 - - 1164 - - 191 203 632 186 204 439 Stage 1 - - - - - - 613 592 - 425 438 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 444 437 - 628 592 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 878 - - 1115 - - 171 181 593 168 182 421 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 171 181 - 168 182 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 581 561 - 403 412 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 417 411 - 600 561 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0.2 11.2 18.7 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 593 878 - - 1115 - - 286 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 0.009 - - 0.013 - - 0.084 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.2 9.1 0 - 8.3 0 - 18.7 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0.3 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total PM 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 318 1 2 592 19 0 0 1 24 0 15 Future Vol, veh/h 16 318 1 2 592 19 0 0 1 24 0 15 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 51 0 67 67 0 51 4 0 2 2 0 4 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 17 346 1 2 643 21 0 0 1 26 0 16 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 715 0 0 414 0 0 1118 1167 416 1092 1157 709 Stage 1 - - - - - - 448 448 - 709 709 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 670 719 - 383 448 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 895 - - 1156 - - 186 195 641 194 198 438 Stage 1 - - - - - - 594 576 - 428 440 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 450 436 - 644 576 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 852 - - 1082 - - 163 169 599 180 171 415 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 163 169 - 180 171 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 542 526 - 397 417 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 429 413 - 626 526 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0 11 24.2 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 599 852 - - 1082 - - 230 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 0.02 - - 0.002 - - 0.184 HCM Control Delay (s) 11 9.3 0 - 8.3 0 - 24.2 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.7 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 4 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total PM 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 320 3 8 619 5 4 0 6 6 1 7 Future Vol, veh/h 9 320 3 8 619 5 4 0 6 6 1 7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 46 0 91 91 0 46 4 0 2 2 0 4 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 10 348 3 9 673 5 4 0 7 7 1 8 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 724 0 0 442 0 0 1163 1203 443 1115 1202 726 Stage 1 - - - - - - 461 461 - 740 740 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 702 742 - 375 462 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 888 - - 1129 - - 173 186 619 187 186 428 Stage 1 - - - - - - 584 569 - 412 426 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 432 425 - 650 568 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 849 - - 1031 - - 150 158 564 173 158 408 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 150 158 - 173 158 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 526 512 - 388 402 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 415 401 - 632 511 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0.1 19 20.9 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 268 849 - - 1031 - - 241 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.041 0.012 - - 0.008 - - 0.063 HCM Control Delay (s) 19 9.3 0 - 8.5 0 - 20.9 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.2 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 5 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total PM 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Queues Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 163 269 239 384 194 106 115 52 322 52 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.31 0.34 0.57 0.53 0.64 0.34 0.32 0.14 0.80 0.12 Control Delay 28.2 29.0 4.3 28.1 24.9 43.7 34.7 4.1 29.3 48.1 0.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 28.2 29.0 4.3 28.1 24.9 43.7 34.7 4.1 29.3 48.1 0.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 10 69 17 88 153 98 51 0 23 164 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 35 146 50 182 298 175 101 18 57 285 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 751 428 732 533 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 120 88 355 225 117 125 Base Capacity (vph) 286 528 962 423 730 501 523 490 482 533 533 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.31 0.28 0.57 0.53 0.39 0.20 0.23 0.11 0.60 0.10 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 6 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total PM 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 25 155 256 227 332 33 184 101 109 49 306 49 Future Volume (veh/h) 25 155 256 227 332 33 184 101 109 49 306 49 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 0.94 0.99 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.81 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 1885 1870 1678 1870 1856 1900 1811 1885 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 26 163 269 239 349 35 194 106 0 52 322 52 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 1 2 15 2 3 0 6 1 4 Cap, veh/h 303 508 721 355 640 64 342 356 379 414 278 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.05 0.38 0.38 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 998 1870 1519 1795 1664 167 1781 1856 1610 1725 1885 1265 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 26 163 269 239 0 384 194 106 0 52 322 52 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 998 1870 1519 1795 0 1831 1781 1856 1610 1725 1885 1265 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 6.1 10.2 4.0 0.0 14.4 8.7 4.3 0.0 2.1 14.2 3.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 6.1 10.2 4.0 0.0 14.4 8.7 4.3 0.0 2.1 14.2 3.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 303 508 721 355 0 705 342 356 379 414 278 V/C Ratio(X) 0.09 0.32 0.37 0.67 0.00 0.54 0.57 0.30 0.14 0.78 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 303 508 721 355 0 705 484 504 469 512 344 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.5 25.7 15.5 27.8 0.0 21.2 32.4 30.6 0.0 27.7 32.4 28.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 1.7 1.5 9.8 0.0 3.0 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.1 4.6 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 2.9 5.1 3.6 0.0 6.4 3.7 1.9 0.0 0.9 6.9 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.0 27.3 16.9 37.6 0.0 24.2 32.9 30.8 0.0 27.8 37.0 28.2 LnGrp LOS C C B D A C C C C D C Approach Vol, veh/h 458 623 300 A 426 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.3 29.3 32.2 34.8 Approach LOS C C C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 30.0 25.4 40.0 22.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 24.0 24.0 34.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 12.2 16.2 16.4 10.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.6 1.0 2.1 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.0 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 7 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total PM 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh22.7 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 16 3 129 130 24 6 155 16 65 329 94 Future Vol, veh/h 20 16 3 129 130 24 6 155 16 65 329 94 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 34 1 7 Mvmt Flow 21 17 3 137 138 26 6 165 17 69 350 100 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 10.5 15.4 11.5 31.9 HCM LOS B C B D Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 3% 51% 46% 13% Vol Thru, % 88% 41% 46% 67% Vol Right, % 9% 8% 8% 19% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 177 39 283 488 LT Vol 6 20 129 65 Through Vol 155 16 130 329 RT Vol 16 3 24 94 Lane Flow Rate 188 41 301 519 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.306 0.08 0.51 0.838 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.846 6.915 6.093 5.81 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 610 521 587 623 Service Time 3.926 4.915 4.167 3.87 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.308 0.079 0.513 0.833 HCM Control Delay 11.5 10.5 15.4 31.9 HCM Lane LOS B B C D HCM 95th-tile Q 1.3 0.3 2.9 9 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 8 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total PM 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 80 6 18 260 9 23 Future Vol, veh/h 80 6 18 260 9 23 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 42 42 0 9 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 26 0 0 1 0 0 Mvmt Flow 87 7 20 283 10 25 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 136 0 465 134 Stage 1 - - - - 133 - Stage 2 - - - - 332 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1461 - 559 920 Stage 1 - - - - 898 - Stage 2 - - - - 731 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1403 - 523 882 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 523 - Stage 1 - - - - 862 - Stage 2 - - - - 713 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 10.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 739 - - 1403 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.047 - - 0.014 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.1 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 9 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total PM 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 25 25 10 7 17 Future Vol, veh/h 17 25 25 10 7 17 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 18 27 27 11 8 18 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 82 17 26 0 - 0 Stage 1 17 - - - - - Stage 2 65 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 925 1068 1601 - - - Stage 1 1011 - - - - - Stage 2 963 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 909 1068 1601 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 909 - - - - - Stage 1 994 - - - - - Stage 2 963 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.8 5.2 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1601 - 997 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - 0.046 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.1 - - JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 10 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total PM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR L TR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 265 74 402 151 90 Average Queue (ft) 130 42 171 76 40 95th Queue (ft) 233 79 335 133 74 Link Distance (ft) 304 532 559 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 20 Queuing Penalty (veh) 6 20 Intersection: 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 75 225 35 61 Average Queue (ft) 10 45 6 20 95th Queue (ft) 47 188 26 51 Link Distance (ft) 77 304 320 536 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 2 4 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 139 85 22 92 Average Queue (ft) 24 20 1 34 95th Queue (ft) 96 75 11 79 Link Distance (ft) 174 77 261 281 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 5 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 28 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - PM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total PM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 114 184 53 84 Average Queue (ft) 11 62 16 25 95th Queue (ft) 59 189 69 99 Link Distance (ft) 432 174 314 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) 6 Queuing Penalty (veh) 38 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR L T L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 73 201 120 87 447 208 129 117 326 125 Average Queue (ft) 19 79 60 83 330 105 56 47 192 52 95th Queue (ft) 51 163 118 101 525 174 107 118 301 133 Link Distance (ft) 774 432 770 538 Upstream Blk Time (%) 11 Queuing Penalty (veh) 69 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 120 88 355 117 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 2 1 24 42 0 29 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 5 1 88 96 1 28 1 Intersection: 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 51 160 135 290 Average Queue (ft) 24 75 64 138 95th Queue (ft) 49 125 109 248 Link Distance (ft) 544 504 452 665 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - PM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total PM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 10 35 44 Average Queue (ft) 0 3 21 95th Queue (ft) 7 19 44 Link Distance (ft) 504 658 455 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance Movement EB NB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft) 52 25 Average Queue (ft) 25 1 95th Queue (ft) 48 9 Link Distance (ft) 156 281 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 389 JPA Aspen Heights 2023 Total - PM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total AM 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Queues Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 533 33 268 195 27 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.07 0.25 0.67 0.09 Control Delay 17.6 6.4 7.2 42.2 24.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.6 6.4 7.2 42.2 24.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 171 5 48 93 10 Queue Length 95th (ft) 335 18 109 160 31 Internal Link Dist (ft) 301 481 515 490 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 Base Capacity (vph) 881 507 1063 446 469 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.60 0.07 0.25 0.44 0.06 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total AM 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 8 466 32 31 252 3 66 46 74 4 19 3 Future Volume (veh/h) 8 466 32 31 252 3 66 46 74 4 19 3 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.96 0.91 1.00 0.93 0.96 0.93 0.97 0.95 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1707 1870 1811 1856 1811 1900 1870 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 8 491 34 33 265 3 69 48 78 4 20 3 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 13 2 6 3 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 49 916 63 561 1177 13 143 97 121 74 286 39 Arrive On Green 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.05 0.66 0.66 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 8 1704 117 1767 1785 20 433 500 622 124 1476 200 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 533 0 0 33 0 268 195 0 0 27 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1829 0 0 1767 0 1806 1554 0 0 1799 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.9 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 15.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 4.9 9.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.02 0.06 1.00 0.01 0.35 0.40 0.15 0.11 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1027 0 0 561 0 1191 361 0 0 399 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.23 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1027 0 0 561 0 1191 511 0 0 570 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.4 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 5.6 30.2 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 14.2 0.0 0.0 6.5 0.0 6.0 31.5 0.0 0.0 27.1 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A A A C A A C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 533 301 195 27 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.2 6.1 31.5 27.1 Approach LOS B A C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 50.0 21.9 60.0 21.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 44.0 24.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.6 17.5 3.0 6.9 11.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.6 0.0 1.7 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.4 HCM 6th LOS B JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total AM 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 495 1 4 297 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 Future Vol, veh/h 9 495 1 4 297 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 61 0 20 20 0 61 0 0 17 17 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 10 532 1 4 319 3 1 0 1 2 0 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 383 0 0 553 0 0 903 964 570 960 963 382 Stage 1 - - - - - - 573 573 - 390 390 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 330 391 - 570 573 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1187 - - 1027 - - 260 257 525 238 258 670 Stage 1 - - - - - - 508 507 - 638 611 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 687 611 - 510 507 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1118 - - 1007 - - 251 233 507 217 234 631 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 251 233 - 217 234 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 492 491 - 593 573 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 681 573 - 494 491 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 15.8 16.3 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 336 1118 - - 1007 - - 323 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 0.009 - - 0.004 - - 0.013 HCM Control Delay (s) 15.8 8.2 0 - 8.6 0 - 16.3 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 4 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total AM 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 490 2 2 295 8 0 0 1 9 0 4 Future Vol, veh/h 8 490 2 2 295 8 0 0 1 9 0 4 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 46 0 27 27 0 46 2 0 2 2 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 20 3 100 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 9 533 2 2 321 9 0 0 1 10 0 4 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 376 0 0 562 0 0 913 959 563 931 956 374 Stage 1 - - - - - - 579 579 - 376 376 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 334 380 - 555 580 - Critical Hdwy 4.3 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.38 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1090 - - 1019 - - 256 259 530 249 260 677 Stage 1 - - - - - - 504 504 - 649 620 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 684 617 - 520 503 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1042 - - 993 - - 245 238 515 235 239 646 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 245 238 - 235 239 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 485 485 - 613 591 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 677 589 - 512 484 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 12 18 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 515 1042 - - 993 - - 292 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 0.008 - - 0.002 - - 0.048 HCM Control Delay (s) 12 8.5 0 - 8.6 0 - 18 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0.2 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 5 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total AM 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 512 0 4 286 1 1 0 3 2 0 3 Future Vol, veh/h 6 512 0 4 286 1 1 0 3 2 0 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 60 0 34 34 0 60 2 0 1 1 0 2 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 0 25 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 7 557 0 4 311 1 1 0 3 2 0 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 372 0 0 591 0 0 928 985 592 954 985 374 Stage 1 - - - - - - 605 605 - 380 380 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 323 380 - 574 605 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.35 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.425 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1198 - - 881 - - 250 250 510 240 250 677 Stage 1 - - - - - - 488 491 - 646 617 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 693 617 - 507 491 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1130 - - 852 - - 238 225 493 222 225 637 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 238 225 - 222 225 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 468 471 - 603 578 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 684 578 - 499 471 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 14.4 15 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 389 1130 - - 852 - - 364 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 0.006 - - 0.005 - - 0.015 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.4 8.2 0 - 9.2 0 - 15 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 6 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total AM 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Queues Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 75 325 150 61 262 340 255 197 22 54 15 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.51 0.15 0.17 0.33 0.77 0.56 0.39 0.12 0.24 0.05 Control Delay 26.9 29.3 1.6 18.6 19.1 42.1 32.5 6.9 34.1 36.1 0.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 26.9 29.3 1.6 18.6 19.1 42.1 32.5 6.9 34.1 36.1 0.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 139 0 18 85 155 109 0 11 26 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 78 281 19 53 190 #326 218 54 31 60 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 751 428 732 533 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 120 88 355 225 117 125 Base Capacity (vph) 380 640 1046 353 785 558 581 586 490 570 526 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.20 0.51 0.14 0.17 0.33 0.61 0.44 0.34 0.04 0.09 0.03 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 7 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total AM 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 69 299 138 56 219 22 313 235 181 20 50 14 Future Volume (veh/h) 69 299 138 56 219 22 313 235 181 20 50 14 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1856 1856 1885 1870 1841 1559 1885 1870 1885 1678 1841 1693 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 75 325 150 61 238 24 340 255 0 22 54 15 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 3 3 1 2 4 23 1 2 1 15 4 14 Cap, veh/h 432 580 844 308 696 70 411 428 195 224 152 Arrive On Green 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.42 0.42 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.12 Sat Flow, veh/h 1094 1856 1532 1781 1638 165 1795 1870 1598 1598 1841 1250 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 75 325 150 61 0 262 340 255 0 22 54 15 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1094 1856 1532 1781 0 1804 1795 1870 1598 1598 1841 1250 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 11.7 4.0 1.8 0.0 7.8 14.4 9.7 0.0 1.0 2.1 0.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 11.7 4.0 1.8 0.0 7.8 14.4 9.7 0.0 1.0 2.1 0.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 432 580 844 308 0 766 411 428 195 224 152 V/C Ratio(X) 0.17 0.56 0.18 0.20 0.00 0.34 0.83 0.60 0.11 0.24 0.10 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 432 580 844 331 0 766 538 561 479 552 375 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.3 22.9 9.3 17.5 0.0 15.5 29.4 27.6 0.0 31.3 31.8 31.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 3.9 0.5 0.1 0.0 1.2 6.3 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.1 5.4 2.1 0.7 0.0 3.2 6.7 4.3 0.0 0.4 1.0 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.2 26.8 9.8 17.6 0.0 16.7 35.7 28.1 0.0 31.4 32.0 31.4 LnGrp LOS C C A B A B D C C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 550 323 595 A 91 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.4 16.9 32.4 31.8 Approach LOS C B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 31.0 15.8 40.0 24.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 24.0 24.0 34.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.8 13.7 4.1 9.8 16.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.0 0.2 1.5 1.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 9 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total AM 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 12 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 113 71 6 18 9 33 2 308 50 28 72 29 Future Vol, veh/h 113 71 6 18 9 33 2 308 50 28 72 29 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 22 11 0 0 3 0 54 4 21 Mvmt Flow 123 77 7 20 10 36 2 335 54 30 78 32 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 11.1 9.5 13.2 11 HCM LOS B A B B Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 1% 59% 30% 22% Vol Thru, % 86% 37% 15% 56% Vol Right, % 14% 3% 55% 22% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 360 190 60 129 LT Vol 2 113 18 28 Through Vol 308 71 9 72 RT Vol 50 6 33 29 Lane Flow Rate 391 207 65 140 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.529 0.316 0.105 0.236 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.867 5.517 5.786 6.062 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 747 653 619 593 Service Time 2.867 3.55 3.825 4.094 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.523 0.317 0.105 0.236 HCM Control Delay 13.2 11.1 9.5 11 HCM Lane LOS B B A B HCM 95th-tile Q 3.1 1.4 0.4 0.9 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 10 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total AM 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 145 5 6 51 3 11 Future Vol, veh/h 145 5 6 51 3 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 14 14 0 4 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 10 0 0 8 0 0 Mvmt Flow 158 5 7 55 3 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 177 0 248 176 Stage 1 - - - - 175 - Stage 2 - - - - 73 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1411 - 745 872 Stage 1 - - - - 860 - Stage 2 - - - - 955 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1392 - 729 860 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 729 - Stage 1 - - - - 849 - Stage 2 - - - - 946 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.8 9.4 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 828 - - 1392 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.018 - - 0.005 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.4 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 11 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total AM 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.2 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 13 10 8 4 6 Future Vol, veh/h 9 13 10 8 4 6 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 10 14 11 9 4 7 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 39 8 11 0 - 0 Stage 1 8 - - - - - Stage 2 31 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 978 1080 1621 - - - Stage 1 1020 - - - - - Stage 2 997 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 971 1080 1621 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 971 - - - - - Stage 1 1013 - - - - - Stage 2 997 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.6 4 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1621 - 1033 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - 0.023 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.2 0 8.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- AM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 12 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total AM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR L TR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 293 56 150 193 59 Average Queue (ft) 153 15 58 104 20 95th Queue (ft) 274 44 121 169 51 Link Distance (ft) 304 532 559 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 4 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 Intersection: 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 68 52 24 31 Average Queue (ft) 7 5 2 4 95th Queue (ft) 35 26 13 20 Link Distance (ft) 77 304 320 536 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 58 38 22 40 Average Queue (ft) 6 2 1 10 95th Queue (ft) 32 17 12 34 Link Distance (ft) 174 77 261 281 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- AM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total AM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 29 71 31 26 Average Queue (ft) 1 5 4 3 95th Queue (ft) 12 34 21 16 Link Distance (ft) 432 174 314 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR L T R L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 143 302 120 87 234 259 211 110 74 101 55 Average Queue (ft) 42 125 44 39 101 147 107 6 15 37 11 95th Queue (ft) 101 243 123 85 195 233 181 62 48 79 40 Link Distance (ft) 774 432 770 538 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 120 88 355 225 117 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 8 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 16 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 Intersection: 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 90 74 210 106 Average Queue (ft) 48 32 104 51 95th Queue (ft) 76 59 177 87 Link Distance (ft) 544 504 452 665 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- AM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total AM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 6 21 35 Average Queue (ft) 0 1 13 95th Queue (ft) 5 11 37 Link Distance (ft) 504 658 455 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance Movement EB Directions Served LR Maximum Queue (ft) 38 Average Queue (ft) 15 95th Queue (ft) 40 Link Distance (ft) 156 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 28 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- AM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total Midday 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Queues Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 502 60 395 108 30 v/c Ratio 0.46 0.10 0.33 0.50 0.12 Control Delay 11.9 5.3 6.3 37.9 25.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 11.9 5.3 6.3 37.9 25.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 134 7 61 49 11 Queue Length 95th (ft) 288 26 154 95 32 Internal Link Dist (ft) 301 481 515 490 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 Base Capacity (vph) 1083 599 1197 440 498 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.46 0.10 0.33 0.25 0.06 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total Midday 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 424 33 55 357 6 39 22 39 2 21 5 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 424 33 55 357 6 39 22 39 2 21 5 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.97 0.93 1.00 0.93 0.88 0.85 0.90 0.87 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1841 1856 1841 1811 1900 1826 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5 461 36 60 388 7 42 24 42 2 23 5 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 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 4 3 4 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 46 907 70 556 1156 21 150 89 114 53 294 60 Arrive On Green 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.04 0.65 0.65 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 4 1668 129 1753 1771 32 444 440 563 31 1452 297 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 502 0 0 60 0 395 108 0 0 30 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1801 0 0 1753 0 1803 1447 0 0 1779 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 8.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 8.1 4.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.01 0.07 1.00 0.02 0.39 0.39 0.07 0.17 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 1024 0 0 556 0 1177 353 0 0 406 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.34 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 1024 0 0 578 0 1177 476 0 0 559 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.9 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 6.4 28.2 0.0 0.0 26.8 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.7 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.3 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 7.2 28.7 0.0 0.0 26.9 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A A A C A A C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 502 455 108 30 Approach Delay, s/veh 12.3 7.1 28.7 26.9 Approach LOS B A C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.0 51.0 22.7 60.0 22.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 44.0 24.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.2 16.5 3.1 10.1 6.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 3.4 0.0 2.6 0.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.1 HCM 6th LOS B JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total Midday 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 437 3 8 366 1 1 0 1 2 0 8 Future Vol, veh/h 6 437 3 8 366 1 1 0 1 2 0 8 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 24 0 26 26 0 24 0 0 24 24 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 6 470 3 9 394 1 1 0 1 2 0 9 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 419 0 0 499 0 0 927 947 522 945 948 419 Stage 1 - - - - - - 510 510 - 437 437 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 417 437 - 508 511 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1151 - - 1075 - - 251 263 559 244 263 638 Stage 1 - - - - - - 550 541 - 602 583 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 617 583 - 551 540 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1125 - - 1048 - - 238 246 533 229 246 623 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 238 246 - 229 246 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 532 524 - 584 563 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 602 563 - 534 523 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.2 16 12.9 HCM LOS C B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 329 1125 - - 1048 - - 464 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 0.006 - - 0.008 - - 0.023 HCM Control Delay (s) 16 8.2 0 - 8.5 0 - 12.9 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0.1 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 4 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total Midday 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 8 431 1 1 365 15 2 0 3 16 1 13 Future Vol, veh/h 8 431 1 1 365 15 2 0 3 16 1 13 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 32 0 26 26 0 32 0 0 1 1 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 33 4 100 0 6 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 8 454 1 1 384 16 2 0 3 17 1 14 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 432 0 0 481 0 0 899 931 482 899 923 424 Stage 1 - - - - - - 497 497 - 426 426 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 402 434 - 473 497 - Critical Hdwy 4.43 - - 4.1 - - 8.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 7.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 7.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.497 - - 2.2 - - 4.4 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 981 - - 1092 - - 178 269 588 262 272 634 Stage 1 - - - - - - 410 548 - 610 589 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 469 585 - 576 548 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 951 - - 1065 - - 168 251 573 250 254 615 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 168 251 - 250 254 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 396 528 - 585 571 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 457 567 - 566 528 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 17.6 16.8 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 292 951 - - 1065 - - 337 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.018 0.009 - - 0.001 - - 0.094 HCM Control Delay (s) 17.6 8.8 0 - 8.4 0 - 16.8 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.3 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 5 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total Midday 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 437 3 3 388 6 2 0 3 0 0 1 Future Vol, veh/h 3 437 3 3 388 6 2 0 3 0 0 1 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 25 0 23 23 0 25 0 0 1 1 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 3 460 3 3 408 6 2 0 3 0 0 1 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 439 0 0 486 0 0 909 936 486 912 934 436 Stage 1 - - - - - - 491 491 - 442 442 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 418 445 - 470 492 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1132 - - 1087 - - 258 267 585 257 268 625 Stage 1 - - - - - - 563 552 - 598 580 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 616 578 - 578 551 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1105 - - 1063 - - 250 253 572 248 254 610 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 250 253 - 248 254 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 548 538 - 581 564 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 612 562 - 572 537 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 14.7 10.9 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 378 1105 - - 1063 - - 610 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.014 0.003 - - 0.003 - - 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 14.7 8.3 0 - 8.4 0 - 10.9 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 6 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total Midday 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Queues Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 50 281 155 138 262 143 91 143 33 126 46 v/c Ratio 0.14 0.45 0.18 0.32 0.31 0.51 0.31 0.38 0.14 0.45 0.13 Control Delay 23.1 25.2 1.8 17.5 16.0 36.4 31.6 7.1 30.3 35.4 0.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 23.1 25.2 1.8 17.5 16.0 36.4 31.6 7.1 30.3 35.4 0.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 95 0 33 65 60 37 0 13 53 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 55 233 20 100 182 129 86 37 40 113 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 751 428 732 533 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 120 88 355 225 117 125 Base Capacity (vph) 359 625 1096 427 845 600 638 617 533 650 635 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.45 0.14 0.32 0.31 0.24 0.14 0.23 0.06 0.19 0.07 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 7 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total Midday 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 47 264 146 130 222 24 134 86 134 31 118 43 Future Volume (veh/h) 47 264 146 130 222 24 134 86 134 31 118 43 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1796 1841 1856 1856 1811 1589 1856 1870 1885 1663 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 50 281 155 138 236 26 143 91 0 33 126 46 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 7 4 3 3 6 21 3 2 1 16 0 0 Cap, veh/h 465 628 732 412 773 85 240 254 199 238 185 Arrive On Green 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.06 0.48 0.48 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 1064 1841 1521 1767 1601 176 1767 1870 1598 1584 1900 1475 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 50 281 155 138 0 262 143 91 0 33 126 46 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1064 1841 1521 1767 0 1778 1767 1870 1598 1584 1900 1475 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 8.4 4.2 3.4 0.0 6.3 5.4 3.1 0.0 1.3 4.4 2.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 8.4 4.2 3.4 0.0 6.3 5.4 3.1 0.0 1.3 4.4 2.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 465 628 732 412 0 859 240 254 199 238 185 V/C Ratio(X) 0.11 0.45 0.21 0.34 0.00 0.31 0.60 0.36 0.17 0.53 0.25 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 465 628 732 412 0 859 602 638 540 648 503 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 16.0 18.0 10.7 13.5 0.0 11.0 28.6 27.6 0.0 27.5 28.8 27.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.5 2.3 0.7 2.2 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 3.6 1.8 1.5 0.0 2.4 2.2 1.4 0.0 0.5 2.0 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 16.5 20.3 11.4 15.7 0.0 12.0 29.5 27.9 0.0 27.6 29.5 28.0 LnGrp LOS B C B B A B C C C C C Approach Vol, veh/h 486 400 234 A 205 Approach Delay, s/veh 17.1 13.2 28.9 28.9 Approach LOS B B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 30.0 14.8 40.0 15.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 24.0 24.0 34.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.4 10.4 6.4 8.3 7.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.0 0.5 1.5 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.8 HCM 6th LOS B Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 9 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total Midday 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.1 Intersection LOS A Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 12 2 54 22 24 5 159 26 20 152 41 Future Vol, veh/h 20 12 2 54 22 24 5 159 26 20 152 41 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 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 6 2 15 Mvmt Flow 22 13 2 59 24 26 5 173 28 22 165 45 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 8.5 8.9 9 9.4 HCM LOS A A A A Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 3% 59% 54% 9% Vol Thru, % 84% 35% 22% 71% Vol Right, % 14% 6% 24% 19% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 190 34 100 213 LT Vol 5 20 54 20 Through Vol 159 12 22 152 RT Vol 26 2 24 41 Lane Flow Rate 207 37 109 232 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.255 0.053 0.151 0.29 Departure Headway (Hd) 4.453 5.12 4.999 4.504 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 805 697 715 796 Service Time 2.486 3.173 3.044 2.537 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.257 0.053 0.152 0.291 HCM Control Delay 9 8.5 8.9 9.4 HCM Lane LOS A A A A HCM 95th-tile Q 1 0.2 0.5 1.2 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 10 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total Midday 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.5 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 48 12 15 94 6 11 Future Vol, veh/h 48 12 15 94 6 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 41 41 0 14 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 0 0 3 0 50 Mvmt Flow 52 13 16 102 7 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 106 0 248 101 Stage 1 - - - - 100 - Stage 2 - - - - 148 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.7 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.75 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1498 - 745 838 Stage 1 - - - - 929 - Stage 2 - - - - 884 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1440 - 698 805 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 698 - Stage 1 - - - - 893 - Stage 2 - - - - 862 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 1 9.8 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 764 - - 1440 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 - - 0.011 - HCM Control Delay (s) 9.8 - - 7.5 0 HCM Lane LOS A - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 11 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total Midday 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 4.7 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 17 16 8 16 10 Future Vol, veh/h 12 17 16 8 16 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 13 18 17 9 17 11 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 66 23 28 0 - 0 Stage 1 23 - - - - - Stage 2 43 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 944 1060 1599 - - - Stage 1 1005 - - - - - Stage 2 985 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 934 1060 1599 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 934 - - - - - Stage 1 994 - - - - - Stage 2 985 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.7 4.9 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1599 - 1004 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 - 0.031 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.7 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 - - JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- MID.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 12 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total Midday Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR L TR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 275 72 215 118 57 Average Queue (ft) 111 28 81 59 18 95th Queue (ft) 220 63 163 104 49 Link Distance (ft) 304 532 559 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 7 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 4 Intersection: 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 68 91 27 31 Average Queue (ft) 6 8 2 11 95th Queue (ft) 34 44 14 34 Link Distance (ft) 77 304 320 536 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 76 22 57 49 Average Queue (ft) 8 1 6 21 95th Queue (ft) 43 11 32 48 Link Distance (ft) 174 77 261 281 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- MID.