Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8313 ApplicationAera Vicinity Map r-3 • Zonin Case: Z-8313 N Location: 118 W. 3rd St. Ward: 1 0 100 200 Feet PD: 5 CT: 1 TRS: TIN R12W3 � ---_--_- ---^/ -'��- / / r '- - Pla round Area co '-- W- 2nd St. � � -� -`-----~--� / L Z-8313 118 W. 3RD STREET ZONING VARIANCE ARCHITECTSIPIANNERS WITSELL EVANS RASCO 901 West Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Phone 501-374-5300 Fax 501-374-5247 www.WERarch.com Charles Witsell, Jr., FAIA