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total Midday Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 19 35 31 20 Average Queue (ft) 1 2 5 1 95th Queue (ft) 18 15 23 9 Link Distance (ft) 432 174 314 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB Directions Served L T R L TR L T L T R Maximum Queue (ft) 129 292 120 87 259 148 110 93 156 101 Average Queue (ft) 35 117 51 61 103 76 48 24 68 26 95th Queue (ft) 89 226 127 101 203 135 93 67 122 71 Link Distance (ft) 774 432 770 538 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 120 88 355 117 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 0 6 0 2 8 0 1 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 13 1 6 10 0 1 0 Intersection: 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 47 84 111 101 Average Queue (ft) 20 38 57 52 95th Queue (ft) 46 65 90 84 Link Distance (ft) 544 504 452 665 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- MID.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total Midday Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 3 25 67 Average Queue (ft) 0 1 18 95th Queue (ft) 5 10 54 Link Distance (ft) 504 658 455 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance Movement EB NB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft) 44 9 Average Queue (ft) 21 0 95th Queue (ft) 45 4 Link Distance (ft) 156 281 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 37 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total- MID.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total PM 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Queues Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 397 112 624 135 73 v/c Ratio 0.47 0.19 0.55 0.57 0.27 Control Delay 13.9 6.3 10.1 39.7 28.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 13.9 6.3 10.1 39.7 28.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 103 15 129 62 29 Queue Length 95th (ft) 230 47 318 115 64 Internal Link Dist (ft) 301 481 515 490 Turn Bay Length (ft) 75 Base Capacity (vph) 841 587 1128 421 478 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.47 0.19 0.55 0.32 0.15 Intersection Summary JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total PM 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 21 296 56 105 574 12 44 25 57 9 53 7 Future Volume (veh/h) 21 296 56 105 574 12 44 25 57 9 53 7 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 0.89 0.99 0.90 0.89 0.85 0.90 0.84 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 1885 1870 1781 1870 1900 1841 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 22 315 60 112 611 13 47 27 61 10 56 7 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 1 2 8 2 0 4 0 0 0 Cap, veh/h 66 721 132 620 1134 24 150 92 153 76 351 40 Arrive On Green 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.05 0.62 0.62 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 45 1420 261 1795 1820 39 395 385 643 122 1470 169 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 397 0 0 112 0 624 135 0 0 73 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1725 0 0 1795 0 1858 1423 0 0 1760 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 16.5 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.2 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 16.5 6.5 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 0.06 0.15 1.00 0.02 0.35 0.45 0.14 0.10 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 920 0 0 620 0 1158 395 0 0 467 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.54 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 920 0 0 620 0 1158 448 0 0 532 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 13.5 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 9.3 27.5 0.0 0.0 26.2 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 6.2 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 0.0 11.1 28.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS B A A A A B C A A C A A Approach Vol, veh/h 397 736 135 73 Approach Delay, s/veh 15.0 10.7 28.0 26.3 Approach LOS B B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 50.0 26.7 60.0 26.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 44.0 24.0 54.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.4 14.2 4.7 18.5 8.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.7 0.1 4.6 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 14.6 HCM 6th LOS B JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total PM 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 7 335 1 13 596 4 0 0 8 6 1 15 Future Vol, veh/h 7 335 1 13 596 4 0 0 8 6 1 15 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 45 0 46 46 0 45 0 0 23 23 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Mvmt Flow 8 364 1 14 648 4 0 0 9 7 1 16 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 697 0 0 411 0 0 1114 1152 434 1131 1150 695 Stage 1 - - - - - - 427 427 - 723 723 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 687 725 - 408 427 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.27 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.363 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 909 - - 1159 - - 187 199 626 182 200 434 Stage 1 - - - - - - 610 589 - 421 434 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 440 433 - 624 589 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 870 - - 1108 - - 167 176 585 164 177 415 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 167 176 - 164 177 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 576 557 - 398 407 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 413 406 - 594 557 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0.2 11.2 19 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 585 870 - - 1108 - - 281 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 0.009 - - 0.013 - - 0.085 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.2 9.2 0 - 8.3 0 - 19 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0 - - 0 - - 0.3 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 4 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total PM 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 321 1 2 598 19 0 0 1 24 0 15 Future Vol, veh/h 16 321 1 2 598 19 0 0 1 24 0 15 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 54 0 71 71 0 54 4 0 2 2 0 4 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 17 349 1 2 650 21 0 0 1 26 0 16 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 725 0 0 421 0 0 1132 1184 423 1105 1174 719 Stage 1 - - - - - - 455 455 - 719 719 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 677 729 - 386 455 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 887 - - 1149 - - 182 191 635 190 193 432 Stage 1 - - - - - - 589 572 - 423 436 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 446 431 - 641 572 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 841 - - 1071 - - 159 164 591 176 166 408 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 159 164 - 176 166 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 535 520 - 391 412 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 425 408 - 623 520 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0 11.1 24.7 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 591 841 - - 1071 - - 225 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 0.021 - - 0.002 - - 0.188 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.1 9.4 0 - 8.4 0 - 24.7 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.7 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 5 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total PM 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 323 3 8 626 5 4 0 6 6 1 7 Future Vol, veh/h 9 323 3 8 626 5 4 0 6 6 1 7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 48 0 95 95 0 48 4 0 2 2 0 4 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length - - - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 10 351 3 9 680 5 4 0 7 7 1 8 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 733 0 0 449 0 0 1177 1219 450 1127 1218 735 Stage 1 - - - - - - 468 468 - 749 749 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 709 751 - 378 469 - Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 881 - - 1122 - - 169 182 613 183 182 423 Stage 1 - - - - - - 579 565 - 407 422 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 428 421 - 648 564 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 841 - - 1020 - - 146 153 556 169 153 402 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 146 153 - 169 153 - Stage 1 - - - - - - 519 506 - 383 397 - Stage 2 - - - - - - 411 396 - 630 505 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0.1 19.3 21.4 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 262 841 - - 1020 - - 235 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.041 0.012 - - 0.009 - - 0.065 HCM Control Delay (s) 19.3 9.3 0 - 8.6 0 - 21.4 HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.2 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 6 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total PM 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Queues Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 26 164 273 241 389 196 107 112 53 325 53 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.31 0.34 0.58 0.53 0.64 0.34 0.31 0.14 0.80 0.12 Control Delay 28.3 29.2 4.6 28.6 25.2 43.7 34.7 3.9 29.4 48.5 0.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 28.3 29.2 4.6 28.6 25.2 43.7 34.7 3.9 29.4 48.5 0.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 10 70 19 89 156 100 51 0 23 166 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 35 147 53 184 304 176 102 15 59 #289 0 Internal Link Dist (ft) 751 428 732 533 Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 120 88 355 225 117 125 Base Capacity (vph) 284 526 957 419 728 500 521 484 480 531 530 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.31 0.29 0.58 0.53 0.39 0.21 0.23 0.11 0.61 0.10 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 7 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total PM 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 25 156 259 229 336 33 186 102 106 50 309 50 Future Volume (veh/h) 25 156 259 229 336 33 186 102 106 50 309 50 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 0.98 0.94 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1900 1885 1870 1678 1870 1856 1900 1811 1885 1841 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 26 164 273 241 354 35 196 107 0 53 325 53 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 0 1 2 15 2 3 0 6 1 4 Cap, veh/h 296 506 722 352 638 63 345 360 380 416 276 Arrive On Green 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.05 0.38 0.38 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.22 Sat Flow, veh/h 993 1870 1516 1795 1667 165 1781 1856 1610 1725 1885 1250 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 26 164 273 241 0 389 196 107 0 53 325 53 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 993 1870 1516 1795 0 1831 1781 1856 1610 1725 1885 1250 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.9 6.2 10.4 4.0 0.0 14.8 8.9 4.4 0.0 2.2 14.4 3.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.6 6.2 10.4 4.0 0.0 14.8 8.9 4.4 0.0 2.2 14.4 3.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 296 506 722 352 0 701 345 360 380 416 276 V/C Ratio(X) 0.09 0.32 0.38 0.69 0.00 0.55 0.57 0.30 0.14 0.78 0.19 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 296 506 722 352 0 701 481 502 466 510 338 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.0 25.9 15.6 28.2 0.0 21.5 32.4 30.6 0.0 27.8 32.6 28.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.6 1.7 1.5 10.4 0.0 3.1 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.1 4.9 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.5 2.9 5.3 3.7 0.0 6.6 3.8 1.9 0.0 0.9 7.1 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.6 27.6 17.1 38.6 0.0 24.6 33.0 30.8 0.0 27.9 37.5 28.3 LnGrp LOS C C B D A C C C C D C Approach Vol, veh/h 463 630 303 A 431 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.4 30.0 32.2 35.2 Approach LOS C C C D Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.0 30.0 25.6 40.0 23.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 4.0 24.0 24.0 34.0 24.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 12.4 16.4 16.8 10.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.6 1.0 2.1 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 29.4 HCM 6th LOS C Notes Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay. JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 9 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total PM 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh23.5 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 20 16 3 130 131 24 6 156 16 66 333 95 Future Vol, veh/h 20 16 3 130 131 24 6 156 16 66 333 95 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Heavy Vehicles, % 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 34 1 7 Mvmt Flow 21 17 3 138 139 26 6 166 17 70 354 101 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1 Conflicting Approach RightNB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1 HCM Control Delay 10.6 15.6 11.6 33.4 HCM LOS B C B D Lane NBLn1 EBLn1WBLn1 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 3% 51% 46% 13% Vol Thru, % 88% 41% 46% 67% Vol Right, % 9% 8% 8% 19% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 178 39 285 494 LT Vol 6 20 130 66 Through Vol 156 16 131 333 RT Vol 16 3 24 95 Lane Flow Rate 189 41 303 526 Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1 Degree of Util (X) 0.309 0.08 0.515 0.85 Departure Headway (Hd) 5.87 6.955 6.118 5.824 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 608 518 585 620 Service Time 3.952 4.955 4.194 3.884 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.311 0.079 0.518 0.848 HCM Control Delay 11.6 10.6 15.6 33.4 HCM Lane LOS B B C D HCM 95th-tile Q 1.3 0.3 2.9 9.4 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 10 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total PM 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 81 6 18 263 9 23 Future Vol, veh/h 81 6 18 263 9 23 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 45 45 0 10 1 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 26 0 0 1 0 0 Mvmt Flow 88 7 20 286 10 25 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 140 0 473 138 Stage 1 - - - - 137 - Stage 2 - - - - 336 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 - 6.4 6.2 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.4 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.4 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 - 3.5 3.3 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1456 - 553 916 Stage 1 - - - - 895 - Stage 2 - - - - 728 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1394 - 515 876 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 515 - Stage 1 - - - - 857 - Stage 2 - - - - 709 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.5 10.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 732 - - 1394 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.048 - - 0.014 - HCM Control Delay (s) 10.2 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 11 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total PM 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 5.5 Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 25 25 10 7 17 Future Vol, veh/h 17 25 25 10 7 17 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length 0 - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mvmt Flow 18 27 27 11 8 18 Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 82 17 26 0 - 0 Stage 1 17 - - - - - Stage 2 65 - - - - - Critical Hdwy 6.4 6.2 4.1 - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.4 - - - - - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.4 - - - - - Follow-up Hdwy 3.5 3.3 2.2 - - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 925 1068 1601 - - - Stage 1 1011 - - - - - Stage 2 963 - - - - - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 909 1068 1601 - - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 909 - - - - - Stage 1 994 - - - - - Stage 2 963 - - - - - Approach EB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 8.8 5.2 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1601 - 997 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - 0.046 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.8 - - HCM Lane LOS A A A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0.1 - - JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total - PM.syn Synchro 10 Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 12 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total PM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 1: Shamrock Rd & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR L TR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 294 74 356 154 87 Average Queue (ft) 141 43 159 75 42 95th Queue (ft) 245 81 289 135 82 Link Distance (ft) 304 532 559 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 75 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 18 Queuing Penalty (veh) 7 19 Intersection: 2: Private Entrance/Harmon St & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 69 149 37 56 Average Queue (ft) 8 25 9 18 95th Queue (ft) 39 105 32 47 Link Distance (ft) 77 304 320 536 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 3: Private Entrance/Washington Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 130 88 18 67 Average Queue (ft) 17 12 1 28 95th Queue (ft) 71 57 9 58 Link Distance (ft) 174 77 261 281 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 2 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 11 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total - PM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 1 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total PM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 4: Private Entrance/Observatory Ave & Jefferson Park Ave Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 110 160 33 48 Average Queue (ft) 12 35 7 13 95th Queue (ft) 59 138 28 40 Link Distance (ft) 432 174 314 534 Upstream Blk Time (%) 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 15 Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 5: Jefferson Park Ave & Fontaine Ave & Maury Ave Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB SB B22 Directions Served L T R L TR L T L T R T Maximum Queue (ft) 76 240 120 87 444 188 125 117 402 125 4 Average Queue (ft) 19 88 66 82 285 101 57 49 205 50 0 95th Queue (ft) 52 182 127 101 474 169 108 123 344 130 4 Link Distance (ft) 774 432 770 538 452 Upstream Blk Time (%) 6 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 39 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 120 88 355 117 125 Storage Blk Time (%) 3 1 22 36 0 29 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 8 1 82 83 1 29 1 Intersection: 6: Maury Ave/Alderman Road & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB SB Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 59 163 143 366 Average Queue (ft) 25 73 65 147 95th Queue (ft) 53 127 110 296 Link Distance (ft) 544 504 452 665 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total - PM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 2 Attachment E JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total PM Queuing and Blocking Report Intersection: 7: Washington Ave & Stadium Drive Movement EB WB NB Directions Served TR LT LR Maximum Queue (ft) 14 37 47 Average Queue (ft) 1 4 21 95th Queue (ft) 8 22 47 Link Distance (ft) 504 658 455 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Intersection: 8: Washington Ave & Site Entrance Movement EB NB Directions Served LR LT Maximum Queue (ft) 47 19 Average Queue (ft) 24 1 95th Queue (ft) 46 10 Link Distance (ft) 156 281 Upstream Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Storage Bay Dist (ft) Storage Blk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Network Summary Network wide Queuing Penalty: 298 JPA Aspen Heights 2028 Total - PM.syn SimTraffic Report - 10/12/2021 TG Page 3 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER: SP22-00004 DATE OF HEARING: May 10, 2022 Project Planner: Brian Haluska Date of Staff Report: April 21, 2022 Applicant: 923 Harris Street LLC Applicant’s Representative(s): Kelsey Schlein, Shimp Engineering Current Property Owner: 923 Harris Street, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 923 Harris Street LLC (“Subject Property”) Tax Map & Parcel/Tax Status: 350112000 (real estate taxes paid current - Sec. 34-10) Total Square Footage/ Acreage Site: Approx. 0.114 acres (4,984 square feet) Comprehensive Plan (General Land Use Plan): Business and Technology Mixed Use Current Zoning Classification: IC – Industrial Corridor Overlay District: None Applicant’s Request (Summary) The applicant requests a Special Use Permit (SUP) pursuant to City Code Sec. 34-458 and 34- 480, which states that residential density up to 64 DUA is permitted with a SUP. The subject property has street frontage on Harris Street. Under the IC zoning classification, 2 dwelling units could be developed by right on this site (21 DUA), per Z.O. Sec. 34-480 (Use Matrix). The site plan (Attachment C) submitted with the application depicts a development that would include 7 dwelling units as part of a multi-family residential project; since the development site is 0.114 acres, the proposed density is 62 DUA. See proposal narrative (Attachment A) and site plan submitted by the applicant pursuant to Z.O. Sec. 34-41(d)(1) and (d)(6). For clarification, the City Assessor’s data shows the subject property as having an area of 0.115 acres. Page 1 of 12 SP22-00004 923 Harris St SUP The application narrative describes a mixed-use development that would eventually include 7 multi-family units and a by-right commercial use, arranged in a building that would contain four (4) stories over one (1) story of below grade parking. The applicant is further requesting a modification of parking requirements under Section 34-162(a) to reduce the number of required parking spaces on the site by one space. Vicinity Map Page 2 of 12 SP22-00004 923 Harris St SUP Context Map 1 Context Map 2- Zoning Classifications Applicant Property KEY - Yellow: R1-S, Grey: IC Page 3 of 12 SP22-00004 923 Harris St SUP Context Map 3- General Land Use Plan, 2013 Comprehensive Plan KEY – Purple: Business and Technology Mixed Use, Blue: Civic, Pink: Neighborhood Mixed Use Corridor, Yellow: Medium Intensity Residential, Bright Yellow: General Residential (Sensitive Community Area) Standard of Review City Council may grant an applicant a special permit or special use permit, giving consideration to a number of factors set forth within Zoning Ordinance Sec. 34-157. If Council finds that a proposed use or development will have potentially adverse impacts, and if Council identifies development conditions that could satisfactorily mitigate such impacts, then Council may set forth reasonable conditions within its SUP approval. The role of the Planning Commission is to make an advisory recommendation to the City Council, as to (i) whether or not Council should approve a proposed SUP and if so, (ii) whether there are any reasonable development conditions that could mitigate potentially adverse impacts of the propose use or development. Section 34-157 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance lists a number of factors that Council will consider in making a decision on a proposed SUP. Following below is staff’s analysis of those factors, based on the information provided by the applicant. Page 4 of 12 SP22-00004 923 Harris St SUP FOR APPLICANTS ANALYSIS OF THEIR APPLICATION PER SEC 34-157 SEE ATTACHMENT A (1) Whether the proposed use or development will be harmonious with existing patterns of use and development within the neighborhood. The properties immediately surrounding the subject property are described as: Direction Use Zoning North Engine Repair IC South Pet Boarding IC East Industrial IC West Residence IC The buildings immediately surrounding the subject property are mostly one (1) to two (2) story buildings, primarily functioning as offices or industrial uses, with the exception of the subject property and the property behind the subject property. The properties that front along Harris Street are commercial and industrial in use. These properties are zoned Industrial Corridor and could be redeveloped at heights similar to the subject property. Staff Analysis: The proposed use of the property depicted in the site plan and other application materials is a residential building containing multiple dwelling units (“multi- family dwelling”) and a shared art studio with sub-surface structured parking contained within the building footprint. The surrounding area is a mix of office and industrial buildings. The proposed use is a deviation from the existing pattern of development on Harris Street. (2) Whether the proposed use or development and associated public facilities will substantially conform to the city's comprehensive plan. Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the development is in compliance: a. Land Use - Goal 3 3.3: Develop strategies and partnerships that can bring underutilized properties, including historic properties, into productive and sustainable applications that will support increased residential or commercial uses, or a mix of uses. b. Housing – Goal 2 2.1: Encourage mixed-use and mixed-income neighborhoods and housing developments throughout the city and support zoning changes to allow them by- right. 2.4: Target a city-wide residential vacancy rate of at least 5 percent in order to assure a well- functioning, liquid housing market. Page 5 of 12 SP22-00004 923 Harris St SUP Below are specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan for which the development may not be in compliance: c. Housing – Goal 2 2.2: Promote housing redevelopment and infill development that supports bicycle and pedestrian- oriented infrastructure improvements and robust public transportation to better connect residents to jobs and commercial activity. Comprehensive Plan- Staff Analysis: The Future Land Use Plan in the 2021 Comprehensive Plan calls for the subject property and areas immediately adjacent to be Business and Technology Mixed Use land use. The Comprehensive Plan specifies that Business and Technology Mixed Use areas are intended to be the location of “light industrial and production uses, with other commercial and residential uses (where appropriate)”. The plan supports building heights up to 6 stories, with residential uses on the upper floors of those buildings. Several goals in the Comprehensive Plan speak to a desire to increase the amount of housing within the City, and the increase the use of properties as well. Streets that Work Plan The May 2016 Streets that Work Plan (approved September 2016 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan) labels Harris Street as an Industrial typology. The full Streets That Work plan can be viewed at: https://www.charlottesville.gov/DocumentCenter/View/482/2016- Streets-That-Work-Plan-PDF Industrial streets are characterized as able to support commercial truck traffic, and have frequent curb cuts and limited pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. The Streets that Work Plan recommends a minimum clear zone width of five to six (5-6) feet for sidewalks, which are noted along with a curbside buffer zone (the area between the curb and sidewalk) as the highest priority items in the Industrial typology. Curb extensions are noted as appropriate for Industrial streets only when on-street parking is present. The existing sidewalks along Harris Street do not include a landscaped buffer as separation from the roadway. The lack of marked crosswalks in the vicinity of the property also limits the walkability of the area. Page 6 of 12 SP22-00004 923 Harris St SUP Staff Analysis: Based on the current application package, staff concludes that the pedestrian network along the development frontages is not consistent with the Streets that Work Plan due to the absence of the landscaped buffer zone. The subject property, however, has limited frontage along Harris and will need to tie into an adjacent sidewalk that also lacks a buffer. The addition of a buffer zone would impact the bicycle lanes on Harris Street and would likely not be approved by the City for that reason. (3) Whether proposed use or development of any buildings or structures will comply with all applicable building code regulations. Based on the information contained within the application, the proposed development would likely comply with applicable building code regulations. However, final determinations cannot be made prior to having the details required for final site plan and building permit approvals. (4) Potential adverse impacts, including, but not necessarily limited to: a) Traffic or parking congestion Traffic Trip generation information (VPD): The trip generation figures provided by the applicant (Table A in Attachment A) indicate that a development will have 18 vehicular trips per day according to the ITE Handbook. The category of use referenced in the ITE Manual, from which this peak-hour traffic data has been obtained, is Low Rise Multi-Family Housing and Small Office Building. Peak-hour traffic: As shown in the trip generation (Table A in Attachment A), the morning peak hour would have 2 trips, 50% of which would be exiting the site. The afternoon peak hour would have 2 trips, with 50% entering the site. Staff Analysis: Based on the trip generation figures provided by the applicant, staff has no concerns regarding the impact of the development on Harris Street. Vehicular Access The property would be accessed exclusively off Harris Street. Staff Analysis: The existing structure has a driveway access that encourages vehicles exiting the site to back into Harris Street. The proposed layout of the parking for the site would permit vehicles to exit the site moving forward, which is a preferable condition, and an improvement on the existing access. Page 7 of 12 SP22-00004 923 Harris St SUP Parking The project proposal narrative (Attachment A) indicates 6 parking spaces will be provided under the proposed building. Per Z.O. Sec. 34-984, the proposed building would be required to provide 8 parking spaces to serve the uses contemplated in the building. The Zoning Ordinance permits a reduction of one space. The site plan (Attachment B) shows 6 parking spaces. The project proposal narrative notes that the applicant is requesting a reduction of one space, as permitted under Section 34-162(a) of the Zoning Ordinance in conjunction with the SUP request, and is utilizing applicable City Code sections to reduce the parking requirement by one space. Staff Analysis: Based on the information provided in the project proposal narrative and site plan, staff supports the proposal to reduce the amount of required parking by one space on the site. There is available on-street parking on Concord Avenue less than 200 feet away from the proposed building. Other Modes of Transportation There are no bus lines that run on Harris Street. The closest bus line is the Route 9 bus line that runs down Rose Hill Drive. The closest bus stop is roughly 0.3 miles from the proposed building. The proposed development is also served by an incomplete sidewalk network immediately adjacent to the subject property and within the vicinity of the subject property. Crosswalks in the general vicinity are typically unmarked. Harris Street has a complete sidewalk between the subject property and Preston Avenue on the east side of the street. The sidewalk on the west of side of Harris Street between Preston Avenue and subject property is incomplete, as is the sidewalk north of the subject property along both sides of Harris Street. The bicycle infrastructure on Harris Street is a mix of dedicated bike lanes and sharrows. The applicant has noted in the narrative (Attachment A) that bicycle lockers will be provided for lockable parking within the garage. Staff Analysis: Staff believes the applicant’s proposal meets all applicable regulations based on the information provided. b) Noise, lights, dust, odor, fumes, vibration, and other factors which adversely affect the natural environment The proposed mixed-use development would be located between a pet boarding facility and a small engine repair shop. Page 8 of 12 SP22-00004 923 Harris St SUP Staff Analysis: The proposed development will not impact the surrounding natural environment more than the existing businesses already located on the block. c) Displacement of existing residents or businesses The existing building on the property is vacant. d) Discouragement of economic development activities that may provide desirable employment or enlarge the tax base As noted above, the existing residential structure on the site is vacant. The proposed building would include a space for an art studio. e) Undue density of population or intensity of use in relation to the community facilities existing or available The City’s Comprehensive Plan identifies community facilities as fire protection, police enforcement, and emergency response services; public utilities and infrastructure; and public parks and recreation opportunities. The applicant covers this in the project narrative (Attachment A). The applicant mentions that based on the average household size in Charlottesville, an anticipated 17 residents can be expected to reside in the building. Staff Analysis: The proposed development will necessarily result in some increased demand on physical facilities and services provided. Some of these impacts, such as impacts on the City’s water and sewer facilities, and public streets/ sidewalks, can be adequately evaluated and addressed during the site plan process, and final site plan approval is dependent on confirmation of adequate facilities or improvements provided by the applicant to ensure adequacy. A preliminary review of the proposal indicates the City’s existing water and sewer facilities are likely to be adequate to serve the proposed development. f) Reduction in the availability of affordable housing in the neighborhood The current use of the subject property is a single-family residential unit. The proposed construction of a new multi-family dwelling may possibly increase the availability of affordable housing, as this project will trigger the requirement for compliance with Sec. 34-12. (Affordable dwelling units). The applicant has indicated in the project narrative (Attachment A) that they intend to pay into the Affordable Housing Fund. Page 9 of 12 SP22-00004 923 Harris St SUP g) Impact on school population and facilities The applicant addresses this item in the proposed project narrative (Attachment A). The applicant states that they expect a total of two school-aged children to potentially reside in the new building. Staff Analysis: Because housing is open to all, there is a possibility that families with children could take residence here. Therefore, some impact could be created on school population and facilities. Given the size of the building, any impact would be minimal. h) Destruction of or encroachment upon conservation or historic districts The subject property is not within any design control district. i) Conformity with federal, state and local laws, as demonstrated and certified by the applicant Based on the information contained within the application, the proposed development would likely comply with applicable federal and state laws. As to local ordinances (zoning, water protection, etc.), it generally appears that this project, as detailed in the application, can be accommodated on this site in compliance with applicable local ordinances; however, final determinations cannot be made prior to having the details required for final site plan and building permit approvals. Specific Z.O. requirements reviewed preliminarily at this stage include massing and scale (building height, setbacks, stepbacks, etc.) and general planned uses. j) Massing and scale of project The application materials depict a new building containing four (4) stories above the surface of the subject property, viewed from the Harris Street frontages. Neither the application nor the Site Plan gives a specific height measurement for the building depicted within the materials; however, IC zoning regulations (Z.O. Sec. 34-457) restrict building height to 4 stories, max. The applicant has also noted that one (1) stories of structured parking will be below the surface of the subject property, which will be accessed from Harris Street. The graphic materials provided by the applicant (Attachment B) depict the proposed layout of the parking. The materials provided by the applicant do not provide a building height measured from grade to the top of the building roof along either of these street frontages. This detail needs to be included on the site plan. The site plan must demonstrate specifically that the building will not exceed 4 stories maximum allowable height in the IC zone. The building can also be no taller than 50 feet maximum height per Section 34-1100(b) of the Zoning Ordinance. Page 10 of 12 SP22-00004 923 Harris St SUP Staff Analysis: While the proposed building will be taller than the surrounding structures, the applicant’s proposal is for a building within the by-right height in the IC zone. (5) Whether the proposed use or development will be in harmony with the purposes of the specific zoning district in which it will be placed; The description for IC states the district is to provide areas for light industrial activity that is directed to assembly and technological businesses rather than heavy manufacturing. This district provides opportunities for large scale commercial uses and manufacturing or industrial type uses that are more compatible with the neighborhoods that surround the manufacturing properties. Regulations provide for buffering from incompatible uses, but encourage these important employment centers to locate within the district. . (Z.O. Sec. 34- 440(f)). The IC zone allows for multi-family residential development by-right. The proposed project is a multi-family residential development. (6) Whether the proposed use or development will meet applicable general and specific standards set forth within the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, or other city ordinances or regulations; and Based on the information contained within the application, the proposed development would likely comply with applicable local ordinances. However, final determinations cannot be made prior to having the details required for final site plan and building permit approvals. (7) When the property that is the subject of the application for a special use permit is within a design control district, city council shall refer the application to the BAR or ERB, as may be applicable, for recommendations as to whether the proposed use will have an adverse impact on the district, and for recommendations as to reasonable conditions which, if imposed, that would mitigate any such impacts. The BAR or ERB, as applicable, shall return a written report of its recommendations to the city council. The subject property is not in a design control district. Public Comments Received Community Meetings Required by Z.O. Sec. 34-41(c)(2) The applicant held a virtual community meeting on March 17th, 2022 beginning at 7:00 Property owners within 500 feet were notified of the meeting per requirements in Section 34- 41(c)(2). The letter provided by the applicant can be found in Attachment F. No members of the public attended the meeting. Page 11 of 12 SP22-00004 923 Harris St SUP Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed application. Recommended Conditions Staff recommends that a request for higher density could be approved with the following conditions: 1. Up to 62 dwelling units per acre (DUA) are permitted on the subject property. 2. The height of the building shall be four stories above a floor of structured parking. The overall height of the building shall not exceed 50 feet. 3. The required parking for the project shall be reduced by one space for a requirement of seven on-site space, subject to any applicable reductions in the City Code. Suggested Motions 1. I move to recommend approval of this application for a Special Use Permit in the IC zone at 923 Harris Street to permit a mixed-use development with additional density with the following listed conditions. a. The three (3) conditions recommended by staff b. [alternative conditions, or additional condition(s)….list here] OR, 2. I move to recommend denial of this application for a Special Use Permit in the IC zone at 923 Harris Street. Attachments A. Applicant’s Project Narrative dated March 21, 2022 B. SUP Exhibit dated March 21, 2022 C. Massing Exhibit dated February 17, 2022 D. ADU Worksheet dated March 21, 2022 E. SUP Application dated March 21, 2022 Page 12 of 12 923 HARRIS STREET PROJECT NARRATIVE ADDRESS: 923 Harris Street, Charlottesville, VA PARCEL DESCRIPTION: 350112000 PRE-APP MEETING DATE: January 4, 2022 SUBMIT 1: February 18, 2022 REVISED: March 21, 2022 PARCEL NO. ACREAGE EXISTING PROPOSED COMP. PLAN ZONING ZONING DESIGNATION 350112000 0.114 IC IC with SUP for Business and (4,984 SF) additional Technology residential Mixed Use density TOTAL 0.114 LOCATION: The parcel fronts Harris Street and is located in the Rose Hill neighborhood. A wide variety of uses including industrial, office, and residential exist in the project’s immediate vicinity. SURROUNDING USES: A wide variety of uses surround the project. A pet care facility and an industrial tool store are the immediate neighbors to the Southwest and Northeast, respectively. To the Northwest, in the industrial zone, is a residential property, and beyond that are train tracks. Beyond the train tracks are miscellaneous small businesses and low-density residential housing. Across Harris Street are a wide variety of uses, including a gas station, warehouse space, and office space. Within walking distance from the site are the Preston Avenue corridor and McIntire Plaza, both of which contain a wide variety of consumer-oriented businesses. PROJECT PROPOSAL: On behalf of the property owner, 923 Harris Street LLC, we are requesting an increased residential density from the matter of right 1-21 DUA to 44-64 DUA via special use permit in order to provide seven dwelling units and an art studio space. With a proposed seven (7) residential units, the specific request is for a maximum density of 62 DUA. The parcel’s current use is single-family residential. The Industrial corridor district allows for up to (6) stories of height with a special use permit, however, we are proposing (4) stories, which will house (7) residential units and a shared artist studio space. Concurrent with the special use permit request and in accordance with Sec. 34-162 of the City Code, which permits certain exceptions and modifications to City Code when approved as a condition of special use permit, we request a modified parking requirement for this project. City parking regulations require one (1) space per residential unit and one (1) space for the artist’s studio space, for a total of (8) required parking spaces. We request a reduction from (1) space per residential unit to .75 space per residential unit for a total of 5.25 required spaces for the residential units. With one (1) required parking space for the commercial tenant, a total of 6.25 spaces are required for this building; in accordance with Sec. 34-985 (2), where fractional spaces result, the parking spaces required shall be computed to the nearest whole number and so (6) spaces would need to be provided on-site to serve this use. In summary, (8) parking spaces are required per Sec. 34-984 to serve this proposed building; however, we request a modification to provide (6) parking spaces to serve this building. The site is designed to accommodate bike lockers to provide parking for an alternative transportation mode and there are on-street parking spaces available approximately 200’ northeast of the site along Harris St. as well as southwest of the site along Concord Ave. Further, the mixed-use nature of the building lends itself to take advantage of shared parking between the commercial and residential uses where the commercial tenant could take advantage of on-site parking during weekdays when residents are at work and residents could take advantage of on-site parking during evenings and weekends when the commercial tenant is not occupying the space. The City Code allows for certain reductions in the number of parking spaces for particular uses, however the total reduction in parking spaces in the IC district may not exceed 20%. Given the small-scale nature of this project, a 20% reduction only permits the reduction of (1) parking space. The location of the project, well integrated into the grid network just north of Preston Avenue, creates the opportunity for residents to walk to nearby restaurants, convenience stores, a grocery store, and employers. The combination of the walkable context of this site, where a complete sidewalk network exists along the southeastern side of Harris St. and a largely complete sidewalk network exists along the northwestern side of Harris St.; the mixed-use design of the building, the proposed on-site bike lockers, and the on-street parking available in the vicinity of the site support the reduction of (2) on-site required parking spaces. PUBLIC NEED OR BENEFIT: The Comprehensive Regional Housing Study and Needs Analysis completed by Partners for Economic Solutions in 2019 states in the executive summary that, “over the past two decades, housing prices in Planning District 10 have increased rapidly as new construction failed to keep pace with the increase in demand at all but the highest rent and price levels.” The recently adopted updated Comprehensive Plan notes a 3.8% vacancy rate in renter-occupied housing units, which is representative of a constrained housing supply. This proposed project will contribute to housing stock and help to meet demand for housing in Charlottesville City limits in a way that is walkable and convenient to employment opportunities. INCREASED DENSITY JUSTIFICATION: The parcel’s use is currently a single-family home on a street without any other single-family homes. The greater Charlottesville area has a shortage of housing, particularly in walkable and transit-oriented locations. The Comprehensive Plan suggests that it is advantageous to locate housing where vehicular transportation is not required. This site is walkable to numerous jobs and amenities, including the Preston Avenue shops and stores and McIntire Plaza. COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 34-12: The proposed building triggers the City’s affordable housing requirements outlined in Sec. 34-12 as the FAR of the development exceeds 1.0. The owner intends to pay into the affordable housing fund to adhere to the affordable housing regulations. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Providing housing in walkable, transit-oriented locations is of great importance to the goals of the comprehensive plan. Specifically, the recently adopted comprehensive plan notes the following Future Land Use Planning Objectives which would be achieved by allowing for additional residential units to take shape on this site: ● Increase opportunities for development near community amenities such as shopping, employment centers, and transit ● Increase access to transit, as well as walking and biking infrastructure, to help achieve the City’s climate goals and connect the community to jobs and amenities ● Ensure citywide, equitable opportunities for additional housing and enhanced community services By increasing the number of housing units on the site from one single-family dwelling to (7) dwelling units, the project enhances Charlottesville’s ability to house its growing population in a sustainable manner. The site’s location is ideal for walkability, bicycle use, and use of public transportation. Harris Street, Preston Avenue, and McIntire Plaza provide an abundance of diverse potential employment, shopping, and recreational opportunities within walking distance. There is very little housing on Harris Street currently. The future residents of the development will enhance the viability of adjacent and nearby businesses, just as the multitude of nearby businesses will provide potential employment and amenities to the residents. IMPACTS ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates indicate the average household size in Charlottesville is 2.38 people. Using the ACS average, a multi-family development with a maximum of 7 proposed units could potentially yield 17 new residents within Police District 5 and the fire district. Please note, household size is for all unit sizes and is not limited to one or two-bedroom households. Vehicular trips are expected to be minimal due to the walkable and transit-oriented nature of the site’s location; trip generation estimates from ITE are included in Table A. A CAT bus stop is located nearby on Preston Avenue and the development includes providing bike lockers for residents. It is expected that these two alternative transportation methods will lower the already low trip estimate. Harris Street’s bike lane facilitates the easy use of bicycles as a mode of transportation. TABLE A. ITE Trip Generation Estimates AM PEAK PM PEAK LAND IV IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL DAILY USE TOTAL CODE 220 - MF 7 1 3 4 3 3 6 12 Housing units (Low-Rise) 712 - 500 1 0 1 0 1 1 8 Small SF Office Bldg 5 7 20 IMPACTS ON SCHOOLS: The property is zoned for Greenbrier Elementary, Walker Upper Elementary, Buford Middle, and Charlottesville High. ACS 2018 5 year estimates show that there are an estimated 4,800 residents between the ages of 5-17 within City limits. By dividing this estimate by the number of occupied housing units in the city, 18,613, it can be approximated that there are approximately .26 children per housing unit in Charlottesville. Since 7 residential units are proposed on the site, it is estimated the project may contribute an additional two school-aged children. IMPACTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES: All design and engineering for improving the property will comply with applicable City and State regulations for erosion and sediment control and if applicable during the site plan development phase, stormwater management. There is very little planted greenery on Harris Street, and the property will provide a tree buffer at the rear of the property, a rear garden for occupants’ use and enjoyment, and a front garden area to enhance the streetscape. COMPLIANCE WITH USBC REGULATIONS: The proposed project will comply with all applicable USBC regulations. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION EXHIBITS 923 HARRIS STREET EXISTING CONDITIONS Sheet 1 of 6 0 25 e ut Ro To SITE e Av n to es Pr To TMP 35-112 Revised 15 March 2022 Submitted 18 February 2022 project: 21.090 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION EXHIBITS 923 HARRIS STREET SITE & SPECIAL USE PERMIT INFO Sheet 2 of 6 OWNER/DEVELOPER USE 923 Harris Street LLC EXISTING: Residential 923 Harris Street PROPOSED: Multifamily + Artist’s Workshop Charlottesville, VA 22903 ZONING TMP EXISTING: IC 35-112 PROPOSED: IC, with special use permit request for residential density of 44-64 DUA ACREAGE 0.114 DENSITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Business & NEIGHBORHOOD Technology Mixed Use Rose Hill PROPOSED: 7 units proposed; 62 DUA FLOODZONE BUILDING HEIGHT According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map, effective Per Section 34-457(b)(5), building height for a mixed-use date February 4, 2005 (Community Panel 51003C0286D), building or development by special use permit may be this property does not lie within a Zone X 100-year permitted up to six stories, provided that no additional floodplain. height may be allowed for any building that is located within 200 feet of any low-density residential district. SOURCE OF BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHY Proposed building height: 4 stories Boundary and topographic survey provided by Foresight Survey, P.C., February 10, 2022. Supplementary data of surrounding area provided by Charlottesville GIS. SETBACKS Per Section 34-353 of the Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance, setbacks shall be permitted as follows: FRONT MINIMUM: None FRONT MAXIMUM: 20’ SIDE MINIMUM: None REAR MINIMUM: None TMP 35-112 Revised 15 March 2022 Submitted 18 February 2022 project: 21.090 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION EXHIBITS 923 HARRIS STREET SURROUNDING ZONING Sheet 3 of 6 n District Boundaries Multiple Zonings Multiple Zonings th Multiple Zonings Multiple Zonings Multiple Zonings th Multiple Zonings SITE Zoning 1C; B-1H oning oning Zoning 1S; R-1SC; R-1SH; R- HC; R-1SU; R1USH H R-1H; R-1U; R-1UH R-2H; R-2U; R-2UH UHD; UHDH; UMD; TMP 35-112 Revised 15 March 2022 Submitted 18 February 2022 2/16/2022 project: 21.090 SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. DISCLAIMER:The City makes no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness or suitability of this data, and it should not be construed or used as a legal description. The information displayed is a compilation of information obtained from various sources, and the City is not responsible for it's accuracy or how current it may be. Every reasonable effort is made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data. Pursuant to Section 54.1-402 of the Code of Virginia, any determination of topography or contours, or any depiction of physical improvements, property lines or boundaries is for general information only and shall not be used for the design, modification or construction of improvements to real property or for flood plain determination. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION EXHIBITS 923 HARRIS STREET EXISTING CONDITIONS Sheet 4 of 6 Gingerich Outdoor Power Specialist Pet Paradise TMP 35-112 Revised 15 March 2022 Submitted 18 February 2022 20 0 20 40 60 project: 21.090 Graphic Scale: 1”=20’ SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION EXHIBITS 923 HARRIS STREET CONCEPT PLAN Sheet 5 of 6 nce ba ur ist of d it s lim ed os Prop TMP 35-112 Revised 15 March 2022 Submitted 18 February 2022 20 0 20 40 60 project: 21.090 Graphic Scale: 1”=20’ SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION EXHIBITS 923 HARRIS STREET LANDSCAPE PLAN Sheet 6 of 6 “ ” TMP 35-112 Revised 15 March 2022 Submitted 18 February 2022 20 0 20 40 60 project: 21.090 Graphic Scale: 1”=20’ SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 923 HARRIS STREET PARCEL ID: 3501120000 LEGEND: ABBREVIATIONS: ---0 GRID LINE AB ANCHOR BOLT A/C AIR CONDITIONING GR GRADE GTR GUTTER R RISER RAD RADIUS PROJECT NARRATIVE: L--4 ACT ACOUSTICAL CEILING TILE GWB GYPSUM WALL BOARD RD ROOF DRAIN NEW CONSTRUCTION 4 STORY BUILDING WITH SECTION TAG X ADJ ADJUSTABLE HB HOSE BIB REBAR STEEL REINFORCING BAR (7) 2BR APARTMENTS WWW.DISTRICTDESIGN.COM AFF ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR HC HANDICAP REC RECESSED x�x INTERIOR ELEVATION BD BOARD HD HEAD REFGREFRIGERATOR (6) CAR GARAGE PARKING WITH BICYCLE LOCKERS X 4 BIT BITUMINOUS HOR HEADER REINF REINFORCED EXTERIOR ELEVATION BKG BLOCKING HOW HARDWARE REQ REQUIRED PROJECT: I♦ @ BLDG BUILDING HGR HANGER REV REVERSE 923 HARRIS STREET DETAIL TAG BM BEAM HOR HORIZONTAL RFG ROOFING CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22903 BOF BOTTOM OF FOOTING HT HEIGHT RH RIGHT HAND EL.0'-0" ELEVATION TAG BR BRICK HTG HEATING RM ROOM BRG BEARING HVACHEATING VENTILATING RO ROUGH OPENING � LEVEL : ELEVATION ELEVATION TAG C COURSE AND AIR CONDITIONING RTG RATING DRAWING LIST: CAB CABINET HW HOT WATER SCHDSCHEDULE @ WINDOW TAG CFM CUBIC FEET PER MINUTE HWD HARDWOOD SECT SECTION C000 COVER PAGE AND @ DOOR TAG Cl CAST IRON CLG CEILING ID INSIDE DIAMETER INS INSULATION SF SQUARE FOOT MASSING EXHIBIT SHT SHEET � WALL TYPE CMU CONC MASONRY UNIT INT INTERIOR SIM SIMILAR 0 "'''-' DRAWING TITLE DRAWING TITLE COL COLUMN CONC CONCRETE JB JAMB JST JOIST SM# SMOOT LUMBER COMPANY DESIGNATION CONTCONTINUOUS KIT KITCHEN SPEC SPECIFICATION CPT CARPET LAM LAMINATED SPKR SPRINKLER CT CERAMIC TILE LAV LAVATORY SQ SQUARE WALL LEGEND: CTR CENTER LBS POUNDS S&R SHELF AND ROD DBL DOUBLE LH LEFT HAND STD STANDARD DEMO WALL DEM DEMOLISH/DEMOLITION LT LIGHT STL STEEL NEARBY RENT DATA: EXISTING MAS MASONRY NEW INTERIOR WALL DN DOWN MAX MAXIMUM STR STRUCTURE SUSP SUSPENDED MCINTIRE PLAZA RENTS DR DOOR NEW EXT. WALL DS DOWNSPOUT MECH MECHANICAL SYS SYSTEM STANDARD 1BR UNIT: $1600 MEMB MEMBRANE T TREAD DWG DRAWING EA EACH MFR MANUFACTURER T&G TONGUE AND GROOVE 2 BEDROOM UNIT: $1800 EL ELEVATION MIN MINIMUM TEL TELEPHONE SOURCE: ZILLOW ENCL ENCLOSURE MISC MISCELLANEOUS TEMP TEMPERED EQ EQUAL MLDGMOLDING THK THICK CONSULTANT: EQPT EQUIPMENT MO MASONRY OPENING TOF TOP OF FOOTING EX EXISTING MTD MOUNTED TOW TOP OF WALL EXP EXPANSION MTL METAL TV TELEVISION EXT EXTERIOR NO# NUMBER TYP TYPICAL FBRGL FIBERGLASS NTS NOT TO SCALE UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE FD FLOOR DRAIN OC ON CENTER VB VAPOR BARRIER FON FOUNDATION OD OUTSIDE DIAMETER VCT VINYL COMPOSITION TILE FF FOIL FACE OPG OPENING VERT VERTICAL FIN FINISH OPP OPPOSITE VT VINYL TILE FL FLOOR PC PRECAST CONCRETE W/ WITH MASSING SKETCH FLG FLASHING PL PLATE WD WOOD FOM FACE OF MASONRY PLAM PLASTIC LAMINATE WIN WINDOW FS FULL SIZE PLAS PLASTER W/0 WITHOUT FT FOOT OR FEET PNL PANEL WP WATERPROOFING FTG FOOTING PNT PAINT WR WATER RESISTANT FUR FURRING PR PAIR WSCT WAINSCOT GA GAUGE PSF POUNDS PER SQ FOOT WT WEIGHT GAL GALVANIZED PSI POUNDS PER SQ INCH WWF WELDED WIRE FABRIC GC GENERAL CONTRACTOR PVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE GL GLASS PLY PLYWOOD GENERAL NOTES: CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH ALL FIELD CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SUBMITTING PROPOSALS AND COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION. FIELD CONDITIONS NOT AGREEING WITH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER & DESIGNER PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK. ALL ADDITIONAL WORK NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE PROPOSED PROJECT WHICH IS NOT INDICATED ON DRAWINGS SHALL RECEIVE PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FROM THE HOMEOWNER. REVISION: CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INCLUSION OF ALL WORK NECESSARY FOR A COMPLETE INSTALLATION WHETHER SUCH WORK IS INDICATED ON DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS. ALL MANUFACTURED / PREFABRICATED ITEMS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE WRITTEN MANUFACTURES SPECIFICATIONS. JOB SITE SHALL BE KEPT IN A CLEAN AND ORDERLY FASHION AT THE END OF EACH DAYS WORK. ALL WARRANTIES, GUARANTIES AND MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE HOMEOWNER IN A COMPLETE AND ORDERLY MANNER AT THE CONCLUSION OF CONSTRUCTION. ALL WORK PERFORMED SHALL BE EXECUTED TO GREATER THAN STANDARD BUILDING QUALITY AND SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES. THE DESIGNER SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AND WILL NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCES AND PROCEDURES, OR FOR THE SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND PROGRAMS IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK, AND WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAILURE OF THE CLIENT OR HIS CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS OR ANYONE PERFORMING WORK, TO CARRY OUT THE WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE RESIDENTIAL CODES, REGULATIONS, AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. BY A LICENSED GENERAL CONTRACTOR ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT WITH THE HOMEOWNER/PROPERTY OWNER, HE AGREES TO KEEP CURRENT ALL INSURANCES, WORKER'S COMPENSATION AS REQUIRED, AND AGREES TO INDEMNIFY/HOLD HARMLESS THE HOMEOWNER/ PROPERTY OWNER FROM ANY ACCIDENTS OCCURRING FROM THE SCOPE OF WORK REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE PROPOSED PROJECT. CONTRACTORS SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING & DISPOSING OF DEBRIS, RUBBISH AND OTHER MATERIALS RESULTING FROM WORK AT THE JOB SITE. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PROTECTION BETWEEN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION AND THE EXISTING BUILDING AND TAKE ADEQUATE MEASURES TO KEEP DUST TO A MINIMUM. UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR coooo SHALL CLEAN THE ENTIRE PREMISES AND TURN OVER ALL KEYS USED DURING CONSTRUCTION, OLD AND NEW. SEE NOTE ABOVE. ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOULD BE FIELD VERIFIED INCLUDING DIMENSIONS AND STRUCTURE. SOME VARIATIONS COULD EXIST AND IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS TO CONFIRM THE INFORMATION HEREIN. SHEET: Affordable Dwelling Unit Ordinance Worksheet-923 Harris St. SUP Concept Step 1: Total Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of Site A. Total size of development site: 0.114 acres B. Total square footage of site: 0.114 x 43,560.00 = 4,984.00 square feet (sf) (# of acres) C. 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 4,984.00 (total sf of site) D. Gross Floor Area (GFA) of ALL buildings/uses: 8,820.00 sf E. Total site FAR: 8,820.00 ÷ 4,984.00 = 1.77 (total GFA of site) (1.0 FAR) F. Is E greater than or equal to 1.0 FAR? NO: Your proposed development does not trigger the ADU ordinance. YES: Proceed to Step 2 or Step 3. Step 2: Number of ADUs Required G. GFA in excess of 1.0 FAR: 8,820.00 - 4,984.00 = 3,836.00 (D: total site GFA) (B: total SF of site) H. Total GFA of ADUs required: 3,836.00 x 0.05 = 191.80 (G: GFA in excess of 1.0 FAR) I. Equivalent density based on Units Per Acre: i. Dwelling Units per Acre (DUA) approved by SUP: 62.00 ii. SF needed for ADUs: 191.80 ÷ 43,560.00 = 0.0044031 acres (H: Total GFA of ADUs) iii. Total number of ADUs required: 0.0044031 x 62.00 = 0.27 (ii: ADU acreage) (i: DUA approved) Step 3: Cash-in-Lieu Payment J. Cash-in-Lieu Amount Residential: 8,820.00 x $2.370 = $20,903.40 K. Cash-in-Lieu Amount Mixed-Use: Total GFA of development site: 8,820.00 GFA Occupied Commercial Space: 500.00 GFA Occupied Residential Space: 7,350.00 Total GFA Occupied Space: 7,850.00 % Residential: 0.94 Propotionate amount of non- occupied space GFA for residential GFA Non-Occupied Space*: 970.00 use: 908.22 Amount of Payment: 8,258.22 x $2.370 = $19,571.97 *GFA of non-occupied space shall include: (i) basements, elevator shafts and stairwells at each story, (ii) spaces used or occupied for mechanical equipment and having a structural head room of six (6) feet six (6) inches or more, (iii) penthouses, (iv) attic space, whether or not a floor has been laid, having a structural head room of six (6) feet six (6) inches or more, (v) interior balconies, and (vi) mezzanines. GFA shall not include outside balconies that do not exceed a projection of six (6) feet beyond the exterior walls of the building; parking structures below or above grade; or and roof top mechanical structures. Step 4: Minimum Term of Affordability L. Residential Project i. Households earning up to 80% AMI: Unit Type Eff. 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR 5BR 6BR Number of Units Market Rent HUD Fair Market Rents $752.00 $1,027.00 $1,179.00 $1,478.00 $1,772.00 $2,037.00 $2,303.00 HUD Utility Allowance Difference per Month $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Annual Cost of ADU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Annual Cost of ADUs: 0.00 (Sum of Annual Cost of ADU) Minimum Term of Affordability*: #DIV/0! (Cash-in-lieu payment / Total annual cost of ADUs) *If answer is less than 5, then minimum term of affordability will be 5 years. M. Mixed-Use Project i. Households earning up to 80% AMI: Unit Type Eff. 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR 5BR 6BR Number of Units Market Rent HUD Fair Market Rents $752.00 $1,027.00 $1,179.00 $1,478.00 $1,772.00 $2,037.00 $2,303.00 HUD Utility Allowance Difference per Month $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Annual Cost of ADU $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total Annual Cost of ADUs: 0.00 (Sum of Annual Cost of ADU) Minimum Term of Affordability: #DIV/0! (Cash-in-lieu payment / Total annual cost of ADUs) *If answer is less than 5, then minimum term of affordability will be 5 years. iil�t City of Charlottesville .Application for Special Use Permit ttt �i----------------------------1 ... I I t----1 � Project Name: _9_23 _ _H_ar_ r_is_st _ _______ ._ ____ A-\.� o V 2 Address of Property: 923 Harris St. Charl ttesville, A 2903 Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): _3_5_o1_ _ _ 0_ ________________ 200 350112000 _ 1 Current Zoning District Classification: __I_C_ Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Business and Technology Mixed Use Is this an amendment to an existing SUP?� If "yes", provide the SUP#:_________ Applicant: Shimp E ngineering contact: Kelsey Schlein Address: 912 E . High St.Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434)227-5140 kelsey@shimp-engineering.com Phone: Email: Applicant's Role in the Development (check one): D Owner D Owner's Agent l✓ I Designer DContract Purchaser Owner of Record: 923 Harris StreetLLC Address: 923 Harris St.Charlottesville, VA 22903 (202) 251-5291 Phone: Email: carmel@districtdesign.com Reason for Special Use Permit: D Additional height: __ feet l✓I Additional residential density: _ 7__ units, or __ 62 units per acre D Authorize specific land use (identify)_______________ D Other pur se s) (specifyCityCode section):_____________ (1) Applicant' Date 2) I sjtL ( ircle n . C Member LLC Manager Corporate Officer (specify) _______ Applicant's C �-gJ� Other (specify): (2) Signature___ C-JL � ___ _ _m_e_l _G_re_e_r _____ Date 2/8/22 Print _car ( ircle One): LLC Member LLC Manager Corporate Officer (specify) ________ Owner's C _ ___ c _w_N_ER Other (specify):_L_L__o __ 1 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT ERB Review of CoA Request within the 5th Street SW Entrance Corridor 1150 5th Street SW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: May 10, 2022 Project Planner: Carrie Rainey Date of Hearing: May 10, 2022 Application Number: P22-0034 Zoning: Highway Corridor (HW) with Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay Entrance Corridor Overlay District: §34-307(a)(6) 5th Street SW (from corporate limits to beginning of the Ridge Street ADC District) Tax Parcels: • 21B048000; 1.14-acres; Owner: RBD Bent Creek, LLC • 21B047001; 0.689-acres; Owner: RBD Bent Creek, LLC • 21B047000 2.41-acres; Owner: MCIMetro Access Transmission Services) Site Acreage: 4.27-acres (186,000 sq ft) Current Usage: Vacant buildings (21B-48, 21b-47.1); fiber optic transmission facility (21B-47). ERB Staff report prepared by: Jeff Werner, AICP, Preservation and Design Planner ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Relevant Code Section Section 34-309(a)(3). The Planning Commission serves as the entrance corridor review board (ERB) responsible for administering the design review process in entrance corridor overlay districts (EC). The ERB reviews EC Certificate of Appropriateness (CoA) requests associated with the construction of new buildings. The ERB shall either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the CoA. Appeal would be to City Council. A Final Site Plan has also been submitted and is currently being reviewed by staff; however, the CoA must be approved prior to site plan agent taking action on the Final Site Plan. Background The 4.27-acres site consists of three Tax Map Parcels, all zoned HW (Highway Corridor) and within the Fifth Street Entrance Corridor Overlay District: 21B048000 (1150 5 th Street SW; 1.14- acres), 21B047000 (0 5th Street SW; 2.41-acres), and 21B047001, (0 5th Street SW; 0.689-acres). Formerly the site of a Hardee’s restaurant, the existing structure will be razed, replaced with a 1-1/2 story convenience store (approx. 83’ W x 61’ L), a gas service area with a 2-story canopy (56’ W x 96’ L) and a dumpster enclosure (approx. 27’ W x 21’ L). (Note regarding 5th St Wawa EC CoA (April 28, 2022) 1 TMP 21B-47: No alterations are proposed for the existing, 8,400 SF fiber optic transmission building. Planned 1,780 SF building will be treated under a separate CoA request.) Applicant’s Request Entrance Corridor Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of convenience store, gas service canopy, and associated landscaping and site work. (Note: Signage shown is conceptual only. Signage must comply with City Code Div. 4 – Signs and require a separate sign permit.) Convenience store to be red brick with white banding and trim, a flat roof features a parapet of faux-Chippendale railing. The central entrance--flanked by framed porches with standing- seam metal roofs--is within a 2-story, brick tower with hipped, standing-seam metal roof. The gas service area is beneath a gabled, standing-seam metal roof on an open-truss supported by red brick piers and metal columns. The dumpster enclosure will be red brick with a precast stone band and wall cap Vehicular traffic will continue to use the east entrance on 5th Street Station Parkway. The west entrance will be closed, replaced by access from 5th Street. Existing sidewalk along 5th Street and 5th Street Station Parkway will be retained, including a connection to the Rivanna Trail. Landscaping includes site plantings, street trees, and a tree preservation area on the east and north boundaries of the project site. Submittal information (attached): • EC CoA application, signed March 4, 2022 • Cuhachi & Peterson drawings, Wawa 5th Street, dated 4/02/2021: 2 sheets. • RLA Technology Solutions photo-sims, 5th Street SW and Bent Creek Road, undated: 4 sheets. • Collins Engineering Final Site Plan, Gas Station at 5th Street Station Parkway, dated 3/01/2022: Sheets 1, 1A, 3, and 12 (4 sheets). • Red Leonard Associates photometric plan and lighting specs, dated 02/04/2022: 6 sheets. Proposed material and elements: • Walls: Brick, running bond. Convenience store walls feature soldier coursing at the water table, above the windows, and above the stucco accent band. Side elevations feature brick pilasters with pre-cast stone bases and capitals. Brick Color: Tavern Flash Red, • Roofs: Standing-seam metal. Color: charcoal gray. • Parapet screen: Stamped metal panels. Color: Silversmith. Metal trim and cap. Colors: White and Silversmith. • Scuppers, downspouts, coping, soffit, columns, truss: Painted metal. Color: White. 5th St Wawa EC CoA (April 28, 2022) 2 • Storefront: Front elevation (facing 5th Street Parkway) features an approx. 34-ft x 8-ft glazed storefront and entry. Side elevation (facing 5th Street) features three approx. 7-ft x 7-ft picture windows. Metal frame color: White. • EIFS/Stucco: Wall accent bands and signage panels on tower. Color: Stark white. • Lighting: (All lamping as spec’d is dimmable, the Color Temperature does not exceed 3,000K, and the Color Rendering Index is not less than 80.) o A4: Area light. Cree ARE-EDG-3MB-0DA-06-E-UL-XX-700-30K-DIM o B4: Area light. Cree ARE-EDG-4MB-0DA-06-E-UL-XX-700-30K-DIM o C1: Canopy light. Cree CAN-304-SL-RD-06-E-UL-XX-700-30K-DIM o D1: Soffit light Cree KR6-20L-30K-120V + KR6T-SSGC-FF o S1: Wall sconce. FC/SSL FCWS7170-XXX-30K-2500-CR185-XX-D o W1: Wall light. Cree SEC-EDG-3M-WM-04-E-UL-XX-350-30K-DIM o W2: Wall light. Cree SEC-EDG-3M-WM-02-E-UL-XX-350-30K-DIM o W3: Wall light. Cree SEC-EDG-3M-DM-12-E-UL-XX-350-30K-DIM • Landscaping: o Trees (all listed on City’s Master Tree List) ▪ Shademaster Locust (large) ▪ American Elm (large) ▪ American Holly (evergreen, large screening tree) ▪ Eastern Redbud (ornamental) ▪ Cherokee Princess Dogwood (ornamental) o Plants (evergreen, screening, * = listed on City’s Master Tree List) ▪ Inkberry, ilex glabra shamrock * ▪ Wax Myrtle, myrica cerifera (While not on the Tree List, it is native to Virginia and not identified as an invasive. https://dendro.cnre.vt.edu/dendrology/syllabus/factsheet.cfm?ID=172) ▪ Mountain Pieris, pierus floribunda * ▪ Catawba Rhododendron, rhododendron catawbiense * Standard of Review In conducting review of an application, the ERB must consider certain features and factors in determining the appropriateness of proposed construction, alteration, etc. of buildings or structures located within an entrance corridor overlay district. Following is a list of the standards set forth within §34-310 of the City Code, followed by staff’s analysis: §34-310(1): Overall architectural design, form, and style of the subject building or structure, including, but not limited to the height, mass and scale; Staff Analysis: The height, mass and scale of the proposed convenience store and gas service canopy are appropriate. 5th St Wawa EC CoA (April 28, 2022) 3 §34-310(2): Exterior architectural details and features of the subject building or structure; Staff Analysis: The architectural details are appropriate. (At the City’s request, the applicant revised the gas service canopy to have a gabled roof.) §34-310(3): Texture, materials and color of materials proposed for use on the subject building or structure; Staff Analysis: The textures, materials and colors are appropriate. §34-310(4): Design and arrangement of buildings and structures on the subject site; Staff Analysis: The site design is appropriate. The plantings and street trees are generally appropriate; however, staff recommends a condition addressing the proposed trees along 5th Street. (See the recommendation in the motion for approval.) §34-310(5): The extent to which the features and characteristics described within paragraphs (1)-(4),above, are architecturally compatible (or incompatible) with similar features and characteristics of other buildings and structures having frontage on the same EC street(s) as the subject property. Staff Analysis: The proposed site design, and building designs and materials are compatible with similar features and characteristics of buildings within the 5th Street Entrance Corridor. (Note: The Wawa constructed on Route 250, Pantops, has an identical design. See photos in attachment 1.) §34-310(6): Provisions of the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines. Staff Analysis: The design principles; the guidelines for streetscape, site design, and building; and the corridor vision have been adequately addressed by this project. The vision for the corridor acknowledges it is auto-oriented with uses related to I-64. The plantings along 5th Street will enhance the streetscape. Access to the Rivanna Trail is provided. The tree preservation area maintains a buffer on Moore’s Creek. Recommended General Guidelines specific to Sub-Area A (See attachment 2.) • Retain auto-oriented uses geared to I-64 • Upgrade franchise designs as opportunities arise • Create stronger gateway presence with plantings • Maintain 100-foot Moore’s Creek buffer Staff Recommendation 5th St Wawa EC CoA (April 28, 2022) 4 The development as presented addresses the criteria outlined in the Entrance Corridor regulations. Staff recommends approval as submitted with the condition suggested below. Public Comments Received No public comments have been received relative to the design. Suggested Motion Approval: Having considered the standards set forth within the City’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed design for the Wawa Wawa at 1150 5th Street SW is consistent with the Guidelines and compatible with the goals of this Entrance Corridor, and that the ERB approves the CoA request as submitted with the following condition: • The street trees will be revised as necessary to comply with City Code Article VIII - Improvements required for developments, Division 2 - Landscaping and Screening. To the extent permissible by Sec. 34-868(d), the trees along 5th Street shall be appropriate for locating beneath overhead utilities. Note: Sec. 34-868(d). Only trees having a mature height of less than twenty (20) feet may be installed under overhead utility lines. Alternate Motions Denial: Having considered the standards set forth within the City’s Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines, I move to find that the proposed design for the Wawa at 1150 5th Street SW is not consistent with the Guidelines and is not compatible with the goals of this Entrance Corridor, and that for the following reason(s) the ERB denies the Certificate of Appropriateness application as submitted: ... Attachments 1. Wawa – Pantops, photos 2. Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines - Links and excerpts 3. Applicant’s submittal information 5th St Wawa EC CoA (April 28, 2022) 5 Attachment 1. Wawa – Pantops (photos by J.Werner) 5th St Wawa EC CoA (April 28, 2022) 6 5th St Wawa EC CoA (April 28, 2022) 7 Attachment 2. Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines • Chapter I: Introduction http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793359/1_Introduction_ERB.pdf • Chapter II: Streetscape http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793360/2_Chapter%20II%20Streetscape_E RB.pdf • Chapter III: Site http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793361/3_Chapter%20III%20Site_ERB.pdf • Chapter IV: Buildings http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793362/4_Chapter%20IV%20Buildings_ER B.pdf • Chapter V: Entrance Corridors http://weblink.charlottesville.org/public/0/edoc/793363/5_Chapter%20V%20Maps%20of% 20Corridors_ERB.pdf Design Guidelines: Recommendations specific to the 5th Street EC. Fifth Street is a major downtown gateway to the city from I-64, and from development areas of Albemarle County in the south. This new street travels relatively parallel to the old Ridge Road but is comprised of four traffic lanes and a wide median. The corridor is lined with street trees and contains wooded hillsides and some small-scale townhouses. Highway oriented commercial uses dominate the southern end of the corridor. Positive Aspects • Street trees and planted median • Wooded hillsides and much open space • Opportunity to develop a stronger architectural image at a major gateway Vision This major southern entry leads to the Ridge Street historic district. It is auto-oriented and relatively undeveloped. The opportunity is to create an attractive boulevard leading to the downtown area. Additional landscaping along the corridor, including median flowers beds, will help define this entrance to the City, and will help make walking a more pleasant experience. Interior road connections should preclude excessive curb cuts along 5th Street. The Moore’s Creek buffer area and wooded steep slopes should be maintained to emphasize a green gateway. Individual building designs should complement the existing residential fabric of the Ridge Street historic neighborhood. This corridor is a potential location for public wayfinding signage. Design Guidelines: Recommendations specific to Sub-Area A. Description • Streetscape: Interstate-oriented, turn lanes, overhead utilities, cobra-head lights. • Site: Planted banks, planted sites, gas station canopies, elevated sites, parking lots. • Buildings: Mixed-use with retail, strip, national chains, one-story, deep setbacks. 5th St Wawa EC CoA (April 28, 2022) 8 Recommended General Guidelines • Retain auto-oriented uses geared to I-64 • Upgrade franchise designs as opportunities arise • Create stronger gateway presence with plantings • Maintain 100-foot Moore’s Creek buffer Guidelines Specific to the Zoning (HW) Highway Corridor district: The intent of the Highway Corridor district is to facilitate development of a commercial nature that is more auto-oriented than the mixed-use and neighborhood commercial corridors. Development in these areas has been traditionally auto-driven and the regulations established by this ordinance continue that trend. This district provides for intense commercial development with very limited residential use. It is intended for the areas where the most intense commercial development in Charlottesville occurs. Height regulation: • Maximum height: 1 to 7 stories, recommend 1 to 3. Setbacks: • Primary street frontage: 5 feet, minimum; 30 feet, maximum • Linking street frontage: 5 feet minimum; 20 feet, maximum • Side and Rear, adjacent to any low density residential district: 20 feet, minimum. • Side and Rear, adjacent to any other zoning district: none required. Buffer regulations: • Adjacent to any low-density residential district, side and rear buffers (S-2 type) shall be required, 10 feet, minimum. 5th St Wawa EC CoA (April 28, 2022) 9 Select pages from the EC Design Guidelines 5th St Wawa EC CoA (April 28, 2022) 10 5th St Wawa EC CoA (April 28, 2022) 11 5th St Wawa EC CoA (April 28, 2022) 12 Entrance Corridor Review Application (EC) Certificate of Appropriateness Please Return To: City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Development Services P.O. Box 911, City Hall Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Telephone (434) 970-3130 Please submit one (1) hard copy and one (1) digital copy of application form and all attachments. Please include application fee as follows: New construction project $375; Additions and other projects requiring ERB approval $125; Administrative approval $100. Make checks payable to the City of Charlottesville. The Entrance Corridor Review Board (ERB) meets the second Tuesday of the month. Deadline for submittals is Tuesday 3 weeks prior to next ERB meeting by 3:30 p.m. RBD Bent Creek LLC Owner Name____________________________________ Ashley Davies Applicant Name____________________________________ Gas Station with Convenience Store Project Name/Description__________________________________________ 21B-48 & 21B-47.1 Parcel Number______________________ 1150 5th Street SW, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Project Street Address_______________________________________________________________________________ Signature of Applicant Applicant Information I hereby attest that the information I have provided is, to the best of my knowledge, correct. Address:______________________________________ 455 2nd Street SE, Suite 201 _____________________________________________ Charlottesville, VA 22902 3/4/2022 __________________________________________ Email:________________________________________ ashley@riverbenddev.com Signature Date Phone: (W) _________________ 434-245-4971 (C) _______________ 434-409-9127 Ashley Davies __________________________________________ 3/4/2022 Print Name Date Property Owner (if not applicant) Property Owner Permission (if not applicant) I have read this application and hereby give my consent to 455 2nd Street SE, Suite 201 Address:______________________________________ its submission. _____________________________________________ Charlottesville, VA 22902 alan@riverbenddev.com Email:________________________________________ 3/4/2022 _________________________________________ Phone: (W) _________________ 434-245-4932 (C) _______________ Signature Date Alan Taylor 3/4/2022 _________________________________________ Print Name Date Demolition of vacant Hardee's building Description of Proposed Work (attach separate narrative if necessary):______________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Construction of new gas station, convenience store and fueling pumps with necessary lighting, landscaping and ___________________________________________________________________________________________ parking. Architectural elevations and renderings, select sheets Attachments (see reverse side for submittal requirements): ________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ of the site plan, including lighting and landscaping, ERB narrative. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ For Office Use Only Received by: ___________________________ Approved/Disapproved by: ______________________ Fee paid: ___________Cash/Ck. # _________ Date:_______________________________________ Date Received: _________________________ Conditions of approval: _________________________ ____________________________________________ Revised 2016 ____________________________________________ ENTRANCE CORRIDOR ORDINANCE: You can review the Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts regulations in the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance starting with Section 34-306 online at www.charlottesville.org or at www.municode.com for the City of Charlottesville. DESIGN GUIDELINES: Please refer to the current Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines online at www.charlottesville.org. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: The following information and exhibits shall be submitted along with each application for Certificate of Appropriateness, per Sec. 34-310-312 in the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance: (1) Overall architectural design, form, and style of the subject building or structure, including, but not limited to: the height, mass and scale; (2) Exterior architectural details and features of the subject building or structure; (3) Texture, materials and color of materials proposed for use on the subject building or structure; (4) Design and arrangement of buildings and structures on the subject site; (5) The extent to which the features and characteristics described within paragraphs (1)-(4), above, are architecturally compatible (or incompatible) with similar features and characteristics of other buildings and structures having frontage on the same EC street(s) as the subject property. (6) Provisions of the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines. (7) A complete application shall include all plans, maps, studies, reports, photographs, drawings, and other informational materials which may be reasonably required in order make the determinations called for in an particular case. (8) Building elevations shall be provided, unless waived by the director. (9) Each application shall include a landscaping plan as outlined in the ordinance (10) Each application shall include information about proposed lighting as outlined in the provisions of Article IX, Division 3, Sec. 34-100, et seq. 5th Street Wawa Gas Station: ERB Review 3/4/2022 The proposed gas station and convenience store at the corner of 5th Street Station Parkway and 5th Street SW is harmonious with the applicable sections of the City of Charlottesville Zoning Ordinance and Entrance Corridor Guidelines. The information included with this application offers a comprehensive guide to the architectural and site elements. A signage package for the site will be submitted for review separately. Specific requirements for Gas Stations are covered under Section 34-931 of the Zoning Ordinance. Of note are the two sections below which establish the required setback for the building and the fuel pump island for this use. • All buildings shall be setback at least forty (40) feet from the street right-of-way line and at least ten (10) feet from any other property line. • The minimum distance between gasoline pump island and back of sidewalk shall be sixteen (16) feet. The architectural elevations of the building are designed with attention to massing and detail, with both vertical and horizontal elements to further define the space. The building is primarily brick with charcoal grey metal roofing. A roof parapet conceals mechanical equipment from view. The gasoline pump island incorporates the same brick elements and metal roofing specified for the convenience store element. Full cutoff lighting is utilized throughout the site, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The design, as proposed for the gas station, is in alignment with the pertinent sections of the Entrance Corridor Guidelines, including the requirements for gas station canopies and the goals for the 5th Street Corridor. 56'-2" 96'-0" 20'-8" 26'-8" "Any site plan(s), floor plan(s), rendering(s), lighting layout(s) and photometric plan(s) including but not limited to any project(s) created/produced by Red Leonard Associates Inc., are only intended for illustration and quoting purposes only. Red Leonard Associates has the right to use third party lasers, scanners, and cameras but actual project conditions, dimensions, and accuracy of measurements may 5th Street SW and differ from these or any parameters. Red Leonard Associates Inc. assumes no liability for what is created/produced in these recreations. This includes but is not limited to the use of, installation of and/or integrity of existing building(s), surrounding area for product(s) such as existing pole(s), anchor bolt(s), base(s), architectural and signage structure(s), landscaping plan(s), lighting plan(s), fixture selec- RLAtechnolgy.com Bent Creek Road tion(s) and placement, material(s), color accuracy, texture(s), and anything attributed to photo realism that is created. Furthermore, Red Leonard Associates Inc., does not assume liability whatsoever for any purchases made by client before, during, or at the conclusion of the published work. The customer, its relative affiliates, as well as any other person(s) in viewing of this product is responsible for 513-57 4-9500 verifying compliance with any but not limited to all codes, permits, restrictions, instructions, purchases, and installations of objects viewed within this document(s) or project(s). Symbols are not drawn to scale. Size is for clarity purposes only. Sizes and dimensions are approximate, actual measurements may vary. DRAWINGS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR ENGINEERING OR CONSTRUCTION USE. This docu- Charlottesville, VA "Any site plan(s), floor plan(s), rendering(s), lighting layout(s) and photometric plan(s) including but not limited to any project(s) created/produced by Red Leonard Associates Inc., are only intended for illustration and quoting purposes only. Red Leonard Associates has the right to use third party lasers, scanners, and cameras but actual project conditions, dimensions, and accuracy of measurements may 5th Street SW and differ from these or any parameters. Red Leonard Associates Inc. assumes no liability for what is created/produced in these recreations. This includes but is not limited to the use of, installation of and/or integrity of existing building(s), surrounding area for product(s) such as existing pole(s), anchor bolt(s), base(s), architectural and signage structure(s), landscaping plan(s), lighting plan(s), fixture selec- RLAtechnolgy.com Bent Creek Road tion(s) and placement, material(s), color accuracy, texture(s), and anything attributed to photo realism that is created. Furthermore, Red Leonard Associates Inc., does not assume liability whatsoever for any purchases made by client before, during, or at the conclusion of the published work. The customer, its relative affiliates, as well as any other person(s) in viewing of this product is responsible for 513-57 4-9500 verifying compliance with any but not limited to all codes, permits, restrictions, instructions, purchases, and installations of objects viewed within this document(s) or project(s). Symbols are not drawn to scale. Size is for clarity purposes only. Sizes and dimensions are approximate, actual measurements may vary. DRAWINGS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR ENGINEERING OR CONSTRUCTION USE. This docu- Charlottesville, VA "Any site plan(s), floor plan(s), rendering(s), lighting layout(s) and photometric plan(s) including but not limited to any project(s) created/produced by Red Leonard Associates Inc., are only intended for illustration and quoting purposes only. Red Leonard Associates has the right to use third party lasers, scanners, and cameras but actual project conditions, dimensions, and accuracy of measurements may 5th Street SW and differ from these or any parameters. Red Leonard Associates Inc. assumes no liability for what is created/produced in these recreations. This includes but is not limited to the use of, installation of and/or integrity of existing building(s), surrounding area for product(s) such as existing pole(s), anchor bolt(s), base(s), architectural and signage structure(s), landscaping plan(s), lighting plan(s), fixture selec- RLAtechnolgy.com Bent Creek Road tion(s) and placement, material(s), color accuracy, texture(s), and anything attributed to photo realism that is created. Furthermore, Red Leonard Associates Inc., does not assume liability whatsoever for any purchases made by client before, during, or at the conclusion of the published work. The customer, its relative affiliates, as well as any other person(s) in viewing of this product is responsible for 513-57 4-9500 verifying compliance with any but not limited to all codes, permits, restrictions, instructions, purchases, and installations of objects viewed within this document(s) or project(s). Symbols are not drawn to scale. Size is for clarity purposes only. Sizes and dimensions are approximate, actual measurements may vary. DRAWINGS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR ENGINEERING OR CONSTRUCTION USE. This docu- Charlottesville, VA "Any site plan(s), floor plan(s), rendering(s), lighting layout(s) and photometric plan(s) including but not limited to any project(s) created/produced by Red Leonard Associates Inc., are only intended for illustration and quoting purposes only. Red Leonard Associates has the right to use third party lasers, scanners, and cameras but actual project conditions, dimensions, and accuracy of measurements may 5th Street SW and differ from these or any parameters. Red Leonard Associates Inc. assumes no liability for what is created/produced in these recreations. This includes but is not limited to the use of, installation of and/or integrity of existing building(s), surrounding area for product(s) such as existing pole(s), anchor bolt(s), base(s), architectural and signage structure(s), landscaping plan(s), lighting plan(s), fixture selec- RLAtechnolgy.com Bent Creek Road tion(s) and placement, material(s), color accuracy, texture(s), and anything attributed to photo realism that is created. Furthermore, Red Leonard Associates Inc., does not assume liability whatsoever for any purchases made by client before, during, or at the conclusion of the published work. The customer, its relative affiliates, as well as any other person(s) in viewing of this product is responsible for 513-57 4-9500 verifying compliance with any but not limited to all codes, permits, restrictions, instructions, purchases, and installations of objects viewed within this document(s) or project(s). Symbols are not drawn to scale. Size is for clarity purposes only. Sizes and dimensions are approximate, actual measurements may vary. DRAWINGS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR ENGINEERING OR CONSTRUCTION USE. This docu- Charlottesville, VA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 BIKE L ANE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 STATE ROUTE 631 0.0 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 3.0 3.2 2.7 1.7 0.8 0.5 0.5 3.2 2.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.0 1.5 2.2 2.9 3.4 0.8 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.9 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 2.7 4.3 3.0 1.6 0.9 0.6 0.6 4.3 2.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A 0.9 1.2 1.6 1.9 2.5 3.2 10 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.5 2.9 B4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 6 2.4 3.9 2.6 1.9 1.1 0.8 0.9 3.9 2.4 0.6 1.3 2.2 1.2 11 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.5 2.0 2.3 2.7 3.1 B4 B4 A 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.3 2.7 3.1 4.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 3.3 4.6 2.8 1.9 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.5 2.2 3.0 4.8 3.1 0.8 1.9 3.2 4.5 2.8 3.7 3.2 1.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 x 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 1.1 3.3 4.1 3.7 2.2 1.4 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.9 4.3 4.1 3.0 1.0 1.9 3.8 3.2 3.3 4.0 3.5 1.5 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.5 2.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 1.7 3.1 2.9 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.8 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.6 4.0 3.0 1.4 1.8 2.6 2.3 2.7 2.7 3.0 1.6 1.1 1.2 1.5 2.7 3.9 3.3 A4 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5TH STREET STATION 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.2 3.0 2.9 2.3 1.6 1.8 4.4 7.9 11.0 13.1 11.2 8.6 5.2 2.8 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.0 2.6 3.0 3.2 2.7 2.2 2.1 2.3 3.9 4.9 4.3 3.3 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 1.3 3.0 3.6 2.8 1.7 2.2 2.8 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.7 2.6 3.2 3.7 3.8 3.6 3.3 3.3 5.5 6.4 5.8 4.2 2.9 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 12 19 24 28 30 24 27 24 19 16 11 A4 15 20 20 34 31 36 29 30 24 16 14 14 13 12 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.7 3.8 3.2 2.0 3.1 4.5 1.8 1.1 1.1 1.6 2.3 2.7 3.6 3.9 3.6 3.8 3.0 6.1 7.7 6.2 3.8 2.3 1.4 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 16 23 16 C1 32 42 C138 40 23 C1 14 19 15 12 25 25 41 37 42 34 35 20 23 12 47 48 49 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.9 3.1 3.5 3.0 2.0 3.1 1739 16 35 15 5.2 1.7 1.1 0.8 0.8 12.5 W1 5.96.1 6.67.6 6.4 3.0 1.8 1.1 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 18 24 33 41 38 34 29 21 17 35 W1 W1 51 C1 C1 C1 PA 18 26 34 40 42 37 39 35 29 24 18 D1 W3 6.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.8 2.7 2.8 2.3 2.2 3.1 4.5 2.0 1.3 1.0 1.2 7.17.2 5.7 2.4 1.5 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 RKWAY 18 27 34 40 42 37 39 36 29 24 19 6.3 7.1 33 18 25 33 39 42 39 36 35 29 22 17 D1 5.4 6.8 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.7 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.1 3.5 5.4 1.9 1.2 1.6 2.9 5.3 6.4 6.76.5 4.5 2.3 1.6 1.3 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 13 25 26 2042 39 4419 36 37 18 26 24 17 40 34 19 C129 47 45C1 42 C1 20 19 D1 46 4.6 5.3 5.6 S1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 3.8 5.4 2.1 1.3 2.0 4.3 38 W1 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 13 25 26 42 39 44 36 37 26 24 17 4.2 4.6 4.95.0 3.9 2.4 2.1 1.8 D1 23 22 21 4.4 4.7 18 25 33 39 42 39 36 35 29 22 17 C1 C1 C1 36 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.3 3.2 4.8 1.9 1.4 2.1 3.9 4.4 4.5 3.5 3.1 3.5 2.7 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 18 27 34 40 42 38 39 36 30 24 19 39 D1 18 26 34 40 42 37 39 35 29 24 18 S1 37 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.9 3.2 2.8 2.6 3.5 18 25 33 39 41 38 35 34 29 21 17 5.4 1.7 1.3 1.9 4.1 45 3.9 4.0 3.3 3.9 3.7 2.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 D1 W1 4 12 25 25 2641 37 25 34 42 35 24 20 23 12 32 A4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.9 3.2 3.8 3.4 3.7 C1 C1 C1 4.7 1.7 1.1 1.1 2.0 D1 3.7 3.8 3.2 3.9 3.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 16 23 32 42 40 38 23 19 15 2 A4 15 20 20 34 31 36 29 30 24 16 14 30 29 28 27 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 2.7 3.9 3.7 3.1 12 19 24 28 30 24 27 24 19 16 11 3.9 1.5 0.9 0.8 1.8 D1 3.8 3.4 2.8 3.1 3.5 2.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 C1 C1 C1 41 44 31 42 43 W1 W1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 3.0 3.6 3.2 2.2 2.3 1.2 1.1 1.3 2.1 D1 6.6 W1 W1 2.9 3.1 2.2 2.1 2.6 1.9 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 LUMINAIRE LOCATION SUMMARY LUMINAIRE LOCATION SUMMARY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 2.4 3.0 2.0 1.8 2.3 4.0 5.6 6.4 5.5 4.5 3.1 1.8 1.0 1.1 1.4 2.3 2.7 3.4 3.8 3.4 3.7 3.0 2.6 3.8 3.2 2.2 1.7 1.6 1.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 LUM NO. LABEL MTG. HT. LUM NO. LABEL MTG. HT. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.1 2.2 2.0 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.8 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.5 3.4 2.6 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1 A4 17.5 26 C1 17.11 2 A4 17.5 27 C1 21.53 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.8 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 3 A4 17.5 28 C1 19.32 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.7 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.2 3.0 1.8 1.5 1.7 2.2 3.1 3.2 2.6 2.0 1.8 2.6 3.1 2.7 2.8 3.0 2.8 1.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 4 A4 17.5 29 C1 17.11 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.5 3.1 3.6 3.1 2.9 3.5 4.3 3.4 3.5 2.7 3.4 3.7 3.6 3.2 2.2 1.7 2.4 4.2 3.6 3.7 4.3 3.5 1.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 5 A4 17.5 30 D1 9 0.6 1.0 1.6 2.4 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.4 6 B4 17.5 31 D1 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 4.2 3.5 4.0 4.5 3.7 4.9 3.6 5.3 4.4 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.7 3.0 2.3 1.6 2.2 3.5 4.2 2.6 3.4 2.8 1.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.6 2.6 3.5 3.7 2.9 2.9 3.1 3.1 4.0 9 0.9 1.6 2.8 3.7 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.8 4.1 4.6 50 3 B4 7 B4 17.5 32 D1 9 W2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 3.9 3.9 3.8 2.7 2.3 8 0.5 0.5 0.5 A4 0.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.5 2.4 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.6 2.8 3.2 3.5 4.6 3.5 2.9 3.9 4.0 B4 8 B4 17.5 33 D1 9 0.8 1.5 2.7 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.9 2.4 2.6 1.8 2.0 2.5 1.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 B4 17.5 34 D1 9 B4 10 B4 17.5 35 D1 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 B4 17.5 36 D1 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 C1 21.53 37 D1 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 trail0.0 0.0 13 C1 19.32 38 D1 9 14 C1 17.11 39 S1 9 15 C1 21.53 40 S1 9 16 C1 19.32 41 W1 15 THIS SITE IS LOCATED IN A REGION WHERE 17 C1 17.11 42 W1 15 LIGHTING IS REGULATED BY LOCAL ORDINANCES 18 C1 21.53 43 W1 15 19 C1 19.32 44 W1 15 FOOTCANDLE LEVELS CALCULATED AT GRADE USING INITIAL LUMEN VALUES 20 C1 17.11 45 W1 15 LABEL AVG MAX MIN AVG/MIN MAX/MIN 21 C1 21.53 46 W1 15 CANOPY 28.22 47 11 2.57 4.27 22 C1 19.32 47 W1 15 DELIVERY 5.82 7.3 4.2 1.39 1.74 23 C1 17.11 48 W1 15 NOTES: ENTRANCES & EXITS 2.27 4.6 0.6 3.78 7.67 24 C1 21.53 49 W1 15 - ALL AREA LIGHTS ON 17 FT. POLES MOUNTED ON 6 IN. CONCRETE BASES PAVED 2.88 13.1 0.6 4.80 21.83 25 C1 19.32 50 W2 8 - ALL CONCRETE BASES TO BE LOCATED 5 FT. BEHIND CURB UNDEFINED 0.38 12.5 0.0 N.A. N.A. 51 W3 15 LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE SYMBOL QTY LABEL ARRANGEMENT LUMENS 3000K FACTOR LLF BUG RATING WATTS/LUMINAIRE TOTAL WATTS MANUFACTURER CATALOG LOGIC 5 A4 SINGLE 7220 1.000 1.030 B1-U0-G2 134 670 CREE, INC. ARE-EDG-3MB-DA-06-E-UL-XX-700-30K-DIM 6 B4 SINGLE 7755 1.000 1.030 B1-U0-G2 134 804 CREE, INC. ARE-EDG-4MB-DA-06-E-UL-XX-700-30K-DIM 18 C1 SINGLE 13251 0.820 1.030 B3-U0-G1 134 2412 CREE, INC. CAN-304-SL-RD-06-E-UL-XX-700-30K-DIM (SPECIAL ORDER) 9 D1 SINGLE 1652 1.000 1.020 B2-U0-G0 27.2 244.8 Cree Inc KR6-20L-3OK-120V + KR6T-SSGC-FF 2 S1 SINGLE 2659 1.000 1.000 B0-U5-G2 20 40 FC/SSL Lighting FCWS7170-XXX-30K-2500-CRI85-XX-D 9 W1 SINGLE 4210 0.820 1.030 B1-U0-G1 43 387 CREE, INC. SEC-EDG-3M-WM-04-E-UL-XX-350-30K-DIM 1 W2 SINGLE 2105 0.820 1.030 B1-U0-G1 25 25 CREE, INC. SEC-EDG-3M-WM-02-E-UL-XX-350-30K-DIM 1 W3 SINGLE 12455 0.820 1.030 B3-U0-G3 127 127 CREE, INC. SEC-EDG-3M-DM-12-E-UL-XX-350-30K-DIM DISCLAIMER ANY SITE PLAN(S), FLOOR PLAN(S), RENDERING(S), LIGHTING LAYOUT(S) AND PHOTOMETRIC PLAN(S) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY PROJECT(S) CREATED/PRODUCED BY RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES INC., ARE ONLY INTENDED REV. BY DATE DESCRIPTION FOR ILLUSTRATION AND QUOTING PURPOSES ONLY. RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES HAS THE RIGHT TO USE THIRD PARTY LASERS, SCANNERS, AND CAMERAS BUT ACTUAL PROJECT CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS, AND ACCURACY OF PROJECT NAME: MEASUREMENTS MAY DIFFER FROM THESE OR ANY PARAMETERS. RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES INC. ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR WHAT IS CREATED/PRODUCED IN THESE RECREATIONS. THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO THE R1 LMP 02/22/22 REVISED PER MARK UP USE OF, INSTALLATION OF AND/OR INTEGRITY OF EXISTING BUILDING(S), SURROUNDING AREA FOR PRODUCT(S) SUCH AS EXISTING POLE(S), ANCHOR BOLT(S), BASE(S), ARCHITECTURAL AND SIGNAGE STRUCTURE(S), LANDSCAPING SCALE: 1" = 30' LAYOUT BY: LMP WAWA PLAN(S), LIGHTING PLAN(S), FIXTURE SELECTION(S) AND PLACEMENT, MATERIAL(S), COLOR ACCURACY, TEXTURE(S), AND ANYTHING ATTRIBUTED TO PHOTO REALISM THAT IS CREATED. FURTHERMORE, RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES R2 LMP 03/15/22 REVISED FIXTURES TO 3000K CCT INC., DOES NOT ASSUME LIABILITY WHATSOEVER FOR ANY PURCHASES MADE BY CLIENT BEFORE, DURING, OR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PUBLISHED WORK. THE CUSTOMER, ITS RELATIVE AFFILIATES, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER PERSON(S) IN VIEWING OF THIS PRODUCT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING COMPLIANCE WITH ANY BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL CODES, PERMITS, RESTRICTIONS, INSTRUCTIONS, PURCHASES, AND INSTALLATIONS OF OBJECTS VIEWED DWG SIZE: DATE: CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA DRAWING NUMBER: 1340 1340 Kemper Kemper MeadowDr, Meadow Dr,Forest ForestPark, Park,OH OH45240 45240 . . . . WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT(S) OR PROJECT(S). SYMBOLS ARE NOT DRAWN TO SCALE. SIZE IS FOR CLARITY PURPOSES ONLY. SIZES AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE, ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS MAY VARY. DRAWINGS ARE NOT D 02/04/22 513-574-9500 redleonard.com 513-574-9500 | redleonard.com . . . . INTENDED FOR ENGINEERING OR CONSTRUCTION USE. THIS DOCUMENT, ANY RED LEONARD DRAWING(S), OR PROJECT(S) IS NOT TO BE USED AND/OR INTENDED FOR ENGINEERING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES, BUT FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. ANY LOCATIONS OF EMERGENCY LIGHTING SHOWN WERE PROVIDED BY OTHERS. RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR INSUFFICIENT LIGHTING DURING AN EMERGENCY EVENT. RL-7876-S1-R2 ANY USE OF THIS DOCUMENTATION AND/OR OTHER ARTICLES PRODUCED BY RED LEONARD WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM JAYME J. LEONARD IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. QTY LABEL DESCRIPTION QTY LABEL DESCRIPTION QTY LABEL DESCRIPTION QTY LABEL DESCRIPTION QTY LABEL DESCRIPTION AREA 5 A4 ARE-EDG-3MB-DA-06-E-UL-XX-700-30K-DIM CANOPY 18 C1 CAN-304-SL-RD-06-E-UL-XX-700-30K-DIM DOWNLIGHT 9 D1 KR6-20L-3OK-120V + KR6T-SSGC-FF WALL MOUNTED 2 S1 FCWS7170-XXX-30K-2500-CRI85-XX-D WALL MOUNTED 9 W1 SEC-EDG-3M-WM-04-E-UL-XX-350-30K-DIM (SPECIAL ORDER) 6 B4 ARE-EDG-4MB-DA-06-E-UL-XX-700-30K-DIM 1 W2 SEC-EDG-3M-WM-02-E-UL-XX-350-30K-DIM 1 W3 SEC-EDG-3M-DM-12-E-UL-XX-350-30K-DIM THE EDGE® Series 304 Series™ KR Series Date: Type: Approved: THE EDGE® Series LED Area/Flood Luminaire LED Recessed Canopy Luminaire KR6™ LED Specification Downlight – Round 6" Rev. Date: V15 06/11/2020 LED Security Wall Pack Luminaire Rev. Date: V11 09/07/2021 Rev. Date: V7 04/05/2021 Rev. Date: V8 09/03/2021 Fixture: Product Description DA Mount Product Description RS Mount Product Description Product Description Project: THE EDGE® Series has a slim, low profile design. Its rugged cast aluminum housing minimizes Luminaire housing is constructed from rugged die cast aluminum components (RS Mount) or THE EDGE® wall mount luminaire has a slim, low profile design. The luminaire end caps are made from wind load requirements and features an integral, weathertight LED driver compartment and high performance aluminum heat sinks. Various mounting choices: Adjustable Arm, Direct Arm, Direct Arm die cast and extruded aluminum components (RD Mount). LED driver is mounted in a sealed weathertight center chamber that allows for access from below the fixture. Luminaire mounts The KR6™ LED specification downlight features Cree TrueWhite® Technology and delivers beautiful, high-quality light with efficacy up to 76 lumens per watt. Designed for new construction applications, FCWS7170 FCWS7170 Exterior Decor fixture is an IP65 rated, ADA compliant, easy to maintain rugged die cast aluminum with integral, weathertight LED driver compartments and high performance aluminum heat sinks specifically designed for LED applications. Housing is rugged aluminum. Includes a the KR Series is available in a variety of color temperatures, round and square trims with high-quality fixture that has an impact resistant lens and face options to meet the design Long, or Side Arm (details on page 2). Includes a leaf/debris guard. directly to the canopy deck and is secured in place with die cast aluminum trim frame. Luminaire lightweight mounting box for installation over standard and mud ring single gang J-Boxes. Secures to wall anodized aluminum reflector finishes, a sloped ceiling adaptor accessory, and a variety of dimming Applications: Parking lots, walkways, campuses, car dealerships, office complexes, and internal housing is provided with factory applied foam gasket that provides a watertight seal between options including Cree Lighting's Sunset Dimming Technology which provides rich, warm light that requirements of your building. with four 3/16" (5mm) screws (by others). Conduit entry from top, bottom, sides and rear. Allows mounting roadways luminaire housing and canopy deck. Suitable for use in single or double skin canopies with 16" for uplight or downlight. Designed and approved for easy through-wiring. Includes leaf/debris guard. transitions from 2700K to 1800K as naturally as an incandescent source. (406 mm) wide panels. Designed for canopies of 19-22 gauge (maximum 0.040" [1 mm] thickness). Applications: General area and security lighting Applications: Petroleum stations, convenience stores, drive-thru banks and restaurants, retail Performance Summary ADA and grocery Utilizes Cree TrueWhite® Technology 11.9" 27.1" (302mm) Performance Summary Initial Delivered Lumens: 700-5,300 lumens; Delivered lumen output is typical when using a SSGC Performance Summary (688mm) type reflector Patented NanoOptic® Product Technology Performance Summary SPECIFICATIONS Patented NanoOptic® Product Technology Input Power: 13-87 watts 18.3" Assembled in the U.S.A. of U.S. and imported parts 18.1" Patented NanoOptic Product Technology ® Assembled in the U.S.A. of U.S. and imported parts (464mm) (460mm) 14"SQ Emergency Performance: Up to 1,210 Lumens; 10W; Minimum 90 Minutes 12.6" CRI: Minimum 70 CRI (4000K & 5700K); 80 CRI (3000K); 90 CRI (5000K) 9.0" NEMA® 3-Pin Photocell Receptacle location Assembled in the U.S.A. of U.S. and imported parts (356mm) (320mm) PHYSICAL CRI: Minimum 70 CRI (4000K & 5700K); 80 CRI (3000K); 90 CRI (5000K) (229mm) (ordered as an option) CRI: 90 CCT: Turtle Friendly Amber, 3000K (+/- 300K), 4000K (+/- 300K), 5000K (+/- 500K), 5700K (+/- 500K) CRI: Minimum 70 CRI lengths/dimensions [ LxDxH ] fixture: 24" H x 7.25" W x 4" D CCT: Turtle Friendly Amber, 3000K (+/- 300K), 4000K (+/- 300K), 5000K (+/- 500K), 5700K (+/- 500K) standard CCT: 2700K, 3000K, 3500K, 4000K, 5000K standard 2.1" Convenient, CCT: 4000K (+/- 300K), 5700K (+/- 500K) standard 7.4"* weight 9.25 lbs Limited Warranty†: 10 years on luminaire/10 years on Colorfast DeltaGuard® finish /1 year on (53mm) Interlocking Controls: Triac Dimming to 5%, 0/1-10V Dimming to 10%, and Lutron EcoSystem® Dimming to 1% Limited Warranty†: 10 years on luminaire/10 years on Colorfast DeltaGuard® finish/1 year on (187mm) accessories Mounting Method Limited Warranty†: 10 years on luminaire/10 years on Colorfast DeltaGuard® finish housing marine grade, corrosion resistant, heavy gauge high pressure die cast aluminum accessories 2.2" Limited Warranty†: 10 years on KR6™ luminaire/1 year on accessories See http://creelighting.com/warranty for warranty terms 3.9" “A” lens † † See http://creelighting.com/warranty for warranty terms (56mm) impact resistant, UV stabilized, opal, polycarbonate diffuser † See http://creelighting.com/warranty for warranty terms (99mm) Limited Warranty Emergency Back Up (EB) Battery: 1 Year Battery Back Up. Test regularly in 4.1" 8.7" (104mm) 7.0" (220mm) accordance with local codes (178mm) mounts directly to standard junction box; masonry applications use four (4) 0.25" x 0.75" screws with lead anchors Accessories Accessories 9.6" mounting Accessories LED Count Dim. "A" Weight (244mm) † See http://creelighting.com/warranty for warranty terms (fasteners not included, j-box by others) “A” (x10) Emergency Backup ingress protection IP65: dry, damp, or wet locations with PVC closed cell foam gasket to seal out contaminants Field-Installed Field-Installed Field-Installed LED Count (x10) Dim. "A" Weight 02 12.1" (306mm) 21 lbs. (10kg) Programmable Multi-level Sensor Accessories Bird Spikes Backlight Control Shields Hand-Held Remote location (ordered as an option) finish six stage chemical iron phosphate substrate pre-treatment process with UV stable, polyester powder coat Bird Spikes Beauty Plate Hand-Held Remote 02 9.9" (251mm) 20 lbs. (9.1kg) XA-BRDSPK XA-20BLS-4 04 12.1" (306mm) 24 lbs. (11kg) XA-SENSREM XA-BRDSPK WM-PLT12** - 12" (305mm) Square XA-SENSREM Hand-Held Remote - Four-pack - For successful implementation of the programmable multi-level option, a minimum of one hand-held remote is required Field-Installed - For successful implementation of the 04 11.9" (303mm) 22 lbs. (10.0kg) WM-PLT14** - 14" (356mm) Square XA-SENSREM - For successful implementation of the programmable multi-level - Unpainted stainless steel Shorting Cap 06 14.1" (357mm) 27 lbs. (12kg) 2.2" Sloped Ceiling Adaptor C-Channel Hanger Bars T-Bar Clips PERFORMANCE - Covers holes left by incumbent programmable multi-level option, a minimum of one hand-held remote is required 06 13.9" (353mm) 25 lbs. (11.3kg) 08 16.1" (408mm) 28 lbs. (13kg) (56mm) 18.4" wall packs option, a minimum of one hand-held remote is required XA-XSLSHRT KRKS6**WW RBH30C RARC7 NEMA® 3-Pin Photocell 8.7" ** 0-35 (order in 5 degree - Pair of 30" (762mm) rigid 3/4" x 1/2" - Set of four (467mm) color temperature 2700K 3000K 3500K 4000K 08 15.9" (404mm) 27 lbs. (12.2kg) 10 18.1" (459mm) 32 lbs. (15kg) (220mm) increments) (19mm x 13mm) C-Channel bars - For use with RBH24C-1 hanger bars ** Must specify color C-ACC-A-PCELL-NEMA3-LV - On/off functionality only 12 20.1" (510mm) 34 lbs. (15kg) 9.6" (244mm) RBH24C-1 - Pair of 24" (610mm) x 1-1/2" (38mm) Beauty Ring KR6TA lumen output 1200 lm | 1800 lm | 2500 lm | 3800 lm | 5100 lm | 9555 lm 10 17.9" (455mm) 31 lbs. (14.1kg) - Available with UL voltage only 12 19.9" (505mm) 32 lbs. (14.5kg) 14 22.1" (560mm) 37 lbs. (17kg) x 1/2" (13mm) standard C-Channel bars - White beauty ring to cover pan head fasteners on KR6T reflector lifetime > 70,000 hours / L70 or better 19.7" Ordering Information 16 24.1" (611mm) 41 lbs. (19kg) (499mm) color consistency 3-Step McAdam Ellipse / standard: CRI ≥ 85 | optional: CRI ≥ 90 CRI Example: SEC-EDG-2M-WM-06-E-UL-SV-700 Ordering Information AA/DL/SA Mount - see page 22 for weight & dimensions Example: ARE-EDG-2M-AA-12-E-UL-SV-350 Ordering Information temperature operating: -13°F to 104°F (-25°C to 40°C) | start up: -13°F to 104°F (-25°C to 40°C) | storage: -40°F to 176°F (-40°C to 80°C) SEC-EDG WM E Fully assembled luminaire is composed of two components that must be ordered separately: E Example: Housing: KR6-20L-35K-120V-10V + Reflector: KR6T-SSGC-FF 7.4"* junction temperature 73°C @ TA 25°C LED Color Drive Product Optic Mounting Count Series Voltage Options (187mm) Options Current LED Color Drive Weight Reflector (Housing must be ordered separately) warranty 5 year limited warranty (refer to website for details) (x10) Product Optic Mounting* Count Series Voltage Op- Options Current SEC-EDG 2M WM 02 E UL BK 350 DIM 0-10V Dimming (x10) tions Ordering Information 22.0 lbs. (9.9kg) KR6T 7.0" ARE-EDG 2M 3MB 4MP AA 02 E UL BK 350 DIM 0-10V Dimming PML2 Programmable Multi-Level, Example: CAN-304-5M-RS-04-E-UL-SV-350 (178mm) NON-LED Type II Medium 2MB Wall Mount 04 06 Universal 120-277V Black BZ 350mA 525 - Control by others - Refer to Dimming spec sheet for details Series Reflector Finish Flange Finish Options - Can't exceed specified drive current Type II Type III Type IV Adjustable 04 Universal Black 350mA - Control by others 10-30' Mounting Height CAN-304 E CFL socket: PL: four pin plug-in type compact fluorescent lamp holder (lamp by others) Type II Medium w/BLS 2S 08 UH Universal Bronze SV 525mA -Available with 20-80 LEDs - Not available with PML option Medium Medium Medium Arm 06 120-277V BZ 525 - Refer to Dimming spec sheet for details - Refer to PML spec sheet for details * Add 1.5" (38mm) for 60L Lumen Package 10 KR6T Standard Trim SSGC FF Matches Reflector WW Wall Wash 2MB w/BLS w/Partial DA 08 UH Bronze 525mA - Can't exceed specified drive current - Intended for downlight applications - Reflector attaches to housing with Soft Satin Glow, WF White Paint ballast ballast: fluorescent electronic, UL listed ballast standard Type II Short 12 347-480V Silver 700 F Fuse - Compatible only with 120V, 277V or 347V (phase to Type II 3MP BLS Direct Arm Universal SV 700 - Not available with PML options at 0˚ tilt LED Count Color Drive 2SB 34 WH 700mA 10 Product Optic Mounting Series Voltage Options pan head fasteners and keyhole slots Clear neutral) Medium Type III 5M DL 347-480V Silver 700mA F Fuse R NEMA® 3-Pin Photocell (x10) Options Current Type II Short w/BLS 347V White -Available with 20-60 LEDs w/BLS Medium Type V Direct Long 12 14 WH - Available - Compatible only with 120V, 277V or 347V (phase to neutral) Receptacle - 3-pin receptacle per ANSI C136.10 ELECTRICAL 3M - Consult factory if fusing is required for 208V, 240V or 480V (phase to phase) 2MP w/Partial Medium Arm White with 20- CAN-304 5M RS 04 E UL BK 350 DIM 0-10V Dimming Type III Medium - Consult factory if fusing is required for 208V, - Not available with SA mount - Refer to PML spec sheet for availability with PML Type II BLS 5S 16 60 LEDs 240V or 480V (phase to phase) - Intended for downlight applications Type V Recessed 06 Universal Black 350mA - Control by others input voltage Universal 120-277VAC | optional: 347VAC (integral) 3MB options Me- 4M Type V Medium Single 120-277V BZ 525 - Refer to Dimming spec sheet for details Housing (Reflector must be ordered separately) Type III Medium w/BLS - When code dictates fusing, use time delay fuse dium w/ Type IV Short - Refer to PML spec sheet for availability with with maximum 45˚ tilt Partial Medium PML options - Requires photocell or shorting cap 5S Type V Skin RD UH Universal Bronze 525mA F - Can't exceed specified drive current Fuse KR6 power supply Integral Class II, electronic, high power factor > 94% @120V 4M Type IV Medium P Photocell - When code dictates fusing, use time delay fuse by others SV 700* - Must specify UL or 34 voltage BLS 4MB Short Recessed 347-480V Silver 700mA - Compatible only with 120V, 277V or 347V (phase to neutral) 4MB 3M Type IV HL Hi/Low (Dual Circuit Input) - Refer to HL spec sheet for details - Refer to PML spec sheet for availability with PML options PS Double WH - Consult factory if fusing is required for 208V, 240V or 480V (phase to phase) Series Size Reflector Lumen Package Optic CCT Voltage Controls Options certifications ETL/cETL Listed, CEC Title 24 JA8 compliant (only 90CRI complies), ADA Compliant Type IV Medium w/BLS PML Programmable Multi-Level Type III Medium - Refer to PML spec sheet for availability with PML options - Refer to PML spec sheet for details 30K 3000K Color Temperature Petroleum Skin White - Sensor not included - Intended for downlight applications with 0° tilt Medium w/BLS P Photocell - Minimum 80 CRI Symmetric - When code dictates fusing, use time delay fuse KR 6 Blank 9L Blank 27K 120V Blank WD Sunset Dim standards UL 1598 / CSA C22.2 No. 250.0 - Class II / IES LM-79 / LM-80 30K 3000K Color Temperature - Color temperature per luminaire SL PML Programmable Multi-Level 6 Round 13W, 700 Lumens – 54 LPW 70˚ - 2700K 120 Volts - For standard control offering refer to - 9L and 13L @ 27K with Triac - Refer to PML spec sheet for availability with - Minimum 80 CRI FLD- 25 70 N6 AA PML options 40K 4000K Color Temperature Sparkle - Refer to PML spec sheet for details inch 13L 18W, 1,100 Lumens – 61 LPW Beam Angle - 9L thru 40L only 30K 277V 277 Volts control availability chart on page 4 10V 0/1-10V Dimming Dimming only EB7 Emergency Backup power consumption 79W @ 120V - 277V (maximum) - Color temperature per luminaire - Available with UL voltage only - Minimum 70 CRI Petroleum 40K 4000K Color Temperature EDG 25˚ 70˚ NEMA® Adjustable 3000K - Refer to control availability chart on - Minimum 90 minutes 40K 4000K Color Temperature - Minimum 70 CRI Flood Flood 6 Arm PML Programmable Multi-Level, 20-40' Mounting Height - Color temperature per luminaire 50K 5000K Color Temperature - Color temperature per luminaire 20L 30W, 1,700 Lumens – 57 LPW 35K 347V 347 Volts page 4 - 120V, 277V only dimming interface standard: 0-10V (1%) | optional: ELV (120V only)/DMX (remote only)/DALI (integral) - Minimum 70 CRI 40 SN SA - Minimum operating temperature: - Color temperature per luminaire - Refer to PML spec sheet for details - Minimum 90 CRI TRL Amber Turtle Friendly LEDs 30L 3500K LES Lutron EcoSystem® Dimming 40˚ Sign Side Arm - Available only with 350mA 0˚C (32˚F) 50K 5000K Color Temperature - Intended for downlight applications at 0˚ tilt - Color temperature per luminaire 39W, 2,550 Lumens – 65 LPW 40K - Refer to control availability chart on Flood - Available - Lumen multiplier from 5700K: 0.32 (350mA) - Minimum 90 CRI TRL Amber Turtle Friendly LEDs 40L 4000K page 4 with 20-60 - Power multiplier: 0.76 - Color temperature per luminaire - Available only with 350mA 44W, 3,350 Lumens – 76 LPW 50K - Not available with 60L LEDs - 600nm dominant wavelength TRL Amber Turtle Friendly LEDs - 600nm dominant wavelength 60L 5000K - Additional shielding (by others) may be required for Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation - Available only with 350mA - Additional shielding (by others) may 87W, 5,300 Lumens – 61 LPW - Available on 40L Commission compliance - 600nm dominant wavelength be required for Florida Fish and - Available on 120V and 277V only and 60L only Expanded Disclaimer: Due to continuous development and improvements, specifications are subject to change without notice. FC Lighting and Solid State Luminaires reserves the right to change lab test details or specifica- - Additional shielding (by others) may be required for Wildlife Conservation Commission * 60 LED luminaire requires marked spacing: 48" x 24" x 6" (1,219mm x 610mm x 152mm); 48" (1,219mm) center-to-center of adjacent luminaires, 24" (610mm) luminaire center to side building member, 6" (152mm) top of luminaire to tions without notice. Product use certifies agreement to Solid State Luminaires terms and conditions. FCW & FCWS Series fixtures are engineered and produced in our Illinois manufacturing facility. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission compliance overhead building member compliance Specification Sheet * Reference EPA and pole configuration suitability data beginning on page 19 a US Commercial Lighting Manufacturer Since 1982 JS Rev. 01/03/2018 US: creelighting.com (800) 236-6800 US: creelighting.com (800) 236-6800 US: creelighting.com T (800) 236-6800 US: creelighting.com (800) 236-6800 Canada: creelighting-canada.com (800) 473-1234 Canada: creelighting-canada.com (800) 473-1234 Canada: creelighting-canada.com (800) 473-1234 Canada: creelighting-canada.com T (800) 473-1234 THE EDGE® LED Area/Flood Luminaire Product Specifications FCWS7170 Electrical Data* 304 Series™ LED Recessed Canopy Luminaire THE EDGE® LED Security Wall Pack Luminaire KR6™ LED Specification Downlight – Round 6" CONSTRUCTION & MATERIALS Ordering Information LED System Total Current (A) • Slim, low profile, minimizing wind load requirements Count CCT Watts • Luminaire sides are rugged die cast aluminum with integral, (x10) 120-480V 120V 208V 240V 277V 347V 480V Product Specifications Product Specifications Product Specifications weathertight LED driver compartment and high performance heat sinks Electrical Data* KR Series Ambient Adjusted Lumen Maintenance1 Electrical Data* 350mA CREE TRUEWHITE® TECHNOLOGY • DA and DL mount utilizes convenient interlocking mounting method. CONSTRUCTION & MATERIALS CONSTRUCTION & MATERIALS Total Current (A) A revolutionary way to generate high-quality white light, Cree TrueWhite® Initial 25K hr 50K hr 75K hr 100K hr LED System Total Current (A) Mounting is rugged die cast aluminum, mounts to 3-6" (76-152mm) 30K/40K/50K/57K 25 0.21 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.07 • RS Mount luminaire housing is constructed from rugged die cast Initial • Slim, low profile design System Technology is a patented approach that delivers an exclusive combination of Ambient Delivered Reported2 Reported2 Estimated3 Estimated3 Count CCT Watts square or round pole and secures to pole with 5/16-18 UNC bolts spaced 02 aluminum and incorporates integral, high performance heatsink fins LED Count LMF • Luminaire sides are rugged die cast aluminum with integral, (x10) 120-480V 120V 208V 240V 277V 347V 480V TRL 19 0.16 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 Watts 90+ CRI, beautiful light characteristics, and lifelong color consistency, all while Lumens LMF LMF LMF LMF on 2" (51mm) centers specifically designed for LED canopy applications (x10) 120-480V 120V 208V 240V 277V 347V 480V maintaining high luminous efficacy – a true no compromise solution. ORDERING INFORMATION weathertight LED driver compartment and high performance aluminum • AA and SA mounts are rugged die cast aluminum and mount to 2" 30K/40K/50K/57K 46 0.36 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.15 0.12 • RD Mount luminaire housing is constructed from rugged die cast 9L, 13L 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 heat sinks specifically designed for LED applications 350mA (51mm) IP, 2.375" (60mm) O.D. tenons 04 aluminum and features high performance extruded aluminum heatsinks CONSTRUCTION & MATERIAL 5˚C 20L 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 TRL 35 0.29 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.10 0.07 • Housing is rugged aluminum 30K/40K/50K/57K 25 0.21 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.07 • Includes leaf/debris guard specifically designed for LED canopy applications 350mA • Low brightness parabolic spun Alzak aluminum cone, 0.06" (2mm) thick (41˚F) 30L 1.04 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 02 30K/40K/50K/57K 66 0.52 0.31 0.28 0.26 0.20 0.15 with polished radius and continuous self-flange • Furnished with low copper, light weight mounting box designed for TRL 19 0.16 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 • Exclusive Colorfast DeltaGuard finish features an E-Coat epoxy primer ® 06 • LED driver is mounted in a sealed weathertight center chamber that 04 46 0.39 0.24 0.22 0.21 0.15 0.12 40L, 60L 1.04 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 FCWS7170 installation over standard and mud ring single gang J-Boxes with an ultra-durable powder topcoat, providing excellent resistance to TRL 50 0.41 0.24 0.21 0.18 0.14 0.10 allows for access from below the luminaire • Soft Satin Glow Clear finish, standard 9L, 13L 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 30K/40K/50K/57K 46 0.36 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.15 0.12 • Luminaire can also be direct mounted to a wall and surface wired corrosion, ultraviolet degradation and abrasion. Black, bronze, silver, • Field adjustable drive current between 350mA, 525mA and 700mA on • 2" (51mm) aperture throat to accommodate all standard and up to 3" 20L 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 SERIES VOLTAGE SOURCE/TEMPERATURE/LED LUMENS CRI FINSH OPTIONS & ACCESSORIES 04 30K/40K/50K/57K 90 0.75 0.44 0.38 0.34 0.26 0.20 06 69 0.57 0.34 0.30 0.27 0.21 0.16 10˚C • Secures to wall with four 3/16" (5mm) screws (by others) TRL 35 0.29 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.10 0.07 and white are available 08 Non-IC rated luminaires (76mm) thick ceilings and provide flexibility in mounting within grid (50˚F) 30L 1.03 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 FCWS7170 UNV UNV 120V-277V LED 27K 1200 Lumens (10W) CRI85 85 CRI BK Black LD 0-10V Dimming (1%) • Weight: See Dimensions and Weight Charts on pages 1 and 22 TRL 68 0.57 0.33 0.28 0.25 0.20 0.14 • Luminaire housing provided with factory applied foam gasket and 525mA • Provided with quick mounting brackets for optional carrying channels • Conduit entry from top, bottom, sides, and rear 30K/40K/50K/57K 66 0.52 0.31 0.28 0.26 0.20 0.15 40L, 60L 1.03 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 CR85 Standard 06 30K/40K/50K/57K 110 0.92 0.53 0.47 0.41 0.32 0.24 provides for a watertight seal between luminaire housing and canopy • Light engine, optics, and driver accessible from below ceiling 347V* 347V* (integral) 3K 1800 Lumens (15W) BZ Bronze ELV* ELV Dimming* (120V only) • Allows mounting for uplight or downlight TRL 50 0.41 0.24 0.21 0.18 0.14 0.10 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM 10 deck 9L, 13L 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 04 71 0.59 0.35 0.31 0.28 0.21 0.16 • Designed and approved for easy through-wiring TRL 83 0.69 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.24 0.17 20L 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 35K 2500 Lumens (21W) CRI90 90 CRI CC Custom Color DMX* DMX Dimming* (integral) 30K/40K/50K/57K 90 0.75 0.44 0.38 0.34 0.26 0.20 • Input Voltage: 120-277V or 347-480V, 50/60Hz, Class 1 drivers • Mounts directly to the canopy deck and is secured in place with a die ELECTRICAL SYSTEM 15˚C 08 (59˚F) • Includes leaf/debris guard • Power Factor: > 0.9 at full load 30K/40K/50K/57K 130 1.10 0.63 0.55 0.48 0.38 0.28 cast aluminum trim frame 06 101 0.84 0.49 0.43 0.38 0.30 0.22 • Power Factor: > 0.9 for 120V and 277V 30L 1.02 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 4K 3800 Lumens (31W) SL SIlver DALI* DALI Dimming* (integral) TRL 68 0.57 0.33 0.28 0.25 0.20 0.14 12 40L, 60L 1.02 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 • Exclusive Colorfast DeltaGuard® finish features an E-Coat epoxy primer • Total Harmonic Distortion: < 20% at full load TRL 99 0.82 0.48 0.41 0.36 0.28 0.21 • RS mount includes integral junction box which allows ease of installation • Total Harmonic Distortion: < 20% at full load 5100 Lumens (40W) WH White BBU Battery Backup (remote only) 30K/40K/50K/57K 110 0.92 0.53 0.47 0.41 0.32 0.24 700mA with an ultradurable powder topcoat, providing excellent resistance to without need to open luminaire 9L, 13L 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 10 • DA and DL mounts designed with integral weathertight electrical box 30K/40K/50K/57K 158 1.32 0.77 0.68 0.62 0.47 0.35 • Input Power: 120, 277V, or 347V, 50/60Hz corrosion, ultraviolet degradation and abrasion. Black, bronze, silver and TRL 83 0.69 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.24 0.17 • Suitable for use in single (RS Mount) or double (RD Mount) skin canopies 20L 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 9555 Lumens (79W) BA Brushed Aluminum * consult factory for lead time white are available with terminal strips (12Ga–20Ga) for easy power hookup 14 04 94 0.79 0.46 0.40 0.36 0.28 0.21 • Operating Temperature Range: -18˚C - +40˚C (0˚F - +104˚F); minimum 20˚C TRL 120 1.00 0.58 0.50 0.43 0.34 0.25 with 16" (406mm) wide panels (68˚F) 30K/40K/50K/57K 130 1.10 0.63 0.55 0.48 0.38 0.28 • Integral 10kV surge suppression protection standard operating temperature with EB7 option is 0°C (32°F) 30L 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Contact the Factory for Non-LED source options • Weight: See Dimensions and Weight Chart on page 1 12 30K/40K/50K/57K 179 1.49 0.87 0.77 0.68 0.53 0.39 • Designed for canopies of 19-22 gauge (maximum 0.040" [1mm] 06 135 1.14 0.65 0.57 0.50 0.40 0.29 40L, 60L 1.01 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.96 TRL 99 0.82 0.48 0.41 0.36 0.28 0.21 • When code dictates fusing, a slow blow fuse or type C/D breaker should 16 • 10V Source Current: 9L & 13L: 0.15mA; 20L-40L: 2.2mA; 60L: 0.11mA Face Options (standard face is included - see face options on dimensions page for reference) thickness) ELECTRICAL SYSTEM be used to address inrush current TRL 136 1.13 0.65 0.57 0.49 0.39 0.28 * Electrical data at 25˚C (77˚F). Actual wattage may differ by +/- 10% when operating between 120-277V or 347-480V 9L, 13L 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 525mA • See 228 Series™ canopy luminaires for canopies using 12" (305mm) CONTROLS 20L 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 • Input Voltage: 120–277V or 347–480V, 50/60Hz, Class 1 drivers • Maximium 10V Source Current: 20 LED (350mA): 10mA; 20 LED (525 & 25˚C 525mA deck sections • For standard control offering refer to control availability chart on page 4 A Face A (see face on dimensions page) • Power Factor: > 0.9 at full load 02 30K/40K/50K/57K 37 0.30 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.10 700mA) and 40-80 LED: 0.15mA; 100-160 LED: 0.30mA (77˚F) 30L 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 • Exclusive Colorfast DeltaGuard® finish features an E-Coat epoxy primer • Triac dimming to 5% • Total Harmonic Distortion: < 20% at full load 02 30K/40K/50K/57K 37 0.30 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.10 with an ultra-durable powder topcoat, providing excellent resistance to 40L, 60L 1.00 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.95 B Face B (see face on dimensions page) 04 30K/40K/50K/57K 70 0.58 0.34 0.31 0.28 0.21 0.16 REGULATORY & VOLUNTARY QUALIFICATIONS 304 Series™ Ambient Adjusted Lumen Maintenance 1 • Integral weathertight J-Box with leads (wire nuts) for easy power hook corrosion, ultraviolet degradation and abrasion. Black, bronze, silver, • Continuous dimming to 10% with 0-10V DC control protocol 9L, 13L 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 • cULus Listed 04 30K/40K/50K/57K 70 0.58 0.34 0.31 0.28 0.21 0.16 D Face D (see face on dimensions page) up 06 30K/40K/50K/57K 101 0.84 0.49 0.43 0.38 0.30 0.22 and white are available • 10V Source Current: 9L & 13L: 0.15mA; 20L-40L: 2.2mA 30˚C 20L 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 • Suitable for wet locations 06 30K/40K/50K/57K 101 0.84 0.49 0.43 0.38 0.30 0.22 25K hr 50K hr 75K hr 100K hr • Integral 10kV surge suppression protection standard 08 30K/40K/50K/57K 133 1.13 0.66 0.58 0.51 0.39 0.28 Initial • For use with Class 2 dimming systems only (86˚F) 30L 0.99 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Ambient CCT Reported2 Reported2 Estimated3 Estimated3 • Enclosure rated IP66 per IEC 60529 when ordered without P or R options 08 30K/40K/50K/57K 133 1.13 0.66 0.58 0.51 0.39 0.28 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM LMF • When code dictates fusing, a slow blow fuse or type C/D breaker should LMF LMF LMF LMF • Use only lighting controls with neutral connection or controls intended 40L, 60L 0.99 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.94 700mA • Consult factory for CE Certified products • Input Voltage: 120-277V or 347-480V, 50/60Hz, Class 1 drivers be used to address inrush current 10 30K/40K/50K/57K 171 1.43 0.83 0.74 0.66 0.50 0.38 for use with LED fixtures 9L, 13L 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 • Power Factor: > 0.9 at full load 30K/40K/50K/57K 1.04 1.01 0.99 0.98 0.96 02 30K/40K/50K/57K 50 0.41 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.15 0.12 • Certified to ANSI C136.31-2001, 3G bridge and overpass vibration • Maximum 10V Source Current: 20 LED (350mA): 10mA; 12 30K/40K/50K/57K 202 1.69 0.98 0.86 0.77 0.59 0.44 5˚C • Lutron EcoSystem® Dimming to 1% 35˚C 20L 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 standards when ordered with AA, DA and DL mounts • Total Harmonic Distortion: < 20% at full load (41˚F) 20LED (525 & 700 mA) and 40-120 LED: 0.15mA 04 30K/40K/50K/57K 93 0.78 0.46 0.40 0.36 0.27 0.20 (95˚F) 14 30K/40K/50K/57K 232 1.94 1.12 0.98 0.87 0.68 0.50 TRL 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.06 • Reference http://creelighting.com/products/indoor/new-construction- 30L 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 • ANSI C136.2 10kV surge protection, tested in accordance with IEEE/ANSI • Integral weathertight electrical box with terminal strips (12Ga-20Ga) for downlights/kr-series for recommended dimming controls and wiring 06 30K/40K/50K/57K 134 1.14 0.65 0.57 0.50 0.39 0.29 C62.41.2 40L, 60L 0.98 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 REGULATORY & VOLUNTARY QUALIFICATIONS 16 30K/40K/50K/57K 263 2.21 1.27 1.11 0.97 0.77 0.56 easy power hookup diagrams 30K/40K/50K/57K 1.03 1.00 0.98 0.97 0.95 1 Lumen maintenance values at 25˚C (77˚F) are calculated per IES TM-21 based on IES LM-80 report data for the LED • cULus Listed • Meets FCC Part 15, Subpart B, Class A limits for conducted and radiated • Integral 10kV surge suppression protection standard 10˚C package and in-situ luminaire testing. Luminaire ambient temperature factors (LATF) have been applied to all lumen * Electrical data at 25˚C (77˚F). Actual wattage may differ by +/- 10% when operating between 120-277V or 347-480V 700mA • Suitable for wet locations +/- 10% emissions • When code dictates fusing, a slow blow fuse or type C/D breaker should (50˚F) REGULATORY & VOLUNTARY QUALIFICATIONS maintenance factors. TRL 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 2 In accordance with IES TM-21, Reported values represent interpolated values based on time durations that are up to 6x • Luminaire and finish endurance tested to withstand 5,000 hours of 02 30K/40K/50K/57K 50 0.41 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.15 0.12 be used to address inrush current • cULus Listed the tested duration in the IES LM-80 report for the LED. • Meets FCC Part 15, Subpart B, Class A limits for conducted and radiated elevated ambient salt fog conditions as defined in ASTM Standard B 117 3 Estimated values are calculated and represent time durations that exceed the 6x test duration of the LED. emissions 04 30K/40K/50K/57K 93 0.78 0.46 0.40 0.36 0.27 0.20 • 10V Source Current: 0.15mA 30K/40K/50K/57K 1.02 0.99 0.97 0.96 0.94 • Suitable for thru-wiring 8#12AWG-90˚C • DLC qualified with select SKUs. Refer to 15˚C • Enclosure rated IP66 per IEC 60529 when ordered without P or PML THE EDGE® Series Ambient Adjusted Lumen Maintenance1 • Suitable for damp locations https://www.designlights.org/search/ for most current information 06 30K/40K/50K/57K 134 1.14 0.65 0.57 0.50 0.39 0.29 REGULATORY & VOLUNTARY QUALIFICATIONS (59˚F) options TRL 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 • Designed for indoor use only Installation 75K hr • Meets Buy American requirements within ARRA • cULus Listed • ANSI C136.2 10kV surge protection, tested in accordance with IEEE/ANSI 25K hr 50K hr 100K hr * Electrical data at 25˚C (77˚F). Actual wattage may differ by +/- 10% when operating between 120-277V or 347-480V Initial Reported2 / • Thermally protected Type NON-IC in accordance with Article 410 of the C62.41.2 Ambient CCT Reported2 Reported2 Estimated3 • CA RESIDENTS WARNING: Cancer and Reproductive Harm – +/- 10% • Suitable for wet locations 30K/40K/50K/57K 1.01 0.98 0.96 0.95 0.93 • Recommended ceiling cutout 6.5" (165mm) LMF Estimated3 NEC and UL 1598 LMF LMF LMF www.p65warnings.ca.gov 20˚C • Luminaire and finish endurance tested to withstand 5,000 hours of LMF • Meets FCC Part 15, Subpart B, Class A limits for conducted and radiated (68˚F) • Requires minimum 90˚C supply conductors elevated ambient salt fog conditions as defined in ASTM Standard B 117 emissions TRL 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 30K/40K/50K/57K 1.04 1.03 1.03 1.032 1.03 • Meets FCC Part 15, Subpart B, Class A limits for conducted and radiated Note: 30L and 40L versions require marked spacing: 24" (600mm) x 12" (300mm) x ½" (12mm). 24" (600mm) • DLC qualified with select SKUs. Refer to 5˚C (41˚F) THE EDGE® Series Ambient Adjusted Lumen Maintenance1 • Enclosure meets IP66 requirements per IEC 60529 emissions luminaire to luminaire, 12" (300mm) luminaire to side wall, ½" (12mm) above luminaire TRL 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.063 1.06 30K/40K/50K/57K 1.00 0.97 0.95 0.94 0.92 https://www.designlights.org/search/ for most current information 60L versions require marked spacing: 48" (1219mm) x 24" (600mm) x 1" (25mm). 48" (1219mm) luminaire to • ANSI C136.2 10kV surge protection, tested in accordance with IEEE/ANSI 25˚C • EnergyStar® certified with the exception of 9L, 13L and 50K CCT. Please luminaire, 24" (600mm) luminaire to side wall, 1" (25mm) above luminaire • Meets Buy American requirements within ARRA 30K/40K/50K/57K 1.03 1.02 1.02 1.022 1.02 75K hr C62.41.2 (77˚F) refer to https:www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-light- 25K hr 50K hr 100K hr • CA RESIDENTS WARNING: Cancer and Reproductive Harm – 10˚C (50˚F) Initial Reported2 / TRL 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Ambient CCT Reported2 Reported2 Estimated3 • Luminaire and finish endurance tested to withstand 5,000 hours of fixtures/results for most current information www.p65warnings.ca.gov TRL 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.043 1.04 LMF Estimated3 LMF LMF LMF elevated ambient salt fog conditions as defined in ASTM Standard B 117 • RoHS compliant. Consult factory for additional details LMF 1 Lumen maintenance values at 25˚C (77˚F) are calculated per IES TM-21 based on IES LM-80 report data for the LED 30K/40K/50K/57K 1.02 1.01 1.01 1.012 1.01 package and in-situ luminaire testing. Luminaire ambient temperature factors (LATF) have been applied to all lumen 30K/40K/50K/57K 1.04 1.03 1.03 1.032 1.03 • DLC qualified with select SKUs. Please refer to www.designlights.org for maintenance factors. Please refer to the Temperature Zone Reference Document for outdoor average nighttime ambient • CA RESIDENTS WARNING: Cancer and Reproductive Harm – 15˚C (59˚F) 5˚C most current information conditions. www.p65warnings.ca.gov TRL 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.033 1.03 (41˚F) TRL 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.063 1.06 2 In accordance with IES TM-21, Reported values represent interpolated values based on time durations that are • RoHS Compliant. Consult factory for additional details up to 6x the tested duration in the IES LM-80 report for the LED. 30K/40K/50K/57K 1.01 0.99 0.99 0.992 0.99 10˚C 30K/40K/50K/57K 1.03 1.02 1.02 1.022 1.02 3 Estimated values are calculated and represent time durations that exceed the 6x test duration of the LED. • Meets Buy American requirements within ARRA 20˚C (68˚F) (50˚F) TRL 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.043 1.04 TRL 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.013 1.01 • CA RESIDENTS WARNING: Cancer and Reproductive Harm – 15˚C 30K/40K/50K/57K 1.02 1.01 1.01 1.012 1.01 www.p65warnings.ca.gov 30K/40K/50K/57K 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.982 0.98 (59˚F) TRL 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 3 1.03 25˚C (77˚F) TRL 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.003 1.00 20˚C 30K/40K/50K/57K 1.01 0.99 0.99 0.99 2 0.99 (68˚F) TRL 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.013 1.01 1 Lumen maintenance values at 25˚C (77˚F) are calculated per IES TM-21 based on IES LM-80 report data for the LED package and in-situ luminaire testing. Luminaire ambient temperature factors (LATF) have been applied to all lumen 30K/40K/50K/57K 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.982 0.98 maintenance factors. Please refer to the Temperature Zone Reference Document for outdoor average nighttime ambient 25˚C conditions. (77˚F) TRL 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.003 1.00 2 In accordance with IES TM-21, Reported values represent interpolated values based on time durations that are up to 6x the tested duration in the IES LM-80 report for the LED. 1 Lumen maintenance values at 25˚C (77˚F) are calculated per IES TM-21 based on IES LM-80 report data for the LED 3 Estimated values are calculated and represent time durations that exceed the 6x test duration of the LED. package and in-situ luminaire testing. Luminaire ambient temperature factors (LATF) have been applied to all lumen maintenance factors. Please refer to the Temperature Zone Reference Document for outdoor average nighttime ambient conditions. 2 In accordance with IES TM-21, Reported values represent interpolated values based on time durations that are up to 6x the tested duration in the IES LM-80 report for the LED. 3 Estimated values are calculated and represent time durations that exceed the 6x test duration of the LED. Specification Sheet US: creelighting.com (800) 236-6800 US: creelighting.com T (800) 236-6800 US: creelighting.com (800) 236-6800 Canada: creelighting-canada.com (800) 473-1234 Canada: creelighting-canada.com T (800) 473-1234 a US Commercial Lighting Manufacturer Since 1982 JS Rev. 01/03/2018 Canada: creelighting-canada.com (800) 473-1234 US: creelighting.com (800) 236-6800 Canada: creelighting-canada.com (800) 473-1234 ANY SITE PLAN(S), FLOOR PLAN(S), RENDERING(S), LIGHTING LAYOUT(S) AND PHOTOMETRIC PLAN(S) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY PROJECT(S) CREATED/PRODUCED BY RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES INC., ARE ONLY INTENDED PROJECT NAME: FOR ILLUSTRATION AND QUOTING PURPOSES ONLY. RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES HAS THE RIGHT TO USE THIRD PARTY LASERS, SCANNERS, AND CAMERAS BUT ACTUAL PROJECT CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS, AND ACCURACY OF MEASUREMENTS MAY DIFFER FROM THESE OR ANY PARAMETERS. RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES INC. ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR WHAT IS CREATED/PRODUCED IN THESE RECREATIONS. THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO THE USE OF, INSTALLATION OF AND/OR INTEGRITY OF EXISTING BUILDING(S), SURROUNDING AREA FOR PRODUCT(S) SUCH AS EXISTING POLE(S), ANCHOR BOLT(S), BASE(S), ARCHITECTURAL AND SIGNAGE STRUCTURE(S), LANDSCAPING WAWA PLAN(S), LIGHTING PLAN(S), FIXTURE SELECTION(S) AND PLACEMENT, MATERIAL(S), COLOR ACCURACY, TEXTURE(S), AND ANYTHING ATTRIBUTED TO PHOTO REALISM THAT IS CREATED. FURTHERMORE, RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES INC., DOES NOT ASSUME LIABILITY WHATSOEVER FOR ANY PURCHASES MADE BY CLIENT BEFORE, DURING, OR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PUBLISHED WORK. THE CUSTOMER, ITS RELATIVE AFFILIATES, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PERSON(S) IN VIEWING OF THIS PRODUCT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING COMPLIANCE WITH ANY BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL CODES, PERMITS, RESTRICTIONS, INSTRUCTIONS, PURCHASES, AND INSTALLATIONS OF OBJECTS VIEWED DRAWING NUMBER: 1340 Kemper Meadow Dr, Forest Park, OH 45240 WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT(S) OR PROJECT(S). SYMBOLS ARE NOT DRAWN TO SCALE. SIZE IS FOR CLARITY PURPOSES ONLY. SIZES AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE, ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS MAY VARY. DRAWINGS ARE NOT 513-574-9500 redleonard.com INTENDED FOR ENGINEERING OR CONSTRUCTION USE. THIS DOCUMENT, ANY RED LEONARD DRAWING(S), OR PROJECT(S) IS NOT TO BE USED AND/OR INTENDED FOR ENGINEERING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES, BUT FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. ANY USE OF THIS DOCUMENTATION AND/OR OTHER ARTICLES PRODUCED BY RED LEONARD WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM JAYME J. LEONARD IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. RL-7876-S1-R2 ANY SITE PLAN(S), FLOOR PLAN(S), RENDERING(S), LIGHTING LAYOUT(S) AND PHOTOMETRIC PLAN(S) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY PROJECT(S) CREATED/PRODUCED BY RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES INC., ARE ONLY INTENDED PROJECT NAME: FOR ILLUSTRATION AND QUOTING PURPOSES ONLY. RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES HAS THE RIGHT TO USE THIRD PARTY LASERS, SCANNERS, AND CAMERAS BUT ACTUAL PROJECT CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS, AND ACCURACY OF MEASUREMENTS MAY DIFFER FROM THESE OR ANY PARAMETERS. RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES INC. ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR WHAT IS CREATED/PRODUCED IN THESE RECREATIONS. THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO THE USE OF, INSTALLATION OF AND/OR INTEGRITY OF EXISTING BUILDING(S), SURROUNDING AREA FOR PRODUCT(S) SUCH AS EXISTING POLE(S), ANCHOR BOLT(S), BASE(S), ARCHITECTURAL AND SIGNAGE STRUCTURE(S), LANDSCAPING WAWA PLAN(S), LIGHTING PLAN(S), FIXTURE SELECTION(S) AND PLACEMENT, MATERIAL(S), COLOR ACCURACY, TEXTURE(S), AND ANYTHING ATTRIBUTED TO PHOTO REALISM THAT IS CREATED. FURTHERMORE, RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES INC., DOES NOT ASSUME LIABILITY WHATSOEVER FOR ANY PURCHASES MADE BY CLIENT BEFORE, DURING, OR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PUBLISHED WORK. THE CUSTOMER, ITS RELATIVE AFFILIATES, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PERSON(S) IN VIEWING OF THIS PRODUCT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING COMPLIANCE WITH ANY BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL CODES, PERMITS, RESTRICTIONS, INSTRUCTIONS, PURCHASES, AND INSTALLATIONS OF OBJECTS VIEWED DRAWING NUMBER: 1340 Kemper Meadow Dr, Forest Park, OH 45240 WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT(S) OR PROJECT(S). SYMBOLS ARE NOT DRAWN TO SCALE. SIZE IS FOR CLARITY PURPOSES ONLY. SIZES AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE, ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS MAY VARY. DRAWINGS ARE NOT 513-574-9500 redleonard.com INTENDED FOR ENGINEERING OR CONSTRUCTION USE. THIS DOCUMENT, ANY RED LEONARD DRAWING(S), OR PROJECT(S) IS NOT TO BE USED AND/OR INTENDED FOR ENGINEERING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES, BUT FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. ANY USE OF THIS DOCUMENTATION AND/OR OTHER ARTICLES PRODUCED BY RED LEONARD WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM JAYME J. LEONARD IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. RL-7876-S1-R2 ANY SITE PLAN(S), FLOOR PLAN(S), RENDERING(S), LIGHTING LAYOUT(S) AND PHOTOMETRIC PLAN(S) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY PROJECT(S) CREATED/PRODUCED BY RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES INC., ARE ONLY INTENDED PROJECT NAME: FOR ILLUSTRATION AND QUOTING PURPOSES ONLY. RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES HAS THE RIGHT TO USE THIRD PARTY LASERS, SCANNERS, AND CAMERAS BUT ACTUAL PROJECT CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS, AND ACCURACY OF MEASUREMENTS MAY DIFFER FROM THESE OR ANY PARAMETERS. RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES INC. ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR WHAT IS CREATED/PRODUCED IN THESE RECREATIONS. THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO THE USE OF, INSTALLATION OF AND/OR INTEGRITY OF EXISTING BUILDING(S), SURROUNDING AREA FOR PRODUCT(S) SUCH AS EXISTING POLE(S), ANCHOR BOLT(S), BASE(S), ARCHITECTURAL AND SIGNAGE STRUCTURE(S), LANDSCAPING WAWA PLAN(S), LIGHTING PLAN(S), FIXTURE SELECTION(S) AND PLACEMENT, MATERIAL(S), COLOR ACCURACY, TEXTURE(S), AND ANYTHING ATTRIBUTED TO PHOTO REALISM THAT IS CREATED. FURTHERMORE, RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES INC., DOES NOT ASSUME LIABILITY WHATSOEVER FOR ANY PURCHASES MADE BY CLIENT BEFORE, DURING, OR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PUBLISHED WORK. THE CUSTOMER, ITS RELATIVE AFFILIATES, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PERSON(S) IN VIEWING OF THIS PRODUCT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING COMPLIANCE WITH ANY BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL CODES, PERMITS, RESTRICTIONS, INSTRUCTIONS, PURCHASES, AND INSTALLATIONS OF OBJECTS VIEWED DRAWING NUMBER: 1340 Kemper Meadow Dr, Forest Park, OH 45240 WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT(S) OR PROJECT(S). SYMBOLS ARE NOT DRAWN TO SCALE. SIZE IS FOR CLARITY PURPOSES ONLY. SIZES AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE, ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS MAY VARY. DRAWINGS ARE NOT 513-574-9500 redleonard.com INTENDED FOR ENGINEERING OR CONSTRUCTION USE. THIS DOCUMENT, ANY RED LEONARD DRAWING(S), OR PROJECT(S) IS NOT TO BE USED AND/OR INTENDED FOR ENGINEERING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES, BUT FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. ANY USE OF THIS DOCUMENTATION AND/OR OTHER ARTICLES PRODUCED BY RED LEONARD WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM JAYME J. LEONARD IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. RL-7876-S1-R2 ANY SITE PLAN(S), FLOOR PLAN(S), RENDERING(S), LIGHTING LAYOUT(S) AND PHOTOMETRIC PLAN(S) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY PROJECT(S) CREATED/PRODUCED BY RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES INC., ARE ONLY INTENDED PROJECT NAME: FOR ILLUSTRATION AND QUOTING PURPOSES ONLY. RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES HAS THE RIGHT TO USE THIRD PARTY LASERS, SCANNERS, AND CAMERAS BUT ACTUAL PROJECT CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS, AND ACCURACY OF MEASUREMENTS MAY DIFFER FROM THESE OR ANY PARAMETERS. RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES INC. ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR WHAT IS CREATED/PRODUCED IN THESE RECREATIONS. THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO THE USE OF, INSTALLATION OF AND/OR INTEGRITY OF EXISTING BUILDING(S), SURROUNDING AREA FOR PRODUCT(S) SUCH AS EXISTING POLE(S), ANCHOR BOLT(S), BASE(S), ARCHITECTURAL AND SIGNAGE STRUCTURE(S), LANDSCAPING WAWA PLAN(S), LIGHTING PLAN(S), FIXTURE SELECTION(S) AND PLACEMENT, MATERIAL(S), COLOR ACCURACY, TEXTURE(S), AND ANYTHING ATTRIBUTED TO PHOTO REALISM THAT IS CREATED. FURTHERMORE, RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES INC., DOES NOT ASSUME LIABILITY WHATSOEVER FOR ANY PURCHASES MADE BY CLIENT BEFORE, DURING, OR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PUBLISHED WORK. THE CUSTOMER, ITS RELATIVE AFFILIATES, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PERSON(S) IN VIEWING OF THIS PRODUCT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING COMPLIANCE WITH ANY BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL CODES, PERMITS, RESTRICTIONS, INSTRUCTIONS, PURCHASES, AND INSTALLATIONS OF OBJECTS VIEWED DRAWING NUMBER: 1340 Kemper Meadow Dr, Forest Park, OH 45240 WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT(S) OR PROJECT(S). SYMBOLS ARE NOT DRAWN TO SCALE. SIZE IS FOR CLARITY PURPOSES ONLY. SIZES AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE, ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS MAY VARY. DRAWINGS ARE NOT 513-574-9500 redleonard.com INTENDED FOR ENGINEERING OR CONSTRUCTION USE. THIS DOCUMENT, ANY RED LEONARD DRAWING(S), OR PROJECT(S) IS NOT TO BE USED AND/OR INTENDED FOR ENGINEERING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES, BUT FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. ANY USE OF THIS DOCUMENTATION AND/OR OTHER ARTICLES PRODUCED BY RED LEONARD WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM JAYME J. LEONARD IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. RL-7876-S1-R2 ANY SITE PLAN(S), FLOOR PLAN(S), RENDERING(S), LIGHTING LAYOUT(S) AND PHOTOMETRIC PLAN(S) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY PROJECT(S) CREATED/PRODUCED BY RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES INC., ARE ONLY INTENDED PROJECT NAME: FOR ILLUSTRATION AND QUOTING PURPOSES ONLY. RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES HAS THE RIGHT TO USE THIRD PARTY LASERS, SCANNERS, AND CAMERAS BUT ACTUAL PROJECT CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS, AND ACCURACY OF MEASUREMENTS MAY DIFFER FROM THESE OR ANY PARAMETERS. RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES INC. ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR WHAT IS CREATED/PRODUCED IN THESE RECREATIONS. THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO THE USE OF, INSTALLATION OF AND/OR INTEGRITY OF EXISTING BUILDING(S), SURROUNDING AREA FOR PRODUCT(S) SUCH AS EXISTING POLE(S), ANCHOR BOLT(S), BASE(S), ARCHITECTURAL AND SIGNAGE STRUCTURE(S), LANDSCAPING WAWA PLAN(S), LIGHTING PLAN(S), FIXTURE SELECTION(S) AND PLACEMENT, MATERIAL(S), COLOR ACCURACY, TEXTURE(S), AND ANYTHING ATTRIBUTED TO PHOTO REALISM THAT IS CREATED. FURTHERMORE, RED LEONARD ASSOCIATES INC., DOES NOT ASSUME LIABILITY WHATSOEVER FOR ANY PURCHASES MADE BY CLIENT BEFORE, DURING, OR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PUBLISHED WORK. THE CUSTOMER, ITS RELATIVE AFFILIATES, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA PERSON(S) IN VIEWING OF THIS PRODUCT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING COMPLIANCE WITH ANY BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL CODES, PERMITS, RESTRICTIONS, INSTRUCTIONS, PURCHASES, AND INSTALLATIONS OF OBJECTS VIEWED DRAWING NUMBER: 1340 Kemper Meadow Dr, Forest Park, OH 45240 WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT(S) OR PROJECT(S). SYMBOLS ARE NOT DRAWN TO SCALE. SIZE IS FOR CLARITY PURPOSES ONLY. SIZES AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE, ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS MAY VARY. DRAWINGS ARE NOT 513-574-9500 redleonard.com INTENDED FOR ENGINEERING OR CONSTRUCTION USE. THIS DOCUMENT, ANY RED LEONARD DRAWING(S), OR PROJECT(S) IS NOT TO BE USED AND/OR INTENDED FOR ENGINEERING OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES, BUT FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. ANY USE OF THIS DOCUMENTATION AND/OR OTHER ARTICLES PRODUCED BY RED LEONARD WITHOUT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM JAYME J. LEONARD IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. RL-7876-S1-R2 1 Minutes PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING July 13, 2021 – 5:30 P.M. Virtual Meeting I. COMMISSION PRE-MEETING (Agenda discussion(s)) Beginning: 5:00 PM Location: Virtual/Electronic Members Present: Chairman Mitchell, Commissioner Russell, Commissioner Solla-Yates, Commissioner Stolzenberg, Commissioner Lahendro, Commissioner Habbab Members Absent: Commissioner Dowell Staff Present: Patrick Cory, Joe Rice, Missy Creasy, Lisa Robertson, Matt Alfele, Jack Dawson, Tony Edwards Chair Mitchell called the meeting to order at 5:00pm and provided an overview of the agenda for the evening. Commissioners had no questions on the minutes or the application for 1206 Carlton Avenue. Chair Mitchell confirmed the potential steps for the 13th Street NE application following tonight’s item and asked Commissioners for any additional questions. Commissioner Russell asked if the ROW was abandoned, could the business’s park in the rear of the site. Mr. Duncan noted that he made comments concerning the possible parking options. He noted that 13th Street is a 40 foot right of way so there is space for parking and travel lanes. Commissioner Stolzenberg asked about the topography in the area of this site, whether it was impossible to construct a road or just expensive and requested confirmation on the zones that allow for zero lot lines. He also asked if the SADM would allow for alternative road designs and the process for that was outlined. Commissioner Solla-Yates confirmed that staff would be available for comment on the new critical slopes materials provided today for the South First Street site during the meeting and it was confirmed that staff would be available. Chair Mitchell noted that following the Housing Advisory Committee presentation that he would outline five minutes for each commissioner to ask questions and provide comments. Ms. Creasy noted that there was some confusion in the community that there is a new Future Land Use map for review and clarification needs to be provided. Chair Mitchell reiterated the goal to have the Comp Plan and Future Land Use Map ready for the current Council to vote on. He also asked Commissioner Habbab to provide a brief introduction in the meeting. II. COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING – Meeting called to order at 5:30 PM by the Chairman 2 Beginning: 5:30 PM Location: Virtual/Electronic A. COMMISSIONER’S REPORT Commissioner Russell – I have an update on the Fontaine Avenue Streetscape project. Council will be reviewing the project next Monday on July 19th. They will be looking at the design. After that, authorization will be sought from VDOT to begin right of way phase authorization. More information is available on the project website, including previous meetings and the current presentation of the design on Fontainestreetscape.com/design-public-hearing. Commissioner Stolzenberg – There was one meeting. That was a special session of TJPDC to apply for a housing preservation grant for the rural counties. We received an announcement today of a statewide PDC housing development grant. That will be $40 million but $2 million flowing through the PDC to stimulate affordable housing and regional initiatives to address it. Next Tuesday, we will have a meeting of the MPO Tech committee. Commissioner Habbab – I am completing the remainder of a previous appointment to the Commission. My term will end August 31, 2022. My predecessor sat on the Neighborhood Leaders meeting and the CATEC Advisory Committee. I don’t believe they have had any meetings since I joined. I joined the Commission because I can serve the wonderful community that I live in. I have worked at an architectural firm for the last six years. I previously stood in front of this Commission as an applicant. I know the work it takes to get projects here. I am aware of the impact the Commission has on the city. I am joining at a crucial time. There is a lot of work to be done. I am happy to be part of the process. Commissioner Solla-Yates – The Housing Advisory Committee met to discuss a new concept for the future land use map. We voted that we consider that same concept tonight. Commissioner Lahendro – I attended the Board of Architectural Review meeting on June 15th. It was a quick meeting. We had five applications to consider and we issued five Certificates of Appropriateness for those applications. The Tree Commission has deferred its meeting from last week to right now. I am not able to attend that meeting. I will report on it next month. B. UNIVERSITY REPORT Commissioner Palmer – The demolition of the Dynamics Building at the Ivy/Emmet corridor is underway. A lot of the utility enabling seems to have started over there. That project to enable the Data Science Institute, the Conference Center, and the Hotel is finally getting underway after lots of planning. The George Rogers Clark statue near The Corner was taken down. The base and the statue are in storage. C. CHAIR’S REPORT 3 Chairman Mitchell – The only meeting I attended was the Parks and Rec meeting. That group has been very busy. Just about everything is open with one notable exception: the aquatic center at Meade Park. It is not open and will not be opening. The reason is we can’t get enough lifeguards to support all of the parks we have. This is not unique to Charlottesville. This seems to be a nationwide problem. We just can’t get the lifeguards. It will not open this year. The day camp is fully staffed. It is open from 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM. Athletics is going very well; especially baseball and softball. D. DEPARTMENT OF NDS Ms. Creasy – We don’t have a work session scheduled for later this month. We do want to clarify for the public that there is not a new land use map under consideration for the Commission this evening. There’s a proposal with some ideas that the Commission will be looking at this evening from the Housing Advisory Committee. If anyone was concerned that they had missed a step in the process, there hasn’t been a misstep. The Commission is going to have the opportunity to hear from some members of the Housing Advisory Committee about some thoughts and ideas they have concerning the land use map. There will be many other opportunities to come for moving forward. If you, as a public member, have comments you want to provide tonight concerning any of these things, do make sure to share that information during Matters from the Public with the Commission. E. MATTERS TO BE PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC NOT ON THE FORMAL AGENDA Bill Emory – I know you are concerned with canopy equity in the City of Charlottesville. Thank you Jody for your excellent service on the Tree Commission. In the zoning code Section 34-869, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, there is a requirement for tree canopy. You have a standing invitation to take a walking tour of East Carlton, Woolen Mills, and East Belmont. You can identify rental properties by the lack of tree canopy. Landlords are not very enlightened people, who don’t care about tree canopy. Walking around Woolen Mills, you can identify the rentals because it has zero trees. Years ago, we talked about writing zoning tickets. I know the Zoning Department is understaffed. They have more important things to do. It would be easy to come up with a list and ask people to plant trees. I would encourage you to enforce the zoning code before you rewrite the zoning code. Phillip Harway – Our neighbors in Albemarle just adopted their new housing policy this past Wednesday. The goals are to tackle affordable housing in their community with other objectives that includes overall housing supply and providing for community engagement, particularly on protecting existing communities. One of the core parts of their plan is that all rezonings and special use permits will be required (by definition) to be affordable and to have extended periods of affordability. The plan is being delayed. The Commission found out that some of the developers had concerns that the county will not be able to meet some of their major objectives. This is a big contrast with what Charlottesville is considering. It is a general upzoning without any guarantees and assurances of reaching the worthy goal of more affordable housing. Our neighbors are taking a slower approach and consulting. The citizens in Albemarle also realize that the consensus is to approve the plan now. Things still need to be ironed out. It seems the city is more focused on getting 4 there quickly. I humbly request that the process be slowed down and plans from our neighbors in Albemarle and other communities be seriously considered; not allowing rezoning and special use permits to be considered without clear definitions on how much will be provided for housing affordability. Kimber Hawkey – This plan is faulty and inappropriate and doesn’t understand the topography and infrastructure of Charlottesville. It needs to be slowed down. There appears to be a lack of economic modeling. Where are the models for the relationship with zoning restrictions, price elasticity, and demand? What is the impact of new developments? What is the estimate for construction costs? What is the impact on neighborhoods? There is a failure to reconsider the redevelopment opportunities of underuse of retail space. There are large landmasses for real affordable housing. With all of the space, we can achieve more than the 4000 units that we need. There is a failure to consider the University, which has a lot of land. There is a failure to consider the regional context. We need to bring in all of the surrounding counties to address affordable housing. This plan is compromised by ideology and an agenda by a few Planning Commission members. The March map was the result of community input. Two members of the Planning Commission directed RHI that they need to be more ambitious. There have been many developments pushed through on false promises of affordable housing that have never happened. Brandon Collins – I am an employee of PHAR. PHAR is a resident governed and duly recognized resident council and resident advisory board for public housing. We work very closely with the Housing Authority on the redevelopment projects that are currently underway and future projects. PHAR supports the amendment to the critical slopes waiver at South First Street. The pandemic has changed a lot of things. Supply change issues are difficult. In order to move that project forward, we need that amendment to the critical slopes waiver. It is the safest and smartest way to go. It’s not going to impact the environment. The water quality and the streams are going to be in better shape than when we found them. I also want to state PHARs support for taking a look at what the HAC is proposing in terms of overlays for affordability with the residential density being by right and medium/high density requiring affordable housing as an overlay. That combined with the many policies that are being brought forward by the consultants are going to address some of the concerns by the public that these changes won’t improve affordability. This really addresses those concerns. I ask members of the public to take a look at what the HAC is talking about and see if that changes your mind on how we can ensure, maintain, and hold accountable affordable housing. Mark Kavit – I ask that you keep an open mind on the things that are going to be presented to you tonight as well as emails that you will be receiving. There is a group of us who have put together a lot of information that can achieve the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. We do have some concrete ideas that could be done without tearing down neighborhoods. Please take a look at what we are presenting and do consider them. I have many issues with the Comprehensive Plan. The first issue is how dense do we want the city to become. Do we want the infrastructure to support high density? The pandemic has shown that work can be done from home. Indications are that we are going to see more work from home. There is a movement nationwide for people to live in more urban areas. Demand for housing is going to remain strong for some time. We’re not going to build our way out of demand. Our current rents are in line with other cities. You don’t see rent decrease until you get 5 away from the urban core and look at older housing. You’re not going to achieve affordability with new construction. New construction is inherently expensive. It would be better to renovate older housing to achieve affordable housing. I and others will be making recommendations at future meetings. We have an income disparity. Jake Gold – Ms. Hawkey said the Belmont residents don’t like new developments. That could not be further from the truth. I would encourage her to spend more time talking to her neighbors. We believe the housing crisis is real. Some of the biggest strides that we can take reducing our emissions will come from building houses closer to the places where we work. James Groves – I had a chance to listen to the recording of your work session a couple of weeks ago. I found it odd when Mr. Stolzenberg and Ms. Russell asked the consultants about how upzoning had worked in Minneapolis. The consultants didn’t have any studies to share with us. I work at the University and I teach design. In the design process one of the key things we do there is lay out goals of a designing process. I push my students to be quantitative. As you design a solution, what do you hope or expect to deliver and make it numerical. I would encourage you to go further. What do we want occupancy rate in rental units to be? How many middle income affordable housing units do you want? There is a whole set of metrics. You should define quantitatively a whole set of measures or goals. What are we hoping to achieve with this plan? A number of people have talked about getting UVA engaged. They have set their goals to be carbon neutral by 2030 and 2040 to be fossil fuel free. They have excluded faculty/staff transportation commuting from those numbers. They shirking their duties. They’re avoiding that along with the students in the community. They are helping to contribute to a lot of commuting, emissions, a portion of our climate problem that you should be trying to solve throughout this planning action. Laura – I live in a middle income community in Amherst Commons. It’s at the end of Amherst Street off of Rose Hill Drive. We learned today that neighbor’s lot is set to be zoned as a high intensity zone. Essentially, a 5 story apartment complex could be built in our backyard. We are stressed out on whether we need to sell our house within the year before our property value plummets due to this zoning. If I was a buyer looking for a single family home, I would be “turned off” if I saw high density zoning abutting our backyard. I and my neighbors will likely be adversely impacted by this zoning. Please consider the residential homes of Amherst Commons. We have a 12 home neighborhood and association. Please consider doing the moderate intensity zoning behind our community. We invite you to come to our neighborhood and see how this zoning could adversely impact our neighborhood. Doug Cleveland – I am calling to ask three questions that are inter-related. Our street (North Downtown) conducted a survey to provide you with the results prior to the last meeting. It is a small street with 30+ households. One thing that is very representative is that for a large part of the community we found out about this process long into the process and the particular issues being raised. We were voicing opposition. We were very concerned about finding out about very dramatic proposals so far into the process. The Chair has expressed a desire to get this across the “finish line” quickly during the current City Council tenure. That would be great. I hope that it doesn’t come at the expense of our ability as residents and participants. In the work session, Rory asked a question 6 of the planners of the scale that was going to be possible. I have tried to get a sense of the scale from the proposed materials. Jonathan Rice – I have a very specific concern with the future land use map. I live on Merriweather Street, which is between Little High and East High Street. At the dead end of the street, the urban mixed-use corridor has been added to two lots that have always been residential. It seems totally inconsistent with the notion of having a gradual transition between high density and low density areas. The urban mixed-use corridor category allows buildings up to eight stories. Most of the houses on Merriweather are single story ranch houses. This would be an obvious clash. This is a really narrow street. We don’t have sidewalks. There is not a cut-through street and there is no big business at the dead end. We have a lot of senior citizens and a lot of families with children. We’re really concerned with improving the walkability of our neighborhood. I have sent several emails asking for clarification. I haven’t heard back. I would appreciate some clarification on that. We have no problem with the urban mixed-use corridor being along East High. We are concerned with traffic and good boundaries with transitions. Benjamin Heller – The effect was a rapid capitalization of development value. This is just piece without analytical rigor. There is no model induced demand. When San Francisco looked at this, they found with 100 market rate condos, they needed 20 to 40 affordable units to break even. Charlottesville is one of the MSAs where filtering works in reverse. Where is your model for that? Where is the model for realistic marginal costs? How are you going to create supply? What is the evidence for upzoning? You have a model of restrictive covenants 50 years ago. Elizabeth Carpenter – I have heard a lot of comments urging caution. This is a public health crisis. I have visited low income families. Every classroom in our public schools has kids who are homeless or on the verge of homelessness. We should not use Albemarle as the marker. I want to express how urgent this is as a public health issue for the members of our community. F. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes – February 23. 2021 – Work Session Motion – Commissioner Solla-Yates moved to approve the Consent Agenda (Second by Commissioner Russell) – Motion passes 6-0 (Items removed from the consent agenda will be considered at the end of the regular agenda) III. JOINT MEETING OF COMMISSION AND COUNCIL Councilor Hill called the City Council to order for the two public hearings. Beginning: 6:00 PM Continuing: Until all public hearings are complete Format: (i) Staff Report, (ii) Applicant Presentation, (iii) Public Hearing, (iv) Commissioner Discussion and Motion 7 1. ZM-21-00001 & SP21-00004 – 1206 Carlton Avenue – Landowner Hulett Management Services Inc. has submitted applications seeking a Rezoning and a Special Use Permit for approximately 0.25 acres of land, identified by City Real Estate Parcel Identification Number 570127000 (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property has frontage on Carlton Avenue and access to a rear private alley. The applications propose to change the zoning district classification of the Subject Property from R-2 (Residential Two-Family) to R-3 (Residential Multifamily Medium Density) for the specific development described in the application. The applicant is also seeking a Special Use Permit to increase the residential density allowable within the Subject Property from 21 Dwelling Units per Acre (DUA) to 31 DUA, as authorized by City Code Sec. 34-420 (Use Matrix, R-3 District), and a reduction of one side setback from 13 feet to 8 feet per City Code Sec. 34-162. The proposed development consists of one multi-family residential dwelling (apartment building) with eight dwelling units (a mix of one- and two- bedroom units). The 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map for this area calls for Low Density Residential. Information pertaining to this application may be viewed online at www.charlottesville.gov/agenda. Persons interested in the Rezoning or Special Use Permit applications may contact NDS Planner Matt Alfele by e-mail (alfele@charlottesville.gov) or by telephone (434-970-3636). i. Staff Report Matt Alfele, City Planner – You will be holding a public hearing for a Rezoning and Special Use Permit for a proposed development at 1206 Carlton Avenue. Management Services Inc. represented by Justin Shimp of Shimp Engineering has submitted two applications: ZM-21-00001 and SP-21- 00004. These requests are needed for the owner to develop an 8 unit apartment building on the subject property. The first step of the proposal is to rezone the subject property from R-2 low density residential to R-3 medium density residential. As part of the rezoning request, the applicant is not proposing any proffers. A rezoning of the subject property would change the by right density from approximately 4 dwelling units per acre to 21 dwelling units per acre. This is misleading as dwelling units per acre is not used below R-3. It is not used in the R-2 and R-1 districts. As the lot currently sits, the maximum residential units that could be built would be a two family dwelling. At 21 dwelling units per acre on the subject property, it would accommodate 5 units by right. As part of the SUP request, the applicant is requesting the density be increased from 21 DUA to 31 DUA. The applicant is also requesting the side setback be modified from 13 feet to 8 feet. The applicant has indicated the height of the building would be approximately 40 feet but no greater than the R-3 allotment of 45 feet. The subject property has frontage on Carlton Avenue. The proposed development would utilize the rear alley to access Bainbridge Street. Public comment has been limited. Comments that staff has received are related to parking for the proposed development. Residents are concerned that the code required 8 parking spaces will not be enough for this development. The overflow parking will impact the surrounding neighborhoods, especially the homes on Chestnut Street. As you review the application tonight, keep in mind that these are two separate applications. They could be approved or denied by City Council individually. The rezoning offers no proffers. The proposed development plan is only tied to the SUP and not the rezoning request. 8 ii. Applicant Presentation Justin Shimp, Applicant – This will be familiar to some members of the Commission. In 2018, a very similar project was brought before you. The location was on Carlton. It was across from Chestnut Street. It is in an area with amixture of residential and commercial properties. The site plan is largely unchanged from the original plan with the exception of the unit count. We have four 1 bedroom units proposed and four 2 bedroom units. The last proposal was six 2 bedroom units. It’s the same number of bedrooms. We have added some more kitchens. This building is set to be a simple economical apartment building for people who are working in the area who want to walk or bike. One of the things that was discussed last time was a question about the alley access. We did clear that up. We do have access to that. We have met with the owner across from us who is welcome to our paving and fixing up the alley to correct the potholes. That’s been established. We have also had some conversations with neighbors about parking. Kelsey Schlein, Applicant – We do know that parking is one of the main concerns with residents regarding this development. It was a main concern back in 2018. It remains a concern with this application. We are open and committed to exploring solutions. We did communicate with the owner of 1208 Carlton, who recently constructed a parking lot to see if there was an opportunity for a shared parking agreement at some point in the future. At this point, there’s no interest from that owner. There are a few more options that we could explore in the area for existing parking lots. We are interested in finding a solution to this concern. However, we’re not interested in resolving that concern by constructing additional parking. We need the parking requirement where it will have the opportunity to continue to work with nearby businesses to see if there can be a shared parking agreement. Mr. Shimp – One of the things about these developments is that 30% of people don’t have access to a car. For people who live in single-family housing, the idea of not having a car seems foreign. For people renting a one bedroom in this location, it means saving hundreds of dollars per month in not having a car. This is really a way to provide accessibility to people. That’s important here. That’s why we did not propose to build a duplex after 2018. We felt that was not an appropriate use of this land. There has been a lot of discussion these past years about that. We have worked with the traffic engineer. We have a one-way entrance off Carlton. That is a narrow street. The one-way entrance is safe. The exit is out the alley. There are no traffic concerns. Staff outlined other factors. We want to give you an idea of scale and massing. It will likely be a residential house-type construction. The example you see references a 4 story but is a 3 story with a rooftop terrace space. R-3 requires an enclosed recreation space. That’s how we meet that standard with that third floor recreation space. It is not a 4 story building proposed. This is the current zoning map. It has been down-zoned over time. This slide offers a little bit of context. The picture in the lower right corner is key to all of the other pictures on this slide. You will see a collection of 6 units and 8 units. This whole side of the street is 9 generally residential in this form. The zoning and special use permit we are seeking is not too different from what is built but to match it. In 1949, the property was zoned B-1 Commercial. In 1958, it was a mix of industrial and residential. The remaining was zoned R-3 in 1976 and remained R-3 until 1991. There started to be this use of zoning to limit density in a period of time. In 2003, it changed to R-2. It was basically spot down- zoned. We are trying to get it back to the correct zoning district based on what is right for the neighborhood and right for the people who have lived there. If you look at the goals that are stated for the city in terms of providing housing to people who use alternative forms of transportation and climate change, these infill projects are an excellent way to achieve those goals. With this particular location, we’re not talking about going into a neighborhood of one story houses and building a four story apartment complex. We’re talking about building a light structure on a street near commercial and jobs. Most importantly, it is going to give 8 families or households the opportunity to live somewhere to improve their lives. I know people are worried about parking. Somebody will get to walk to work, school, and somebody’s life is going to be improved by living in this. When you talk about these housing projects, it is very critical. Commissioner Russell – What is your anticipated rent for 1 and 2 bedrooms? Mr. Shimp – The rent for these type of 1 bedroom units are around $1100 to $1200. For the 2 bedroom units, $1500. Commissioner Stolzenberg – One of our standards of review is compliance with the building code. It came up in our last meeting that once you hit the 4th story, some additional egress requirements apply. My understanding is that a second stair is required for that 4th story. How are you complying with that here? You have one stair. Is that because that 4th story is not residential space? Mr. Shimp – That’s correct. It’s not habitable space. It is potentially an amenity. It’s not required. Nobody is sleeping up there. It’s not applicable to that space. Commissioner Stolzenberg – What is that space? I know a general amenity space is required in the R-3 requirements. I am presuming it is to comply with that. Is it a rooftop patio? Mr. Shimp – It is a rooftop patio with a pergola over it. It is still conceptual at this point. We’re trying to give people a little bit of space to get out. It’s probably over the exact R-3 square footage. It is a place to get out on the roof and to have lawn chairs. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Often when we see this kind of rezoning with an SUP, we see the general development plan as given by the developer as committing to it. If not, you have the ability to do whatever is allowed under R-3 without the SUP. Can you explain your thinking behind the lack of that commitment here? 10 Mr. Shimp – If it is zoned R-3, we would have the ability to build 5 units. Assuming the rezoning and the special use permit were approved, we would not have to use a special use permit approval. With the 5 units, the setback becomes 13 feet. That becomes an unworkable building; not saying that it can’t be built. With R-3, the taller you get, the setbacks increase. You might get a 2 story building. The economics of that start to not make sense. The reason we didn’t do that is that this lot should have always been zoned R-3. There wasn’t a whole lot we would do differently in this particular case. Commissioner Stolzenberg – From what I recall in the last application in 2018, it was a 6 unit building with one unit proffered as affordable. Can you speak to the affordability of this building relative to that and your decisions around there? Mr. Shimp – The affordability is complicated and convoluted with these things. Back in those times, we would submit a proffer with affordable housing. You can’t really proffer it that fast. For these small projects, we’re not opposed to trying to get affordable housing. The methodology to achieve it is incredibly complicated. In some ways, we’re trying to get a building that is largely affordable for many people. We really prefer the city pass a zoning text amendment. It was said by one of the callers earlier. If you want every project that has a rezoning with 20% affordable, pass a ZTA. If we can make that number work, we will do it. If we can’t, we won’t apply. It’s very difficult to attach affordability. I think it can be done with a separate resolution attached. We did go through that with the other project in Belmont. With this project, it is not meant to be luxury. It’s just one bedroom. We’re not opposed to the idea. If you change that with 34-12, we would be happy to comply. We have ran into struggles with that over the years. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Are you saying that you received an opinion from the City Attorney that you cannot proffer affordable housing on a rezoning like this? Mr. Shimp – That’s our understanding of the rules. There is a mechanism by which the attached resolution and performance agreement are more than a proffer. That is what we understand the case to be. Lisa Robertson, City Attorney – The last time Mr. Shimp and I were trying to work through this, we were discussing a situation where there were some affordable units that were required by the city code. Other affordable units had been proffered. We were trying to sort out what regulation and requirements would document both the legally required commitment and the commitment above and beyond the legally required amount. If Mr. Shimp understood me to say that affordable units could not be proffered, that was not what I intended to communicate. If the city regulations were to require some sort of covenant to ensure that the units required by the zoning ordinance would be provided for throughout the affordability period, the other units, which may have been proffered, didn’t necessarily come with a commitment to be administered and to provide the same level of documentation as to what the city regulations might provide. We’ve always accepted proffers of affordable housing. What often does not happen is the proffers don’t address how we are going to make sure we get that. A proffer that says “I am giving units that will be affordable to people who have incomes at 80% or lower AMI” is unenforceable. It doesn’t address separately what the rents 11 will be. It doesn’t address affordability. I did not mean to say that affordable housing could be proffered. When a proffer comes in, I don’t have a way to enforce for the proffered units and to force someone to provide additional documentation that wasn’t proffered. What we’re all waiting for is a zoning ordinance that can have regulations that say if we’re going to require a certain amount of affordable housing for every development of a specific size, we want to be up front on what that means and what the paperwork that is going to be required over the course of the affordability period will be. Commissioner Stolzenberg – We have standard operating procedures adopted by Council pursuant to 34-12g that apply to units required under 34-12. When the units are proffered, that’s too vague to enforce. Your recommendation was that the proffer include a modified version of those standard operating procedures that also incorporated the exact terms of the proffer they were making? Ms. Robertson – I am not sure whether the last one Mr. Shimp was involved in was a rezoning or a special use permit where he was agreeing to certain things in the conditions. Proffers are different. We have to take them as they’re offered. We can’t say “Because you’re not giving us certain things we want, we won’t approve your rezoning.” It is not uncommon. We’re running into this more and more. That’s the reason why I will be elated when we get new ordinance provisions. We’re running into the circumstance where more and more; where you have people come forward and tell you “One unit would be required by 34-12 with the zoning ordinance. I am going to give you five.” Whether that’s a rezoning or a special use permit, we’re not nailing down during the application process how that will actually be administered into the future after it is approved. After City Council votes on something, we’re offering some paperwork. For the one unit required by 34-12, we have a set of regulations that says there should be a restrictive covenant recorded, something documented that’s enforceable by the city that will give us that commitment. We’re trying to encourage people to enter into some sort of recorded commitment that administers all the same. It’s really difficult. Going through the process, most of the developers haven’t necessarily sorted through what it actually means to make provisions that will make those units affordable over a period of 10, 20, 30 years. Commissioner Habbab – Would the new city ordinance be able to retroactively enforce promised proffers? Is that something that can be done? Ms. Robertson – At the time City Council approves proffers, they become zoning requirements that are enforceable. We could not unilaterally amend proffers and impose new requirements on ones that have previously been approved. Commissioner Habbab – Given the density of the surrounding properties, I don’t see big issues with this. I don’t have a lot of questions. I am disappointed that no proffer was offered similar to the previous application. Commissioner Solla-Yates – As you know, the public is concerned about the storage of private vehicles, storm water effects, and the introducing of additional traffic. Can you briefly address that? 12 Mr. Shimp – One thing to clarify is that storm water is one of the reasons we have to go with these buildings being difficult to build. If I build a duplex, I can store 4 or 6 cars on site. I don’t have to have a site plan. I don’t have to have any storm water management. Whatever added impervious area we create as a result of this 8 unit and storage of 8 private vehicles is mitigated versus the no rezoning approval by the city’s own storm water management requirements. We do add impervious area with this proposal. We also add treatment of all of it, which would not be applicable in our two properties. That’s important to consider here. As far as traffic is concerned, traffic is a negligible amount. We’re not concerned about it. The purpose and location of this building is that you don’t have to have a vehicle to store somewhere. If you do, you have to take it everywhere. There’s a tremendous amount of traffic commuting in and out of the city every day. For every one of these projects you build, there’s one less car coming down Fifth Street into UVA or downtown in the morning. That’s the congestion around here. I have worked downtown a number of years. There was never any traffic around the office. Getting into the city at certain times of the day, the traffic can function as a pattern of the commercial and residential areas. We should focus on the positive elements of this location as far as alternative ways of transportation rather than the few extra trips on the road. Commissioner Lahendro – What happened to the application from a couple of years ago? What was the outcome? Mr. Shimp – It was denied by City Council. There was a variety of opinions. There were two comments that stood out. One was the alley access and whether we could use it. That would have changed the traffic patterns. At the time, there was a future land use map the Planning Commission was working on that showed this as lower density. That’s where they went with it. Since then, some of those topics of discussion have changed. The map has changed. The current future land use map has this as a higher density zone. We feel that is part of the reason we are bringing this back. There’s definitely a rethink from what was years ago. iii. Public Hearing Peter Krebs – I work for the Piedmont Environmental Council. I live about two blocks from the location of this project. I am pretty familiar with this site. In general R-3 zoning is going to be reasonable and consistent with this location. The surrounding parcels are generally multi-family. The spirit of what is happening here is appropriate. It is appropriate to have multi-family housing close to shopping, jobs, and schools. There is a lot that makes sense. It’s also consistent with the direction the future land use map has taken as well. Broadly, this is the type of place where we have multi-family housing. The site really depends on walkability. I am one of those people who walks and bikes multiple times per day. That particular sidewalk has utility poles in it. That corridor is walkable because it has a pretty good tree canopy. I saw trees in the rendering and that’s good. For this project to work, the street needs to remain walkable. Let’s be sure those trees actually get built or planted. 13 Mark Kavit – It bothers me when applicants/developers who have been turned down by City Council and Planning Commission come back and ask to be considered again. It bothers me that they come back and present the same proposal and hope those on the Council/Commission will be more sympathetic to their application. I also have to question whether the land is worth as much as they paid for or if it is on option to buy. Maybe it needs to be a lower value on that and less units. I don’t have a problem with units being built there. I think it is too many to have 8 units there. That’s my biggest concern. It needs to be less dense there. If there is parking on Carlton too, traffic can’t really fit in there. You also need to consider the future Riverbend project. There is really no space there to turn around a car. It’s going to be very difficult for a car to turn around and get out of there. I am hearing a lot of assumptions on this tonight. I am not against development. I just want to see appropriate development. I don’t think this with 8 units is appropriate. Vivian Schmidt – We live on Chestnut Street. There is quite a bit of traffic down Carlton Avenue and Carlton Road. We see big delivery trucks and construction trucks going down Carlton Avenue. That area has narrow streets with no sidewalks. There is not a lot of off-street parking. As residents, we park on the street. We’re all concerned about the addition of cars from this particular development. It is very much an assumption that there would be only one car per unit. In other developments like this, there have been two cars per unit. It is a traffic issue and parking issue for us. Our neighborhood has a very wide age span who need to park in front of their houses. I would like for you all to consider all of those things and the impact on our neighborhood. Charles Neer – I agree with everything that Vivian just shared regarding the proposed development. The parking issues are dramatic. There is going to be more than one car per unit. The building is nice. The overall plan is deficient. There are some answers that could resolve the proposal. The owner/developer should find an additional 12 parking spaces. That would alleviate the parking problem. The owner/developer could put the whole thing on stilts and have parking under the building for the tenants of the development. The third solution is to reduce the size of the development from 8 units to a triplex. They could add one or two more parking spaces. They can also build a quad-plex with either two over two or four in a row. All of that would be an acceptable solution for the development and not be disruptive to the surrounding neighborhoods. Amy Marshall – I am coming as a resident to ask you to be good stewards of our community. NDS does not review things based on the impact of the infrastructure of the surrounding areas. They only review projects in a bubble. No other land is considered when making decisions. You should review this in the same way. You have a self-sustained project. You need to have parking on site instead of pushing it off onto local streets. This is already an over-used road. This is a bus route and an emergency route for fire and police. You have to plan for the impacts of more cars. This is an area where children cross the street from this neighborhood to go to school. The developer said that he didn’t care about traffic. He doesn’t live here with kids. There is no crosswalk and no continuous sidewalk on the north side of Carlton. Since this is a rezoning, you can have proffers that mitigate the impact of the transportation issues increased development will create. If you’re going rezone this, it’s your job as a Planning Commission to require impact mitigation. If you care about equity, think about the people in this neighborhood. We need cars because we live in a “food desert.” 14 Karen Neer – We’ve lived in this neighborhood for about 40 years. I am most concerned about the traffic on Carlton. There is already terrible congestion on that road. The traffic is so bad and the road is so narrow. Adding 8 units with 15 more cars in that area just troubles me. The applicant said that a third of the residents would probably walk/bike to work. I love that picture. I don’t think it is realistic. There’s not a whole lot of industry down here. Most people are going to have to walk to the Food Lion and walk back with their groceries. People are going to have to have a car. Eight units with eight cars is totally unrealistic. We’re going to have at least 16 cars with visitors and no place to park. I think it is going to be a disaster. I ask that you reject the proposal. I would love it if the Planning Commission could spend five minutes on Carlton Avenue and see how congested it is. I cannot imagine adding 8 units. That area can be developed in a way that is much more reasonable. This was rejected in 2018 for a good reason. Jamir Smith – I error on the opposite side of everyone else. Since the parking can’t be reduced anymore, I think it is a perfect fit for the community. There are multiple multi-family houses in the area and, it is within a 5 minute walk of the shops on Carlton Road. It’s also by downtown Belmont. It is that perfect size building to put in such a small area. I think it is a great model for what could be used in other parts of the city. How are we going to be able to increase infrastructure? The assumption that people can’t take the bus to get groceries is wild. I work in transit. I take people to get groceries all the time. Kimber Hawkey – I am not going to restate the safety issues of this. The one affordable unit that was there has been removed. It was rejected before with that unit. The setback has been reduced. In the previous application, there were concerns about the massing of the building. Coren Capshaw has proposed that Riverbend/Belmont Apartments behind Douglas generated 900 car trips per day. That’s outrageous. It’s a dangerous street. It’s a safety issue. I am concerned about the R-3 designation. The average person cannot follow what is going on. There’s a lot of confusion. I think you should reject this. This is a perfect place to do a redevelopment. It needs to be redone and it needs to be appropriate. Jake Gold – I am dismayed by the number of neighbors who want more car storage here. This is a solid location for car free living. There are good restaurants nearby. It’s exactly the kind of development we should be encouraging if we want to cut the number of cars driving in Charlottesville. It is necessary if we want Charlottesville to take climate change seriously. Any of the proposals that add more parking to encourage more cars to be brought to this location are ignoring the serious reality that we need to cut our greenhouse gas emissions. That’s being a good steward of our community. I hear what others have said about pedestrian safety, food deserts, and equity concerns. There are a lot of ways to plug into that work addressing those issues that don’t stop people from living close to where they work. iv. Discussion and Recommendation Commissioner Palmer – It’s a great place there. I think it is a very walkable place. There are not as many services there that used to be there. It’s great to be by the bus line there. It’s finding that balance. 15 Commissioner Russell – We heard from the developer that building a more “missing middle” type is not economically feasible. That is what is pushing this proposed development out of that scale of soft density and into something that is more middle or high depending on a lot of analysis between staff and myself about how we quantify density per dwelling unit. When we’re thinking about appropriate scale for the neighborhood and wanting affordability, the developer is saying that they have to have a certain level of density to hit that profit margin. That should make us concerned moving forward. How do we start to achieve that by building denser? This does tip that scale of density. There was something in the staff report alluding to things that aren’t being proffered as part of that special use permit. Do we think any of those other uses should be proffered out if we were to approve the SUP? Chairman Mitchell – We can’t negotiate proffers from the dais. Ms. Robertson – We have to be aware that proffers are things that come with a rezoning. Special use permits have conditions. If you’re considering a special use permit, you’re allowed to craft or impose a condition if you think that condition is necessary to make the development fit better in the neighborhood or to mitigate some impact it may have. On a rezoning, you’re not allowed to impose any conditions. In a rezoning, an applicant sometimes gives a proffer statement. That is the thing you are not allowed to alter or negotiate. Chairman Mitchell – We have to do the rezoning to get to the special use permit in this case. We can’t negotiate a proffer on rezoning, which would take us to the special use permit. Ms. Robertson – It is very difficult and complicated. Proffers are just a weird, unique thing. Commissioner Russell – I did hear some conditions that related to tree canopy that are indicated on the site plan. That might be something we consider. Chairman Mitchell – If that is something you really want, when we get to the motion on the special use permit, you may want to include that in the condition of approval. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I remember this application coming up last time. I recall a City Councilor (rejecting it) saying that it was out of scale with its surroundings. It was going to be a sixplex. There was a sixplex next door. On the other side, there was a B-1 zoned single family house. It’s now a salon. This proposal and that proposal are missing middle housing. It’s a very appropriate location for it in a great location to live without a car or ‘car light’ lifestyle, where you can have a car and not use it. The traffic concerns are generally legitimate. People have reasons to fear cars and traffic. I like the fact that there will be an exit onto Carlton Avenue. The idea of a crosswalk is a good idea. That seems like something for site plan approval. I am not sure crosswalks are allowed to go to a place where there isn’t a sidewalk. Overall, I think it is a good proposal. I would have liked to have seen a proffer like the last time. Those rents that are planned are lower than an 80% AMI proffer. It’s about 64% AMI for a one bedroom and 75.5% AMI for a two bedroom. It would be nice to have some of those be guaranteed. Those are market rate rents. If the market continues to rise, they 16 could go up. I don’t have any particular reason to believe the current market rent is significantly different from what was stated earlier. It is well within what we need for workforce housing and even below typically workforce housing. This is the type of housing that we need. For a relatively large lot for Belmont, 8 units is entirely appropriate. I am supportive of this proposal. Commissioner Habbab – I appreciate all of the comments from the public. For the rezoning part of it, I think it fits. It provides workforce housing, which is needed. Looking at it as a rezoning, they can theoretically build anything that fits into R-3 zoning. I do think that R-3 fits that. With regards to the SUP, the plan as submitted would be a good addition with all of the conditions highlighted by staff. I think having the tree in the front might help reduce the scale of the building. Commissioner Solla-Yates – We have problems in Belmont. If we want to solve problems, we should spend money on it. We’re not going to extract all of the solutions to the problems from developers of small lots. We have to spend money. This landowner didn’t make traffic bad in Belmont. This landowner did not make parking problems in Belmont. If we have systemic problems, we need to have systemic solutions: comprehensive planning and capital improvement planning. Commissioner Lahendro – I have no problem with the rezoning considering the existing zoning around this lot. I think that is entirely appropriate going to R-3. I agree in terms of getting more units in a missing middle type of building. If there’s parking and traffic issues, we need to have the city step in and provide the appropriate resources and solutions. Commissioner Russell – Was there a visual that showed a plan for more landscaping? Mr. Shimp – We will have conceptual landscaping on the site plan. The ordinance might require two large trees. We certainly want to have a shady yard. Part of that could be an outdoor amenity space in that front yard. Having tree canopy is important to that. In the comments, I heard about the walkability in the shade. It is one of those things you experience walking through neighborhoods and you appreciate it. You don’t realize it until you walk in a neighborhood without that. There is a desire for additional trees to be planted. If that is in a condition, there would be no objection. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Can we get clarification? It looks like there’s 60 feet of frontage. The ordinance says one large tree per 40 feet of frontage. Does that mean one large tree/40 feet and another large tree? Would it be easier to make it a condition? Mr. Shimp – It basically requires two trees. If it is over 41 feet, it is basically two trees in how it has been interpreted. Mr. Alfele – I would have to double-check the code. At a bare minimum, it would be at least one large tree. It would be looked at during the final site plan review. Commissioner Lahendro – I would propose that we make that part of the special use permit that we require at least two large canopy trees along the street. 17 Motion to Approve Rezoning – Commissioner Solla-Yates – I move to recommend approval of this application to rezone the subject property from R-2 to R-3 on the basis that the proposal would serve the interests of the general public and good zoning practice. (Second by Commissioner Lahendro) Motion passes 6-0. Commissioner Solla-Yates – There is a lot of concern about walkability and sidewalk crossing safety in the area. Would it be possible to have a condition that speaks to that? Mr. Alfele – I am not sure what the safety condition would be. Ms. Creasy – Are you asking for a requirement for a sidewalk? That is a requirement for the site plan. Commissioner Solla-Yates – Something above and beyond. Ms. Creasy – We wouldn’t be able to provide any analysis on the details of what that could be at this point in time. For a crosswalk, you have to have receiving areas on both sides. Each of those areas will need to be compliant. It appears that it may be a mid-block area. It may not be the most appropriate. That would be something reviewed at the site plan phase. We don’t want to commit to something that is not allowable. Chairman Mitchell – Some of the stuff has to be done by the city. We can’t look to the developers to solve every problem. We have to do some of this work. Commissioner Lahendro – Can we ask staff to do a study on this road? Or make recommendations the city might do to make things safer? Ms. Robertson – You can do that. You wouldn’t necessarily do it in the conditions for this development. You can make that type of request. Motion to Approve SUP – Commissioner Solla-Yates – I move to recommend approval of this application for a Special Use Permit in the R-2 (application ZM21-00001 under review to rezone from R-2 to R-3) zone at 1206 Carlton Avenue to permit residential development with additional density and adjustment to the southeast side yard requirement with the following conditions. • Conditions recommended by staff • Two large canopy trees along the street (Second by Commissioner Lahendro) – Motion passes 6-0. Discussion following second by Commissioner Lahendro Commissioner Stolzenberg – At the eastern border of that streetscape, there is an existing large tree. Is it possible or reasonable to make that condition to keep that large tree? We don’t want to wait for the new ones to mature. Is that feasible during the construction? 18 Mr. Shimp – I don’t have a map in front of me to show me what tree that is. We have a lot of trouble keeping trees. Even if there is a sewer lateral that serves this property, we have to do a new sewer lateral, new water connection. Inevitably an old tree with roots out into the zone of required utility work: we hit it. It probably dies. If we can keep it, that is preferable. I would be worried about a condition. We might come to a site plan andutilities might say that we can’t build those in here. That tree is going to have to go. I see us replacing something and the tree across the frontage being impacted. I would like to avoid that if at all possible. It is safer to plant two new trees and let them grow with the utilities over time. It’s a safer bet. 2. CP21 - 00001 – 13th Street NE Right Of Way - Pursuant to Virginia Code section 15.2-2232 and City Code sec. 34-28, the Planning Commission will review the proposal for partial vacation of the 13 Street NE public right of way, between Meriwether Street and East High Street, to determine if the general location, character and extent of the proposal are substantially in accord with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan or part thereof. Information pertaining to this application may be viewed online at www.charlottesville.gov/agenda. Persons interested in the application may contact Tony Edwards by e-mail at edwardst@charlottesville.gov) or by telephone (434-970-3992). i. Staff Report Tony Edwards, City Engineering – The Subject Street was created in 1940 within the subdivision plat that established the Little High neighborhood. The 1940 subdivision plat created a new “Lewis Street” running north from the east end of Little High Street all the way to “Free Bridge Road”, which is now East High Street. The subdivision plat shows “Lewis Street” continuing beyond the home now located at 426 13th Street N.E., behind three other lots, and ultimately connecting with East High Street further to the west (i.e., between the La Michoacana restaurant and an office building). Subsequently the City paved a portion of the platted street—now 13th Street N.E.—which aligns with most of “Lewis Street” shown on the 1940 plat. The paved portion of the street runs from Little High Street to the edge of the lot identified as 426 13th Street N.E. The City also paved the other streets that were depicted within the 1940 subdivision plat (including Little High Street, Meriwether Street, and an unnamed alley located above Meriwether Street). By its actions in paving the streets platted within the Little High subdivision plat, the City effectively accepted all of the streets depicted in the plat—including the entire strip of land labeled “Lewis Street” in the 1940 Plat. Therefore, even though the Subject Street remains undeveloped, that undeveloped portion is now a public right-of-way owned by the City. Therefore, for purposes of City Council’s 2019 Updated Street Closing Policy, the Subject Streets falls within “Category A” (proposed vacation of a public right-of-way previously dedicated to and accepted by the City). The property owners that border a portion of this undeveloped section of 13th street NE have expressed their desire to avoid a cut-through street for the Little High Neighborhood and any added congestion between properties and at the intersection with East High Street. They have indicated that a vacation of this right of way would allow them to address existing drainage issues, reduce limiting setback requirements on those High Street properties, reduce any potential grading issues in dealing with the existing steep grades and eliminate potential financial burden for new street construction. The property owners 19 further agree with the City’s understanding in that a utility easement will be required to accommodate the existing sanitary, water and gas utilities. However, this will not provide a multimodal approach through the area. Also in 2019 Stephen Bach, a resident of the Little High Neighborhood, contacted City Council to request clarification of the status of a gravel path at the north end of 13th Street N.E. According to Mr. Bach the public has been using the gravel path for a long time to access East High Street. Mr. Bach desired for City Council to improve the path to serve as a long-term pedestrian and bicycle connection from 13th Street N.E. to East High Street. Upon investigation of Mr. Bach’s request it was determined that the existing gravel path actually veers outside of the platted ROW for 13th Street N.E., over the yard of a private residence and a busy parking lot. Staff at the time was also of the opinion that establishing a bike/ped connection within the platted ROW would be difficult and expensive. The area of the platted ROW goes through a large, forested lot, into a driveway between the parcels containing La Michoacana and the office building next door (the City would need to clear and develop the ROW area through the forested lot). To establish a bike/ped connection over the gravel path that is/was actually being used, the City would need to acquire land from the owners of 426 13th Street N.E. and 1202 East High Street, and reconstruct the area to manage conflicts between cars and pedestrians in the existing parking lot. Comprehensive Plan Alignment The following excerpts identify some of the related goals established to be in alignment with the City of Charlottesville adopted 2013 Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that this request is not in alignment with the comprehensive plan as outlined in the objectives below, but if the Planning Commission and Council determine that the request is in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan, the request for closure could move forward for consideration. Land Use This section of right of way is located within a proposed High Street / Martha Jefferson Small Area Plan Development area. The small area planning process is intended to examine these areas anew and holistically, with the full engagement of the public, elected and appointed officials and planning professionals. Each small area plan should be also coordinated within a city-wide map and “multi- modal system framework plan” as called for by Land Use Objective 1.4 and required by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) guidebook, “Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach” (Transportation Objective 2.5,) and the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) “Multimodal System Design Guidelines” as they are developed. The City’s Land Use Map identifies this proposed right of way section as being adjacent to low density residential and mixed use areas and should be allow to remain for such a process. 2.3 Enhance pedestrian connections between residences, commercial centers, public facilities, amenities and green spaces.* 3.4 Increase both passive and active recreational opportunities for Charlottesville residents. 8.5 Incorporate best practices in the location and design of a range of parks, school yards, public trails and recreational facilities of various scales and functions, from large natural areas to small urban parks throughout the city. Housing 20 8.5 Promote redevelopment and infill development that supports bicycle and pedestrian-oriented infrastructure and robust public transportation to better connect residents to jobs and commercial activity.* Transportation 1.2 Provide convenient and safe pedestrian connections within 1/4 miles of all commercial and employment centers, transit routes, schools and parks. 2.1 Provide convenient and safe bicycle and pedestrian connections between new and existing residential developments, employment areas and other activity centers to promote the option of walking and biking.* 2.2 Encourage new street connections and alternate traffic patterns where appropriate to distribute traffic volumes across a network and reduce trip lengths for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles. 2.6 Promote urban design techniques, such as placing parking behind buildings, reducing setbacks, and increasing network connectivity, to create a more pedestrian friendly streetscape and to reduce speeds on high volume roadway. 3.5 Identify additional roadway connections to improve the connectivity of streets. 5.4 Provide public parking to maintain the vitality of the City while using pricing strategies (including metering) and coordinated locations of parking to encourage use of transit, walking and bicycling. Urban Design & Historic Preservation 1.4 Develop pedestrian‐friendly environments in Charlottesville that connect neighborhoods to community facilities, to commercial areas and employment centers, and that connect neighborhoods to each other, to promote a healthier community. Staff Discussion and Recommendation City staff has provided the following comments in their review of the application material: This section of the 13th Street NE right of way provides rear access to one (1) lot at 1142 E High Street. The lot is zoned High Street Corridor and is not permitted to have accessory dwelling units (ADUs) per Section 34-796. Therefore, the closing of this section of 13th Street NE will not impact rear access to existing or future ADUs under current zoning. City Traffic Engineering does not believe that this right of way should be closed. Although undeveloped up to this point closing it potentially removes a chance of developing parcel 54- 50.002, which is currently owned by the same owner of the adjacent lot at 517 13th St NE, unless the two lots are combined. While there is currently no physical street for parking, parking could be on this street if ever developed. This right of way connects two existing dedicated streets and could allow a through type connection from 2 directions. It could provide an alternative route to existing routes with vehicular traffic of greater than 1000 ADT. In addition, by closing this 13th St section, we would officially be creating 2 separate dead-end streets that would not meet the city’s criteria for a turn around. A possible solution in the short/midterm would be to pave this as a 12 foot wide bike/pedestrian trail with a removable bollard at either end. This would restrict access to cut through traffic that the applicant has 21 referenced, while still leaving the route available to emergency use if needed and more formally recognize it as a good pedestrian route to High Street. Parks and Recreation would like to preserve a bike and pedestrian easement, if this does close and retain the right of way. Public Utilities has existing water, sewer, and gas lines with in this right of way. If closed, Public Utilitiesrequests the entire area be retained as a Public Utility Easement. Staff notes that the determination of conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the closure request itself are two separate actions. Only conformance with the Comprehensive Plan is under consideration at this time. Staff recommends that this request is not in alignment with the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Solla-Yates – I understand there has been an email today with some other ideas. I am interested to hear your thoughts on this email. Mr. Allen – There were some other options that came in late today. It should be considered as a possibility. It just was not in time to be considered for the report. Staff has not had an appropriate time to analyze all of that. Commissioner Solla-Yates – Are you suggesting more time would be helpful to make an informed decision? Mr. Allen – For consideration of those options, if Mr. Van Doorn is confirming tonight that those are still on the table that would be appropriate. Chairman Mitchell – I don’t think it would be appropriate for us to consider the new information unless we had input from staff. Commissioner Habbab – I know there was the old report that said that it would be implausible to build a pathway. Would it be feasible to build a pedestrian/bike path that connects that area? The second question concerns the drainage. I don’t know if you had a chance to look at those issues that the residents are concerned about. Mr. Allen – The Parks and Recreation Department feels that could be achievable. It would require a great deal of work to accomplish that. There is no estimate at this point to what extent that may require. With the drainage, I am not aware of specific complaints of drainage in that area. ii. Applicant Presentation Ray Van Doorn, Applicant – I am the applicant. I speak for all of the property owners who touch this right of way section. This is the planned view of the area without vegetation. This section of 13th Street is called a paper street. As a paper street, it acts for us, as property owners, like a real street. 22 We have an unusual requirement in the High Street Corridor. Those buildings facing High Street have a 15 foot setback. Those properties that face a connector road (13th Street would be a connector road) have a 20 foot setback. If you look at where that #21 is, you will see that spot (if you take 20 feet away from that property line) removes all that property from utility. The 20 foot setback is really a pressure point for us in two ways. I mentioned drainage. If you park in the back of the La Michoacana, there is water that flows downhill from lots 52, 53, and 54 up to Locust Avenue. It comes down during storms. That area where the number 21 is a big hole that receives the water. To effectively address this problem, we need to put an underground conduit from a section behind lot 55 about ten feet into the right of way to a location in the corner of lot 59 and 13th Street. There is a 30 inch storm drain there for stormwater underground. That removes all of this stormwater that we get washing through here. On 13th Street Northeast behind La Michoacana, that is a city paved street that isn’t code compliant. It is just paved asphalt that is one continuous asphalt. When it rains, water just flows over the top of 13th Street and down into where that #21 is and into the storm drain. We need to use a portion of this right of way to address this water issue. The other problem we have is that we would like to get more parking off High Street. Across the street is the digestive center. They have been extremely busy. There simply is no on street parking for commercial use. As this area matures and we get more density, having off street parking is exactly what the Small Area Plan calls for. We can manage that with our customers. All of this area is commercial. We want to build more off street parking so we can relieve High Street from parking. We don’t do this application that much. The city doesn’t get many applications for right of way abandonment. When we got the staff report, we pondered on what the staff report said. We have a couple of thoughts for your consideration. One is pedestrian and bike access. We think it is appropriate and in the best interest of the city that that section of land have a bike path and pedestrian path so people can walk from the Little High Neighborhood down 13th Street, on this path, and up towards La Michoacana. That gives them access to High Street and buses in a different way. The city rejected putting a path in because of cost. It does cost a lot of money. Another issue is that the city has been negligent in maintaining that utility easement. This area is frankly a jungle. If there is a water, gas, or sewer leak, there is no physical way for them to get in there. The trees are 70 years old and have outgrown that area. If there was a water or sewer leak, I don’t know how people get in there. The traffic engineer is correct in saying that this is a connector road. In earlier public testimony, a Mr. Rice was concerned about the Little High Neighborhood, the streets being really narrow, and the concern about cut-through traffic. This road was to be connected, this would be a perfect cut- through for people going to High Street to Meade and cut out the congestion on the corner and that tight pinch-point turn at Meade and High. You would see nothing but traffic going through these narrow streets with no sidewalks. There was a proposal a few years ago to develop that into some high density housing. We had a public hearing about this with the Little High Neighborhood. They all pleaded with us to connect that road. All it would do is create a major cut-through for the neighborhood. They were happy with the situation as it is now. If that site was connected, the big problem for the city and us in the neighborhood is the intersection of 13th Street and High Street. If any of you have been to La Michoacana, you know that it is nothing more than a big parking lot. There is no curb and gutter or sidewalk. It is not an improved city street. It is nothing more than asphalt. When lots 50 and 51 were looking to develop, this was in the realm of possibility. The city 23 said we needed to develop 13th Street to city standards all the way to the intersection of lots 50 and 49 with city approved streets. Two and a half years ago, it was $700,000 to do that section. If it was connected all the way to lot 47, it is well over $1 million. Whenever a street is built today, you have private people saying “I want to develop lot 49 or 50 and put in that.” There are no lots left to develop. There’s no interest by anybody in the private sector to improve that road. Who is going to do that work? Is the city interested in putting in $1 million to making a connector to a neighborhood who does not want it? It really doesn’t make any sense. The goal of the High Street Corridor is the continuation of scale and existing character with an emphasis on infill development or similar uses. We meet this requirement and embrace it. We want to increase parking and infill in a commercial area and in a location that is not going to interfere in any way aesthetically and anyway with the residential neighborhood. I made a proposal that we as property owners around this section would put in a 12 foot wide gravel connector so that bikes and pedestrians can walk in that area. We would enter into an agreement with the city to maintain that gravel road. It would be exactly over the utilities. That would give the city the ability to access the utilities if there’s a failure. We would put in bollards so it wouldn’t become a vehicle cut-through. We would ask that the rear setback be reduced from that area down to zero or ten feet away from any utilities. That would give us the ability to develop the land and use it to its best use without interfering with the public. This is at the end of 13th Street. You can see where the pavement ends right now. This is the path many people use to exit. If you look straight ahead, that’s Davis Appliance. People were cutting across this lawn and going over to those trucks and getting access. Since that has been a problem, they have put in a chain linked fence and prevented that access. This is a picture of 13th Street from La Michoacana on the left and office building on the right. This is a public highway. There is plenty of room at the end of this layout to turn around. This is 13th Street and the area we’re talking about cleaning up. Seventy years of neglect have had a toll on this. These trees could be saved if we start working on it now. We would propose putting a path through here and cleaning up the kudzu, putting in a gravel road, and maintaining it. We would use that gravel road for our own internal exit out the rear. We would prevent through traffic from going through here. This is the other side of that path. That’s what we would connect to at the very end. There might some realignment. That would give the residents of Little High Street the ability to walk or to bicycle down this path and connect to an area that doesn’t have a chain linked fence. They can get to High Street, buses, and shopping. We anticipate more restaurants and shopping coming in on High Street and connect Little High Street to the High Street Corridor. We think it makes a lot of sense. We can’t do it now because of this artificially created paper street. Chairman Mitchell – If we elect to move that this is in compliance with the comprehensive plan (but only if he does the things that he suggests that he is going do), how do we do that? I don’t think we can condition this. Ms. Creasy – This isn’t an action that can be conditioned. It’s an ‘up’ or ‘down’ resolution. Chairman Mitchell – We have to have faith. 24 Ms. Creasy – In the past, you have provided the recommendation. You have noted a few comments that you have asked to be passed onto Council. That could be a consideration. Commissioner Russell – What are the obligations of the city to maintain a utility right of way? Ms. Robertson – That is up to the city. The city maintains the right of way in a manner that will ensure that the utilities in that area are operating properly. There is not a standard that requires it. As long as it suits the operation of the utility facilities, that’s all the utility easement is designed to ensure. Commissioner Russell – Is it possible to allow for pedestrian connectivity but not give up the right of way; keeping the option to exercise it at a later date? Ms. Robertson – I don’t know if that would suit the applicant’s purposes. Just because the city owns the area, the city doesn’t have any obligation to develop it to any particular standard, to create a pedestrian trail. Depending on the reasons why the applicant wants it closed the city already owns it in full. It’s not for one purpose or another. It would be a little difficult to craft a closing only for certain purposes that keeps title for other purposes. Commissioner Russell – I am just worried about limiting development along East High should it ever be advantageous; not necessarily for cut-through. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Would the city allow a private entity to improve a right of way to a standard less than that of a street if it wasn’t required for a development? Would we allow someone to take a platted right of way and put a pedestrian path there? Ms. Robertson – It depends on if it is for public use or not. If you want to make a path around your lot, you don’t have to make that ADA accessible for yourself. If the applicant is going to incorporate that area as a public sidewalk or as part of a future public dedication of facilities, it is those public facilities that have to be compliant with particular standards if we’re going to accept them and turn around and own them again and maintain them. Brennen Duncan, Traffic Engineer – It would necessarily have to be built to the full roadway standards. It would have to be built to ADA standards or bicycle trail standards if those were the types of facilities that were going to be built in that right of way. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Would that be the case even if we were to vacate the right of way and they were to create a pedestrian path for public use? Mr. Duncan – If they were dedicating it for public use, it would have to meet those ADA Guidelines. Commissioner Habbab – If the applicant wanted to put in a pedestrian right of way, is that allowed? 25 Mr. Allen – Are you suggesting that it would be a private owned area with a dedicated pathway through it? Commissioner Habbab – If it remains as a right of way for the City of Charlottesville and they voluntarily wanted to improve it to be a pedestrian pathway, is that something the city will let them come in and cut down the trees that are in the middle of the walkway? You can’t walk from one point to another. It’s not really a connector. Ms. Robertson – As long as it is city owned property, we can’t let private individuals use it for their private purposes as long as it is owned by the city. If they were providing a pedestrian path for use by the general public and it is on the property that we own, it is going to have to be compliant with standards for public accommodations. If we were to lease the property to them and it became their property by virtue of that lease, they would control it. That might be a private facility. I can’t say whether if they allow people to privately cross an area that they have a leasehold interest in, what the requirements would be for them. Commissioner Solla-Yates – I am not concerned with understanding the character of this paper street. Could we waive the setback requirements if we haven’t developed the street? Ms. Creasy – The code doesn’t allow for that. There are options if in a special use situation. You can request relief from setbacks. That’s the only situation given the current zoning ordinance. Commissioner Lahendro – Can staff tell us what existing utilities are in this right of way now? What is their condition and age? What are the master plans for replacing them or adding to them? Mr. Allen – There is water, sewer, and gas located in that area. The condition of them and future plans is something that we would have to discuss with public utilities. Commissioner Lahendro – What is the size of the sewer and the water? Mr. Allen – I don’t have that information. I can get it for you. Commissioner Lahendro – I am just trying to get a ‘feel’ for how major this utility corridor is. I thought the city normally does condition assessments of their utilities and how soon someone is going to have to get in there. iii. Public Hearing Peter Krebs – I am from the Piedmont Environmental Council. PEC is working every day to obtain rights of way and easements to improve public connectivity in every day access to nature. For the city to relinquish rights of way, there needs to be a public good. The owner’s convenience is a factor. A decision like this is very difficult to reverse. I find the verbal proposal quite interesting. It would do just about everything I described. There would need to be a public access right of way. An easement for that needs to be in writing. There are too many cases where we try to provide connectivity through private lands. We have seen cases where leadership or an HOA changes and 26 that right of way is lost. It needs to be much more than a verbal agreement from the landowner. I have an alley behind my house and it does all the things I described. The trail described here would be great and would connect to High Street. City code can give you guidance. It would clearly need to be a highway. This is a complicated decision. I like the creativity the landowner is exhibiting here. I would like to see more details. Steven Bach – I have been opposed to the city vacating any portion of this right of way. I laid out my thoughts and sent a memo to the Planning Commission and City Council. I appreciate the offer from the applicant about a bicycle/pedestrian path. What is important is having it binding. It has to be done. They could ‘weasel’ out of it. It would conform to ADA standards. A gravel path is not conforming to ADA standards. You cannot ride a bike on a gravel path. In Mr. Van Doorn’s letter, he mentioned 80 years of inaction by the city. Eighty years ago, Meade Park and the aquatic center did not exist. It now is a different story. East High is under redevelopment. There’s a real interest in the city allowing citizens to go from Little High Neighborhood north to East High Street to patronize those commercial establishments. There’s also an interest with the people north of East High Street to reach Meade Park. To close off this right of way would really not be in conformance with the comprehensive plan. I would urge the Planning Commission to find it is not in conformance unless some other arrangements are ensured. Jonathan Rice – I am in favor of bike/pedestrian paths through 13th Street. I really liked Mr. Van Doorn’s presentation. We do not want to see automobile traffic through here. I understand that you would anticipate vehicle traffic greater than 1000 ADT (Average Daily Trips). That number of cars would be a huge problem for the people that currently live there. There is a lot of talk of reducing the carbon footprint and automobiles. There are a lot of parents with children in this neighborhood. A lot of parents drive their children to school. It is so wasteful and a real shame. I don’t care if Mr. Van Doorn owns this or the legal disposition of the land. If we could cut through here, there would be a lot less traffic. I am adamant and opposed to automobile traffic through this. It would be a mess. Greg Jackson – I don’t think the neighborhood has taken a formal position on this. There’s been a lot of talk. The general consensus is that bike/pedestrian is desired; automobile cut-through is not desired. The question is the action to get there. I am hesitant to give up the right of way until I see the full consequences. There should be a map that can easily be shown when all the property lines meet in the middle and take over the right of way. We get the back ten feet on either side of utility as to what that path may be like. If there’s a zero lot line and zero setback from the properties on High Street, building could be up close to that path. It seems at this point public works needs to take a look. I would like see a way that this can happen. I think zero setbacks might be asking for too much. Elizabeth Carpenter – The traffic assessment that they really are hoping for holds out the possibility for developing that for cut-through traffic doesn’t seem like a great idea for me. I don’t see the benefit there. I would love to see the pedestrian/bike pathway. I have been looking at all the maps. I do find it confusing. If that is vacated, where does all that land go? I appreciate the creativity of Mr. Van Doorn. I do think it needs some more diligence for that. 27 iv. Discussion and Recommendation Commissioner Lahendro – It does break your heart to look at pictures of this area overwhelmed by kudzu. I don’t believe this conforms to the comprehensive plan of vacating this piece of street. I don’t like the idea of forfeiting the city from the future possibility of doing something and needing this street. I don’t see that it benefits the larger community to do it. In terms of making improvements, there are ways of doing things in this city that doesn’t have to be either private or public done. I am aware of organizations, neighborhoods, and community organizations that work with Parks and Rec to clear out evasive plants to create open areas and to make improvements to park areas. There is a will in the community that would benefit from doing that here. It can be done. I am not for vacating this property by the city. Commissioner Solla-Yates – This is a public right of way. If I can understand a public benefit, I am open to the idea. I don’t have that clarity from staff. At this time, I can’t support it. Commissioner Habbab – I would have to agree with the other commissioners. Since there are no conditions that can be set throughout this process, it does not conform to the comprehensive plan. In my opinion, there might be other options the city can possibly take a look at. Maybe Parks and Rec can study this property and estimate a date they could improve it. It can be leased out if neighbors want to clean it up. Setback reductions are only allowable as part of a special use permit. That could be something we could look at with the new ordinances. Commissioner Stolzenberg – I am sympathetic to the property owner’s plight with the rear setback issue. High Street as it is zoned doesn’t make a lot of sense. Even if this was vacated, it would still require a ten foot landscape buffer adjacent to a low density residential district. I am not even sure that can coincide with a utility easement. That could add even more. The appropriate way to address that would be with a ZTA (Zoning Text Amendment) or just waiting for the new zoning ordinance, which is anticipated to create some pretty significant increases in intensity in this area. That could make an improvement in the right of way more viable. Given how much this would restrict the utilization of these properties, you could ask the BZA (Board of Zoning Appeals) for a variance. My impression would be that they might grant a variance in a case like this. The comprehensive plan is quite clear as far as the transportation network goes. More connectivity is good. A redundant grid is the way to go. I hear the neighbor’s concerns about vehicular traffic. Everyone wants their street to be a cul de sac. The 1000 ADT is for Meade Avenue but not what would be moved if there was a cut-through. It’s not likely there would be an improved street here. I would like to see a bicycle/pedestrian connection in lieu of that. The proposal that was made is pretty compelling to me. I wish we could figure out a way to make that work on the public right of way, even if it has to meet standards. It sounds like it would have to if it is open to the public. I would hope that public works would allow adjacent property owners to make stormwater improvements as necessary on the public land and to make bicycle/pedestrian improvements compliant with standards if they so desire voluntarily. It is not a proffer, not binding. I just don’t see how I can vote to affirm this as compliant with the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Russell – I agree with my fellow commissioners. I would appreciate staff’s response and thoughts on what might be viable or could be codified in terms of achieving pedestrian connectivity. I am reluctant to limit the potential and give up right of way. I am also not as 28 convinced that it would be a really great cut-through when Stewart Street is right there providing connectivity to Meade. That is not to say that I don’t hear the concerns. There is an existing cut- through that is pretty direct right there to Meade from High. I appreciate the applicant’s creativity. I hope we can find ways to work together on this moving forward. Chairman Mitchell – I have to agree with my colleagues. This is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. The creativity makes this very appealing. I don’t see a way forward. Mr. Van Doorn – We all want the same thing. Getting there is the challenge. Giving up city land is a challenge. I would like to withdraw my application for today and work with Ms. Robertson and city staff and come back with an idea that is acceptable. Owning the land for us is not that important. What is important is that the Little High Street Neighborhood has a way to utilize connectivity. Nobody in Little High wants a cut-through. It is not designed for it. Chairman Mitchell – We all like what you are trying to do. We accept your withdrawal. The meeting was recessed for five minutes. IV. Commission’s Action Items 1. Critical Slopes Waiver – CRHA South First Street i. Staff Report Carrie Rainey, Staff Report - The Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) is requesting a waiver from the requirements and conditions of a critical slopes waiver previously granted to it pursuant to Section 34‐1120(b) of the City Code (Critical Slope Ordinance). The previously‐granted critical slope waiver allows construction and land disturbing activities within critical slopes, for a development that would include 62 multi‐family residential units in three (3) buildings and a community resource center (Phase 1). Improvements specific to areas where critical slopes would be impacted should the waiver be approved are shown on the Critical Slope Exhibit (Attachment B) and include portions of the buildings, sidewalks, on‐site parking areas, an access aisle, stormwater maintenance facilities, and recreation amenity spaces. Subsequent to commencement of construction, CRHA contacted staff, representing that it cannot construct the development in accordance with the previously‐approved critical slope waiver. Specifically, CRHA believes that it cannot comply with Condition 4. The provided staff analysis focuses on the applicant’s proposed modification to the previously approved critical slope waiver. Each applicant for a critical slope waiver is required to articulate a justification for the waiver and to address how the land disturbance, as proposed, will satisfy the purpose and the intent of the critical slope regulations. The applicant has provided this information in the critical slopes waiver narrative. The approved general land use plan of the comprehensive plan calls for the site to be high density residential, which is defined as the density of more than 15 dwelling units per acre. The applicant currently proposes density of approximately 21 dwelling units per acre. Per Section 34‐ 1120(b)(6)(d)(ii), the shape and location of the critical slopes may unreasonably restrict the use 29 and development of the subject properties in a manner in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Alternative site layouts may reduce impacts to critical slope areas, but may also impact other development factors such as achievable residential unit counts due to increased construction costs. Jack Dawson, City Engineer – There was a condition that I formulated based on some submittals that we got last week. I wanted to give a brief background of where we are and describe the situation. There are 4 or 5 conditions previously approved with this project. One was to have buildings 1 and 2 completed before building 3 could start. The purpose of that is building 3 is placed on the tract that serves the treated sediment that flows from where buildings 2 and 3 are being built. There are some other issues with this plan as approved. In June, an amendment was approved to address how the best management practice (BMP) for stormwater, which is a quantity feature and it is the underground retention pipe, to be constructed. It wasn’t clear in the plan. We approved an amendment that showed how, not only would buildings 1 and 2 be constructed first, but the curb on the southside of parking lot would not be constructed with the parking lot so the water would not go into the storm drains and not go into the BMP and flow off the curb into the tract where the dike would remain. While I understand the supply logistics and construction is bit ‘screwy’ these days, I don’t think it alleviates the existing concerns. What the applicant wants is to eliminate that requirement essentially. My concern with that is that is a specific requirement based on how this plan was put together with building 3 and the tract being coexistent. What the applicant is proposing now and there was an email today that referenced mulch and silt fence. That is mostly not acceptable for this type of application. There are some further concerns I have with that as well. While I did craft that statement, I don’t know how detailed you want me to get with this. This is what is being proposed now by the applicant. The blue is the approximate mulch area. The light green area is the area that we sodded. The red is silt fence. What the update to the plan said was that there are three filtering practices. Mulch is not a stabilization measure for this use. The intent would be that the people building the buildings would be in the mulch bed. Mulch is in the Virginia Handbook as an acceptable practice. It is for the same thing you use it typically. Straw is actually in the mulch preventing raindrop erosion. If you have bare ground, you cover the ground so raindrops don’t stir up the mud. Technically, the use of mulch in this situation requires a variance. The mulch is less of a concern to me compared to the other issues going on here. There are some issues with the plan clarity. When I was made aware of this two weeks ago, I proposed taking it to the Planning Commission that night when we were discussing the comp plan. I know the applicant has done their best to get something here. Part of this plan is very complex with the schemes. There is a lot of information on the plan that is not in the sequence. There are some considerable issues with this. If you see within the blue line where there is that SO label that is the sod label. Above that is the 402 contour. That implies there is a basin there. Under the cursor is a grey inlet system. That inlet system is not specified when it is to be installed. That inlet system would carry water into the main storm drain system, which would take it to a BMP. That was a detail that I asked when it was intended to be built. It’s not clear. If it is not built early on, you’re going to have all of these basins at elevation 402 around the foundation as the foundation is poured without anywhere to leave. The building is currently shown at a finished elevation of 402.2, which is 0.2 feet higher than those basins. There are a lot of 402 contours to that whole area and it is 30 essentially flat back there. Mulch would track vehicles and lifts in there doing their thing is not going to be adequate. As of a month ago, the plan was changed so that the intent would be that this curb that you see on the plan south, the bottom of this parking lot would not be built. The water would not go into those inlets and not go into the underground retention. They would flow across where that sidewalk is supposed to be into a dike, and into a trap. What is happening now is that it is being directed right into the storm drain system. Per this plan, the only filtering system would be that red silt fence, which is shown. The protection is not supposed to be the primary residential feature. The BMP would be used for erosion control by default. The plans as currently submitted, there is a note that says “In an emergency situation, the BMP can be used as an erosion sediment control feature.” That is still on this very plan, which conflicts with the sequence that says “Now it is the primary feature after all of these are done.” There are some more inconsistencies in there. The narrative provided today talks about the silt fence being behind the sidewalk and building the sidewalk later. In looking at this plan and the amount of information that’s on the plans, it’s going to be difficult to ensure what is done here is actually enforceable and carried out. There’s been significant problems on the site with conforming to the erosion control scheme. Last week, they went outside the limits of disturbance (LOD) and possibly disturbed more critical slopes at the bottom because it wasn’t feasible to get down there and work within the prescribed LOD. As of today, there was a bust on the survey of about 5 feet where the storm drain outfalls as it is designed. With all the riprap that is required for such a significant outflow, it conflicts with the sewer line. It is not shown like that on the plan. We’re going to need more revisions. While I created that condition, I am not really comfortable suggesting that is going to be the silver bullet that makes this workable. Chairman Mitchell – Is that your recommendation or is this the revised recommendation from what we got from the applicant? Mr. Dawson – It was not terribly different. I had a recommendation that the buildings be ringed with silt fence entirely and a stone access road so that the vehicles building the building can be on stone in a basin that is a muddy mulch mix. This plan that was provided today adds a silt fence to this scheme, which is a good step. Once the builders get going, they’re not too keen on silt fence. You can drive right over a standard silt fence. There are some concerns there. While I suggested a condition (that would be the minimum condition at this point), I would have to see more of these things addressed in further submittals. It would be hard for me to craft a condition that describes all of the things I would need to see addressed in a more considered submittal. Chairman Mitchell – I am confused. You just walked us through your revised recommendation that’s in the application we read earlier today. You’re not endorsing it? Mr. Dawson – It’s a good recommendation. It’s not going to close the gaps in the scheme here. What was intended to happen is that the two buildings surrounded in blue were to be built first because the building at the bottom of the page has the tract. In saying that they’re going to eliminate the 31 tract and ring the building with silt fence, there are further problems that need to be investigated on this plan. It is not stated in the sequence when this yard inlet system will be built. That’s very important. If you don’t build it first, you’re going to have all these basins with mud and silt fence. There is not adequate conveyance. Without those inlets, that whole rear blue line is going to be a pond. These contours don’t flow anywhere but to a yard inlet system that has not been detailed when it is going to be constructed. Chairman Mitchell – Nothing about this project has been an exact science. We don’t have all the answers. We have never seemed to have all the answers. Do we have enough answers for you to feel comfortable with us granting the waiver based on what you have? Mr. Dawson – I could probably craft some language that would lead to more submittals and reviews. Ms. Creasy – Maybe hearing from the applicant team will provide some insight that might be helpful to the discussion. Commissioner Lahendro – I am looking to get some clarity on what the issue is. From the presentation I have heard so far, we have non-compliance going on. There are problems building it like they said they were going to build it. I don’t know what that has to do with the critical slopes waiver. I am hearing a lot of problems. I would like to have them teased out to know what it is we’re being asked to do and what I the impact? Are there things that still have to be worked out that needs us to not grant the waiver that is being requested? I need some clarity. Commissioner Solla-Yates – My guess is that if we don’t amend the language, we lose this project for a year (LITCH funding goes away). If we do find some language that is better, we have no real guarantees that it will be great. Is that accurate? Mr. Dawson – The project is under construction. This came to light 8 days ago. The applicant is trying to address one specific thing to address their concern or their issues with getting materials. What they don’t want to do is, if they can’t get materials, they don’t want to prep buildings 1 and 2 and sit around and wait for materials to arrive and they can prep building 3 so they can build all three at the same time. That is an understandable concern. The issue is that I don’t think what has been submitted is satisfactory. I have been trying to think of a condition I can tell you so they can take a week to put this all down logically. I think there are five critical slope conditions. One is that they will be marked in the field; the limits of disturbance so that everyone can see it. They wouldn’t pass that. There is no repercussion for that. My concern is that it makes my job awfully hard if we put a condition on here with an honest intent of keeping sedimentation out of Pollocks Branch. I have been at this site a lot and have talked with the contractors. They’re under notice to comply now for “failure to adhere to the plan.” We’re going to need plans to address how they have expanded the LOD and see if they have impacted the critical slopes. That’s going to effect stormwater management computations and all of those things as well. There are going to be at least four amendments for this project. It is hard for me to keep up with all of these things. What I saw today was a shift away from the correspondence I was working with the engineer last week 32 regarding using the underground retention as a trap. This is extremely esoteric. The BMP facility they have: You cannot use that. You cannot direct water to that facility without a variance to the Erosion Sediment Control Handbook. You can only use features from the VESCH from what they’re intended without a variance. I would entertain a variance. I would prefer not to. We have spent a lot of time putting this thing into place where it would work as shown. That pipe is 4 to 6 feet wide. It is a big pipe for retaining water. It is on a half percent slope with a hole in the bottom. That hole is at the inverted end of the pipe. If you get mud into that system, it goes right through. There is no sediment dropout provided. Minimally, if we can have a condition that the sequence is clarified for how this is actually going to work, stick with my condition about the stone construction entrance instead of mulch, and address how the BMP will be tweaked, when it will be constructed, what orifices will be plugged, when, and how it is going to work. That’s what we need to see. Those are the three conditions. More work will need to be done. Ms. Robertson – For those commissioners who haven’t been through critical slopes applications, I would like to offer a much higher up description of how I think we got here. The city has this provision in the zoning ordinance. It was adopted years ago. My understanding was that it was intended to provide additional protection for sensitive environmental areas. The idea is that if you protect critical slopes, you’re achieving some sort of environmental benefit. The city wrote a zoning ordinance provision that says that you protect these critical slopes but turned around and said “we will let you obtain a waiver of that protection under certain circumstances.” Those provisions were written before the state really beefed up all of its erosion and sediment control regulations. We now have modern erosion and sediment control regulations. You are being asked to vote on a critical slopes waiver before an applicant has actually done the detailed work needed to get approval of an erosion and sediment control plan is in accordance with the regulations. The situation you wind up with is that you vote on these things. You adopt conditions such as “let’s sequence the buildings to make sure we provide extra protection for the critical slopes areas and minimize disturbance.” When you get closer to construction, through the process of doing the erosion and sediment control plan, certain things can/can’t be done with that. You all typically don’t ever see an erosion and sediment control plan. That’s all handled administratively by a local E&S administrator. That’s why this is so confusing. Your role is to try to figure out what steps you would like to implement above and beyond basic erosion and sediment control measures to protect this area that is a critical slope area. If you are now at the point where you want to grant a general waiver to the critical slopes area and modify conditions that really can’t be implemented, Mr. Dawson and the city’s E&S staff will just to have to work through all of this E&S compliance with the developer in the context of the state regulations. What you need to decide tonight is whether or not you’re going to get rid of the construction sequencing condition and whether or not you need to get rid of any other conditions; we’re granting a general waiver and work it out through the E&S process. That’s about as simplified as I can make it. Chairman Mitchell – It seems to be an abdication of responsibility if we say to work it out through the E&S process. We leave Pollocks Branch at the mercy of all of these other idiosyncrasies. Ms. Robertson – The problem is that the only conditions that you all (to date) have been able to conceive of that might achieve that level of protection; the developer is saying that they can’t do 33 them. I don’t know how you want to resolve it. Critical slopes waivers deal with measures above and beyond regular erosion and sediment control. That’s very difficult to craft as Planning Commissioners. Not all of you have erosion and sediment control, engineering, or other expertise. Chairman Mitchell – Let’s say “work it out through the E&S process.” What precedent do we set with other developers? Ms. Robertson – This is not the only time a situation like this has come about. This particular type of development is one that everybody wants to see moved forward as expeditiously as it can. Everyone is very concerned about it. I am going add to the list of things you need to look at during the zoning ordinance rewrite: this critical slopes waiver provision. I am not sure you all should be looking at it unless you are looking at it in conjunction with an E&S plan that has been engineered and developed through the site plan process. In my opinion, you are getting these way too early. It is creating more problems than it is achieving environmental benefits. You’re back to having to collectively decide whether you would prefer to grant a general waiver or whether there are any conditions that the developer can comply with above and beyond regular E&S measures. Things like mulch and straw are to be handled under the normal E&S regulations. Mr. Dawson – It is also frustrating when we do these critical slope things early in the process. They are showing you rectangles and here is the building. It makes my job easier. I can make a blanket statement. I don’t have to go through the details with you about what mulch applies. It can be more general. With Grove Street, there was enough of a plan there to come up with one condition. To Rory’s point, I can describe that plan for the next three hours and my concerns. That is not going to solve this problem. If there was no critical slopes provision and this came in as a VSMP amendment, I couldn’t approve what is sitting here right now. I understand your concern about abdicating responsibility. In the interest of keeping this project moving and if you eliminated condition 4 (the trap and sequencing), we would go through the typical review process of this amendment and try to get something that works. There is still a condition in there. We have improved erosion control statewide. People are getting better at it. It is not quite as important as it once was. Had I had this a month ago to prepare for this, it would have still been confusing. It sometimes helps to just get with the applicant and their engineer: this is the concern, work through it, and instead of doing it in this public forum with a lot of moving pieces. Commissioner Habbab – I do want to disclose that I am working with owner and applicant on a separate project that is next door, which is Phase II of South First Street. I believe I can remain impartial for this critical slopes waiver application. Commissioner Stolzenberg – It seems to me that the problems with this plan now are that it doesn’t meet the state EFC requirements. You’re only going to approve it when it meets those requirements. Is there additional authority above and beyond that you need under a critical slopes waiver? Is it better to let you do what you need? Sometimes, we talk that you need that extra authority. 34 Mr. Dawson – Condition 1 says something along the lines of other measures as deemed necessary by the VSMP authority. If they argue with me too much, I can use that. There is some extra authority there if required. ii. Applicant Presentation Ashley Davies, Riverbend Development – I really appreciate the quandary that Jack is in as well as the information Lisa shared with you. She summarized it perfectly. These critical slopes waivers come very early in the process. You are last to add all these technical conditions to a project that is not fully designed at that point. It does create a lot of issues along the way. None of us want to be in this position. We appreciate everyone coming here. We will try to provide as much clarity as we can for your consideration. In general when we look at this, staff was recognizing that it is a tight site and was looking for ways to ensure that we’re not doing anything near the slopes until we absolutely had to in keeping that trap in place. If anybody has been by the site recently, what you will find is (in terms of the critical slopes waiver), all of the slopes that needed to be disturbed have been disturbed. All of the perimeter measures and those types of things are in place. We have done all the major grading on the site. The building foundations are in. We’re at the point where we’re basically preparing for vertical construction. What we found is that (with Covid) all of our suppliers were having a really hard time getting the materials to even build the buildings. We’re really having to adapt and pivot as much as we can to keep the project moving forward as closely as we can to the anticipated schedule. We really appreciate the city being a major partner on this project. We have residents next door that are waiting to move into their new homes. Everyone is really excited about this. We have run into some issues with the survey and things not being exactly where they thought they were. We’re all just trying to adapt as best as we can. We certainly don’t have any ill intent. We are just as committed to protecting Pollocks Branch as anyone else. In terms of the actual waiver and the disturbance, that has already happened. The stabilization methods are on site. We’re looking around buildings 1 and 2 at these measures that are above and beyond, which include the permanent stabilization method of sod around those buildings. We know that basically it is going to put all of that in. Instead of temporary stabilization methods on those areas of the site, we will put in a more permanent stabilization in all of the areas that are outlined in green. It is really just around those building foundations where the sod is not going to hold up very well. We will be continuously refreshing the mulch. Downhill of that is where all of the silt fence goes in to touch anything that might come through. You have all of that sod area. The rest of this is already foundation of the building. It is not any back areas of exposed dirt. On the downhill side of the parking areas, you have the additional inlet protection. What this gets into is not much of anything to do with the critical slopes waiver, the slopes have been disturbed. The site is in the process of getting back towards stabilization as we move forward with construction. What we’re really talking about is getting an erosion sediment control sequence that everyone can be comfortable with. This is a little bit different. We had this condition that was imposed over two years ago. We are finding that does not work with current conditions. We have also spent a lot of time working with city staff to try to make adaptations on site. What we found was that staff said “we can’t make any of these recent adaptations because of this was a Planning Commission and City Council condition.” It doesn’t really allow the E&S process to adapt or be amended with staff. As Jack and Lisa mentioned, those are very strict measures imposed by the state. Jack, through condition 1, has the ability to 35 impose additional measures as necessary above and beyond. We’re just looking for a solution. We do not see any danger to Pollocks Branch. Ryan Goodrich, Breeden Construction – The conversation was brought to the team’s attention that there was a supply issue, particularly with lumber to be able to construct buildings 1 and 2, which are the ones in this photo that are surrounded by the blue mulch lines. In order to keep the schedule and catch up to the owner’s overall delivery schedule, we realized that it was going to take building Building 3 along with buildings 1 and 2 in order to keep the schedule. Initially the schedule was laid out that building 3 would come much later as buildings 1 and 2 would be out of the ground and stabilized. With the parking area, I am not sure what Mr. Dawson is referring to as the lower half of the curb and gutter being left out. As part of the next phase eliminating the sediment basin, it clearly states that the parking area was to be completed and that all inlets be fully operational. That can’t happen until the curb and the gutter on the plans south is fully installed. What we’re trying to do is get rid of the pond so we can build the third building. We’re trying to do it so we can keep the schedule. We have a community that is cheering us on next door. We have a city that has been wonderful to work with. We’re just trying to keep the expectations and keep the community from being let down. We were trying to get creative about the way to keep the progress in the midst of today’s environment, material shortages, and supply chain shortages. We conferred with our team and pitched a couple of ideas. I am not entirely sure about Mr. Dawson’s recollection of eight days ago, this came up. We had a meeting set that he wasn’t able to make. We had a phone conversation after that. I pitched the same verbal idea on the phone call. He made it sound like it was going to be something that potentially could be redlined and put into a set of drawings as redline. We thought we had some traction. We put together that narrative. Unfortunately, there was a glitch in some other language that contradicted what we were trying to do. This conversation has been going on almost a month. We’re just looking to get a general consensus that our team works with Mr. Dawson’s team to make sure we’re complying with state and local regulations and get creative in a way to maintain the schedule but to accelerate the removal of the sediment basin and not do anything abundantly different than the way drawings are designed. We will have foundations sticking out of the ground instead of 3 full buildings. That’s the only difference in what we’re trying to achieve here. Start building the third building before we get buildings 1 and 2 exteriors complete. That’s the goal. Mr. Collins has been working with us on how to make sure we comply. We’re looking for the city to help us help the community and CRHA get to a point where this project can continue to move forward. Scott Collins, Collins Engineering – In our sequencing with the removal of the sediment trap, we’re not changing that. We are still achieving 100% stabilization on the site from the parking lot up. For everything that would go to that sediment trap, we are stabilizing that per Virginia Stormwater E&S Control Measures Standards. Mulching is a standard. Sod is a standard. These were approved. We are doing the same thing. We are stabilizing the site. In addition, all of that clean water is being routed through our stormwater management facility because it is a stabilized site. It does have inlet protection as another form on the inlets to ensure that the runoff is treated for additional above and beyond controls. All of this site will be stabilized with the sod and the mulch around the upland areas. That is what the approved plans say now. That’s what we’re asking to continue. The only change is that they will still be working on the buildings. There will be 36 scaffolding on top of the mulch. Nobody will be in there digging around that foundation creating disturbance. Everything will be stabilized with the sod and with the mulch areas. That’s really the only thing we’re asking for tonight with the critical slopes waiver. Condition 4 is about when we can achieve stabilization on the upper half of this site so we can remove the sediment trap on the lower part and start construction of building 3. We are committed to stabilizing all of the upland areas as it was originally approved. That’s the biggest thing being lost in the discussions tonight. The reason why we’re asking for this is because of COVID issues. We’re not asking for anything that wasn’t already part of the approved plans. We’re still in compliance with that. We’re not asking for the BMP to be an E&S measure to hold sediment laden water. That’s not what we’re trying to achieve. If we were doing that, I wouldn’t be behind this plan trying to move it forward. I have put the requirement on this site for to be upland area to be stabilized before that trap can be removed. That’s what I have been working with the contractors, site contractors, and with the team in order to achieve. Jay Kessler, Owner Representative – The Breeden team did come to us about a month ago with their issue with the lumber delivery. They were looking at a way to maintain the schedule and the delivery. One of the reasons I am comfortable with our team putting this forward is that the Breeden team has done a good job of following E&S requirements on the project. It got off to a rough start. There were two notices of violations within the first month of the job in February. Breeden worked with Jack and David Frazier. There have been regular inspections. Until last Friday, I wasn’t aware of any violation. I did get a phone call that there had been an E&S inspection done. Apparently, there was something noticed and we were going to receive a notice of violation. I called the superintendent of Breeden. He spoke with David Frazier. We have not seen the notice of violation. We don’t know what it includes. There were proactive measures taken. In offering to take this approach of effectively doing what the original plan required of stabilizing around buildings 1 and 2. I believe Breeden’s team is focused on what that will take to maintain the stabilization and not disturb the ground. We will inspect it. They will do what they are committing to the owner they would do. There is definitely going to be an increased burden on their construction team to do the scaffolding, to build buildings 1 and 2 off of stabilized ground. They have committed to us that they will do that. Based on their track record, they will. Commissioner Solla-Yates – It sounds like my fears of LITCH funding are not correct. What are the schedule risks? Mr. Goodrich – We’re looking at the supply chains being 60 to 90 days behind. It’s a major impact to this rather tight schedule as it was designed. With the community involvement and building right next to their future homes, it is even more of an impact to the community and their expectations. This is why we are trying to get creative. It could be a really quick and easy announcement to this development team. We could say that we’re behind. That is not the approach we want to take. We want to exhaust all options to try to get creative to maintain the overall schedule. 60 to 90 days is a rough delay in materials right now. Ms. Davies – You do start to see a ripple effect. We will not lose the LITCH funding for this current project. If you are unable to deliver projects within a certain timeframe, it knocks you out of the 37 running for LITCH funding in certain future years. It will also have a negative impact. Once the South First Street residents move into this project, we’re supposed to immediately begin construction on South First Phase 2, which is also a LITCH development. Anything that impacts us now will have a ripple effect on future phases. Commissioner Palmer – What is the sediment trap? Why is it so important to be able to remove that in your sequencing? Mr. Goodrich – The third of the three buildings gets built on top of where the sediment trap is right now. It has to be infilled. There is a process of removing and infilling the sediment trap and preparing that area for the new building. The logic here was to get rid of the sediment basin, get to that third foundation, and the burden would be on us as the contractor to build all 3 buildings at the same time once the materials became available. It is important to us to maintain the schedule so that burden is something we’re willing to accept. Commissioner Stolzenberg – The original plan for the two buildings was that they were to be completely constructed. You’re maintaining that the foundation being constructed is functionally equivalent because the ground will have the stabilization measures in effect. Isn’t the reason we said they should be fully constructed that while you’re constructing the buildings, there will be heavy equipment moving there to construct the buildings? Mr. Goodrich – There will certainly be equipment, personnel, and scaffolding. The commitment we have made to our client is that we will maintain the levels of stabilization that Mr. Dawson and his team are requiring. In the end, we will permanently, if it requires, convert removing all of the temporary sod and temporary mulch from the areas we are using to complete the checklist for the conversion of the pond. If we are having to remove that and reinstall the permanent areas, that is what we will do. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Didn’t Mr. Collins just say that there would be permanent stabilization prior to the removal of the drainage pool? Mr. Goodrich – There will be. It will be muddy grass. We will put in new green grass prior to opening up the complex. Ms. Davies – A lot of those buildings are also surrounded by the parking area that will be utilized for materials and the heavier equipment. Mr. Goodrich – It is a very logistically tight site as it is. Every square inch of parking area is going to be needed to construct the third building, even if we didn’t have a materials shortage or a need to talk about this. We are still going to need every square inch that we have out there to finish the project. We’re fully prepared to permanently redo any kind of sod areas and parking areas. We’re going to freshen the place up before we deliver the project. We are going to need the entire project to get it done. 38 Commissioner Stolzenberg – It sounds like you are not OK with the initially proposed alternative condition from staff that would require a stone construction entrance. What’s the issue with that? Mr. Goodrich – It’s not that we’re not OK with it. The stone construction entrance was the code that was kicked back as if we are less than 10 feet from the building perimeter to the back of curb or to the parking area that was the means of stabilization. That was how I read the response. All of the other areas were “super silt fence” (silt fence backed chain link) backing all the way around the perimeter of the building. It makes for the feasibility of construction. It makes it difficult. I understand that there may be concern that a typical silt fence behind the curb of the parking lot is going to be a challenge to keep maintained. We’re up to the challenge. We felt that the three levels of filtration protection (one being the filtration of the permanent sod, even though it is a temporary permanency), the sod filtration through the silt fence behind the curb potential filtration. If that made it across and into the parking area, by design, all of that water is intended to sheet across the parking area. We would have inlet protection before it made it into the storm system on the lower side of the parking area as well. We felt we had a trifecta of protection. That was the intent. We’re open to suggestions from Mr. Dawson’s office. We just want to make sure that we can continue forward and keep the schedule on this project. Ms. Davies – I think we just need a reasonable way that we’re able to actually access those building foundations and do the construction. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Do you think the city is being unreasonable that another locality would have approved your E&S plan? Mr. Goodrich – I don’t think the city is being unreasonable at all. We’re in trying times and everyone needs to think outside of the box a little bit. We’re doing this on behalf of our client. This doesn’t affect Breeden Construction. It really is about the client, the clientele, and the City of Charlottesville. We are coming in to try to make an impact and a positive one. We want to get creative. We’re asking you guys to do the same. It is just an extension of a schedule under unfortunate results of a pandemic that we’re all very familiar with. Ms. Davies – I am in full support of Ms. Robertson’s analysis of the situation. We get ourselves in trouble when we try to put too many details into the critical slopes waiver. You all have already granted Mr. Dawson the authority to apply whatever measures he sees necessary on this site. If you have a critical slopes condition, you can’t adapt at all because things come up. I think those are best left to the technical staff members to achieve as necessary and keep your conditions more general if possible while granting the necessary authority to staff to handle it. Commissioner Stolzenberg – Why did you bust through your limits of disturbance of the building? Mr. Goodrich – This is the first I am hearing about it tonight. Mr. Dawson –I will just discuss not disturbing steep slopes. There is storm drain outfall construction, which is required and where the survey bust is. There is still disturbance to the 39 slopes. That’s the area where they went outside of the LOD. It looks like the LOD is too tight to the creek. There was a survey bust down there. When you have issues like that and you’re trying to put a 10 foot wide machine in 6 feet, you have issues. I paced it off today. They went about 20 feet outside of the LOD. If you walk down the hill towards the creek, we’re talking about 5 feet away from the creek. One of the requirements is that the LOD be stable in the field. You can quite clearly see there are two jersey barriers 14 feet away from the LOD. It looks like there was probably not the turning radius to get a machine down there and back up. There was sediment discharge into Pollocks Branch, which is what we’re trying to avoid. It was quite clearly done. We could have issued a stop work order immediately. It is not what we did. I can’t speak to why they went outside of the LOD. Commissioner Habbab – I think the applicant mentioned they were to complete the foundations for buildings 1 and 2 prior to building 3. What would the difference be from a sediment control if those buildings’ exteriors were completed as well? What is the difference there by having the foundations? Mr. Goodrich – It wouldn’t be working on the permanent stabilization. If the siding, roofing, and window installation were done and the building envelope complete, we wouldn’t be working as much around the building. What we’re proposing is that there will be considerable construction to complete the envelope and framing around the building on temporary/permanent stabilization. iii. Commission Discussion and Motion Chairman Mitchell – What would you like to do with this? Would we like to make a motion to adopt the item 4 that has been recommended by the applicant? Would we like to adopt the item 4 recommended by city staff? Would we like to reject the waiver? Motion – Commissioner Solla-Yates – I move that we strike Condition Four. Second by Commissioner Stolzenberg. Discussion Following Motion Commissioner Stolzenberg – It sounds like the plan they proposed would not be approvable as an E&S by you (Mr. Dawson). Do you feel that Condition 1 gives you the authority you need without a Condition 4? Do you feel there needs to be a Condition 4? If so, the one proposed by the applicant, the one proposed by you, or another one that is more general? Mr. Dawson – With Condition 4, this is a great example why we shouldn’t hash all of this out here. Even if you struck Condition 4, I would require something very close to Condition 4, unless there was further mitigation provided in the plan. Yes, I think there is enough authority there that we can make this happen. Motion passes 6-0. 40 2. Presentation – Housing Advisory Committee – Future Land Use Map Proposal Sunshine Mathon, HAC – What we are going to talk about is a presentation that was made. This is a slightly iterated version. Over the last few weeks, Dan Rosensweig and I have listened to and attended a variety of community-based and neighborhood meetings focused on the Future Land Use Map. The proposal we’re going to discuss reflects our effort to distill the common ground from the spectrum of insights, concerns, and hopes that we heard. Consistently across all of the discussions, we have heard the following. • We have heard common praise for protecting and preserving historically black and low- income neighborhoods. • We have heard common support for addressing affordability broadly across the city. Most everyone is OK with future affordable housing in their neighborhoods. • We have heard common concern that density for density’s sake alone doesn’t serve anybody well. The framework proposal I am about to share acknowledges the fundamental truth that growth and change is inevitable in Charlottesville. We cannot control this. What we can do is guide the character and the purpose of the growth. The framework also acknowledges that existing neighborhoods are always experiencing change; if not in built form then change is evident through dramatically increasing home values, which result in a changing arc over time of who can afford to live there. The proposal is only a framework. Our effort has been focused on establishing common ground that can be used as a purposeful vision driven foundation to guide the city’s future. This foundation will require our subsequent, detailed analysis and discussions through the zoning update and other topics. The framework that we’re proposing will rely on the Future Land Use Map being a living document. We will never be able to detail a vision that fully accounts for all future outcomes. The Future Land Use Map must be able to adapt and refine over time. Here are the core concepts that build on those three common threads. • First key concept in our proposal is to create a new low-intensity residential land use category using the language that is currently already in place that the consultants have put forth. This land use would be the base land use for historically black and low-income neighborhoods to reduce development pressures by essentially keeping in place the existing density allowances in these neighborhoods. • Second key concept in proposal is that all residential portions in the city would have a base land use of the currently proposed general residential land use category. Recognizing the growth has historically been accommodated on the backs of low-income neighborhoods, this would shift growth patterns to higher income areas to some extent. In effect, all residential areas of the city would have a base land use of either low-intensity residential or general residential. Under the principles of all kinds of housing for all kinds of people 41 in all kinds of places and density with purpose, higher intensity land uses would be allowable if and only if affordable housing is part of any higher intensity development. Functionally, as a layer on top of the base land uses, this proposal recommends medium-intensity residential be a by right use in all residential parts of the city if and only if affordable housing is part of a proposed development. This recommendation privileges affordable housing and guides intensity with purpose in all neighborhoods. Further, the proposal also recommends high intensity residential be a by right land use in specific scale, context appropriate parts of the city if and only if affordable housing is part of any proposed development (importantly) governed by practical constraints, topography, lot sizes, infrastructure, etc., we full anticipate the need for gradations of middle-intensity and high intensity residential allowances in different parts of the city. Our proposal is intended to establish common principles that set the stage for the next level of detailing. One of the most important details that will need to be worked through is the specifics of affordability. This proposal does not yet tackle these details. Recognizing that each detail has both community impact and financial impact, this detailing process needs to determine: 1. The minimum percentage of affordable units in a particular development. 2. The depth of affordability of those units. 3. The length of time those units must stay affordable. In closing, I have two key additional comments. This framework does not address every concern of every neighborhood. Fundamentally, no proposal ever will. What our framework does is set forth a practical vision for growth with purpose, privileging affordability as the central tenant of this city’s future. This proposal recognizes that a good land use policy and well-crafted zoning structures are necessary but are wholly insufficient ingredients in guiding the city to one that works for everyone. Good land use and effective zoning must be coupled with the full plan of necessary interventions as laid out in the recently adopted Affordable Housing Plan: Adequate funding, rapid redevelopment processes, tenant’s protections, etc. (Visuals and slides shared) What you are seeing right now is the current proposed version of the Future Land Use Map the consultants have constructed. What you are seeing is a photoshopped rendering of an illustration of the principles. We’re not suggesting that this is the final map. What we’re trying to do is illustrate those core principles. We have added that low-intensity residential category. It is a peach color. We have done a cursory effort at drawing an area around what could be the identified historically black and low-income neighborhoods. That will require some refinement and detailing. The remainder residential portions of the city are highlighted as general residential. These two illustrate the differences side by side. It is a pretty simple concept that sets forth a pretty potent vision. We have been sharing this with a variety of neighborhoods who have requested it, at the HAC. We have had individual conversations with some city councilors, some planning commissioners, and other people to highlight what we’re trying to talk about. Hopefully, it feels like it has some resonance. Commissioner Palmer – It is a very interesting proposal. It will be interesting to see what place this has. This is an overlay versus not losing sight of some of those neighborhood nodes that were 42 being contemplated to be a little denser. You don’t want to lose sight of some of that. Visually, maybe there is a way of accommodating those two concepts. Commissioner Russell – Are we also reviewing the additional layers? That’s in our packet: the medium intensity and the higher intensity by right if affordable. Chairman Mitchell – We can talk about that. Dan, when I asked you a question, you gave me a pretty good clarifying answer about the other maps and the intention of putting them in the packets. It was intended to be illustrative of what might happen. Dan Rosensweig, HAC – One thing to point out is this is really a concept and a framework. Some of the things that we discussed when the consultants followed up with us is that there might be areas of the city where they don’t really want to be general residential. They’re really the areas of the city that a lot of people know where they are. You really don’t want to put the extra restrictions on them where you want just density, intensity, and volume to happen. I won’t name specific areas. Ours is just a framework. Defining the General Land Use Categories is really important. In the memo where it says that it would keep existing densities in the place in the low-income neighborhoods, rather than replicating R-1, it wants to be rewrite of what that is. It could be more restrictive in some ways but probably less restrictive allowing neighborhoods to gain equity while avoiding displacements. I don’t think it really serves us that well to go into the details at this point. What we’re looking for is to see if there’s general traction on the part of the Planning Commission to direct the consultants to utilize this framework for thinking about the next steps in advancing the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Commissioner Russell – I am generally supportive of this framework and the direction it is going. I actually had that concern of preserving a neighborhood and community but also not capping wealth accumulation and that balance. How would you employ a possible incentive for the affordability? I think it wants to be an overlay as opposed to a zoning designation. We’re not looking at the same materials that were in our packets. I don’t know if that question applies. Mr. Mathon – One thing to consider is that we have had a couple of conversations with the consultants over the last 4 to 5 weeks around this concept. One of the initial comments from the consultants is that they had been planning, on some level, to address the question of affordability requirements or some form of inclusionary zoning in the zoning stage of the process. Because the land use map has gotten a lot of attention and it has gotten intense in lots of different ways, it became appropriate to bring that level of conversation around affordability in at the land use map level. It will absolutely be more detailed at the zoning level once it gets to that point. Commissioner Russell – I would just add to encourage you add a counterpart or a corollary overlay (designation) that also incentivizes rehab or renovations for affordability. Mr. Mathon – We have certainly heard that a couple of times. Prioritizing preservation of existing structures as opposed to teardowns is one of the ways to help preserve both character and protect low-income neighborhoods even further. 43 Commissioner Stolzenberg – What I like best about this proposal is that we’re “marrying” the text that we talked about before with the map. In the Affordable Housing Plan, it says explicitly under the multi-family by right zoning “establish inclusionary zoning policies as part of any revision into the multi-family zoning.” It does make a lot of sense to add that directly into our descriptions on the map. It makes a lot of sense to allow that possibility of medium-scale apartments everywhere with the requirement for affordability. That saves us a lot of fine grained picking out things on the map versus just letting that go to the site plan requirements and making sure that the infrastructure and physical constraints are in place and it is doable. Is the goal to create the maximum number of affordable units or the maximum percentage of affordable units even if that means a lower amount? Mr. Rosensweig – For me it is two things. It is qualitative and quantitative. You can’t do a mapping exercise without thinking about the history of the map and the intentionality of the zoning map to calcify what had been put in place with restrictive covenants. To me what is really important, as a champion of affordable housing who has tried to develop affordable housing, opportunities for affordable housing should be available throughout the city. A family zip code shouldn’t be their destiny. One of the primary purposes of this map is to create the conditions by which affordable housing can happen in every neighborhood. In terms of percentage versus maximum, I am focused on the delta. I am not as concerned about the percentage as I am the fact that our own data is that by 2040, we are going to need 4,000 new units/interventions in the city and 12,000 units in the region. If overall densities go up, that is fine with me provided there is infrastructure in place. I am really focused on equity. Commissioner Stolzenberg – That’s a really good point about making every neighborhood accessible. It gets into a big worry whenever you talk about an IZ (Inclusionary Zoning). It is very easy to make an IZ ordinance that effectively bans any development by making it completely infeasible. What I also like about this proposal is it lets us turn that dial. We want to make sure that projects are able to pencil in every neighborhood. In sensitive neighborhoods that have historically been disenfranchised in the zoning process, we can crank that dial up to protect them. Sensitive neighborhood or sensitive residential is a better description than low-intensity. In the overlay, medium is available and an existing condition. There are plexes throughout every neighborhood in the city. It will be really important. I think the zoning ordinance staff needs to really carefully calibrate that and to make sure we set numbers that make things work. We can have affordable housing produced in every neighborhood; even the highest opportunity neighborhoods. In addition to the three numbers you talked about, the affordable housing plan talks about additional levers that we can pull in order to make inclusionary zoning work. On page 94, “to offset lost rental income, you can have a tax rebate.” Real estate tax is going to be about $150 a month on a $200,000 assessed unit. We can use those especially where the math gets hard in order to make things work. I think it is a proposal that makes a lot of sense. I think it is a good base for how we look at this whole thing in the future. I think it simplifies things a lot. It is a good framework. Mr. Mathon – On the point in making that balance, you’re absolutely right. Projects have to pencil, it won’t happen. Part of the work the consultants will have to bring to the table is the economists to help drive those equations appropriately. There are other tools to use to counterbalance some of the financial impacts. 44 Commissioner Habbab – I agree with Rory and Liz. I am very supportive of the concept of the overlay. I think having that language will be very helpful. Taking into consideration the earlier application we approved, we need to be able to enforce affordable housing in R-2/R-3 zoning. I am curious about exploring homeownership. I don’t know how that would fit in or be added to anything or where that fits. That is an important part of the affordability of Charlottesville. Commissioner Solla-Yates – The people of Tenth and Page are suspicious. They’re concerned. There is fear. I too feel that fear. Historically, down-zoning the black and low-income areas was a “time-bomb.” It is exploding. Does keeping it all R-1 stop it from exploding? Probably not. Does replacing it all with 12 unit apartments solve it? Probably not. Frankly, I don’t think we can solve it with Future Land Use Map or zoning. I understand the desire to solve everything with the Future Land Use Map. We have to get the zoning right. I like the overlay concept a lot. It is better than inclusionary zoning. If we had the Cambridge example earlier in the process, we would have explicitly had that in the affordable housing plan. That’s the right way to go once we’re in zoning. In general, I am reluctant to make major changes to the Future Land Use Map. People are getting used to this plan. Making an explicit connection to affordable housing in the Future Land Use Map is a good idea. We probably should have done it. That makes sense to me. With penciling, I pushed the consultants on this during the housing plan. The HAC had been talking about it. They were concerned it would only pencil for very high density. It would have been like 30 to 50 units. For little things, it was no. Rich people have money. Rich people can build mansions by right. They’re doing it now and are going to keep doing it. We’re not going to solve that. Commissioner Lahendro – I am not seeing limits on number of units, number of stories, and heights. Is it presumption that what the consultants are recommending for general and medium intensity carried over to your proposal? Mr. Mathon – We did not tackle that range of issues, recognizing that getting to that level of detail; there still may be work that needs to be done to refine those categories and potentially nuance them in different parts of the city. That’s not what we’re talking about. For the moment, we’re going to assume that the consultants’ definitions hold for this proposal as well. Commissioner Lahendro – The problems I have with the consultants’ recommendations are carried over as well. Who establishes whether a development is compatible within the context? What are the benchmarks? What are the requirements? Is it done on a project by project basis based upon the context directly around that project? Is it done by a zoning district or district of some kind? I like the general idea. We still have a lot of work to do with the original proposal and what carries over this one. Chairman Mitchell – Density for the sake of density is ‘dumb.’ Density with a purpose, density that is smart, density that privileges affordability is good. The overlay, as it has been presented, does just that. It provides density with a purpose. The purpose being affordability. The protection of low- 45 income communities and African American communities from displacement as a result of not being able to afford to live there anymore, as a result of gentrification is important. I think the map as they have outlined it does that as well. We also need to begin thinking about protecting the historical edifices in our city. Protecting these historical areas needs to be built into whatever we do. We are focusing now on just the Future Land Use Map. We should not be thinking about numbers. We should not be attempting to define what affordability is. That will happen when we get to the zoning ordinance. We should not be thinking about how long affordability should last. That will happen in the ordinance. We should not be thinking about how many affordable units need to be involved in a given overlay development. That needs to happen in the zoning ordinance. If we decide to move forward with this, I think the one thing that needs to be a part of any thing we submit to Council is the overlay concept. That has to be implicit in the map. We will have overlays. These overlays will “privilege” affordability. We get to the numbers when we get to the zoning ordinance rewrite. Councilor Payne – My thoughts would be similar to what I expressed at the HAC meeting. The overall framework is a good one. It is a good framework for addressing some of the concerns a lot of people had about ensuring density is actually promoting affordability to the maximum possible extent. The only concerns I have: have to do more with the details than with the framework. In particular, making sure we don’t end up in a situation where projects don’t pencil out when we have a de facto down-zoning for some neighborhoods that have racial covenants and redlining and we’re not inadvertly doing a de facto down-zoning in some of those areas because projects don’t pencil out. How do we ensure that we’re actually monitoring and keeping units affordable as part of the requirements in the overlay? Those are questions beyond the land use map. I am sure those will be addressed at a later date. Mr. Mathon – That’s really savvy and really smart. You can’t down-zone from R-1. Most of Charlottesville is R-1. Even General Residential is a step up. Councilor Payne – De facto down-zoning from the land use map without an overlay versus with the overlay. Councilor Hill – I shared a lot of the things that have already been raised. The devil is in the details. Specifically with what Commissioner Lahendro said, making sure we have the right structures in place. Whatever we do, there are a lot of appropriate places to add density in the city, it is in context with what is surrounding and what those procedures are going to look like and ensuring there is that kind of accountability. This framework is definitely stepping us in the direction that the community can coalesce around. There is still a lot more work to be done. I really appreciate the efforts from those leading this and bringing it forward for our consideration Commissioner Stolzenberg – The real details need to be pushed to the zoning ordinance rewrite where we will have the map done. It is also important now, for your small projects that are just getting into this overlay, in determining what your baseline level is, you’re going to be setting those levels implicitly. If General Residential allows tri-plexes and you’re building 4 plex and saying that it has to be 25% affordable. While the bulk of the details should be pushed out later, there is some amount you need to be thinking about now. We have heard from CLICH that General Residential, 46 outside of sensitive neighborhoods, should be pushed up to 4 or 5 plexes. That would make the 5th and the 6th unit be the affordable one, which gets you down to a percentage that makes sense. It might make sense to say the 5th unit or the 6th unit if you preserve the existing building. When you’re looking at a 12 plex, is the 8th unit, 9th unit, or 10th unit affordable? That is the sort of thing that will change once we’re hammering out the details. We do need to think about that now. There is no reason to me not to have this inclusionary requirement when you’re building x number of townhomes or single-family homes. If you’re building dozens of homes, why shouldn’t it apply any development of that kind of number or more? If you are building two townhomes on a lot, that should fall under General Residential. If you’re building 5, that’s when the overlay kicks in. Jennifer Koch, Consultant – Our goal tonight was to listen to what you all were thinking on this map. We haven’t prepared any comments. We have met with Mr. Mathon and Mr. Rosenweig a couple of times just to make sure we understood what was being proposed. Some of these thoughts about an overlay we have in the chapter in the Comprehensive Plan as part of the next step with zoning at a real high level. What we will do is take into account what you all have brought forward and see if there is a way that makes sense to bring some level of that into this land use map component or make it more clear on the map as we move forward with what the expectation will be. Chairman Mitchell – If we decide to move forward with the overlay, we embed the overlay into the future land use map. I am hoping that this Council will have the chance to vote on this future land use map. The overlay concept will be memorialized in that when we move forward into the next Council. Alex Ikefuna, NDS Director – We met with Dan and Sunshine and the consultant team to go through the proposal. The Planning Commission should ask the consultant team to review the proposal and see whether there are elements of the proposal that can be incorporated into the future land use map. One of the products that comes out of the process has to be something that the market can respond to. We don’t want to come up with something at the end of the day the developers are not going to respond to. Whatever we come up with, we have to be conscious about that and make sure the market will respond to it. Chairman Mitchell – Have we chatted with any developers about this? Mr. Ikefuna – Two of the representatives that presented this are nonprofit developers. We haven’t talked to the private developers. Ms. Creasy – There might be other ways to accomplish the goal. If the premise of the overlay is something that is appropriate for residential and general, perhaps it is not an overlay. Perhaps it is a portion of the ordinance that any residential area could take advantage of. That would simplify understanding. I don’t know what that would look like. There is potential for meeting the framework ideals in a different way. 47 Chairman Mitchell – At the end of the day, we will have a hybrid of all three plans/land use maps that we have worked through. Councilor Hill – What timelines does the Planning Commission anticipate taking with this broader process of the Comprehensive Plan over the next 6 months? Mr. Ikefuna – Following the Planning Commission meeting on June 29th, we are looking at this coming to the Planning Commission around November or late October and to the City Council between November and December. Chairman Mitchell – I really want this Council to move on this. V. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:52 PM.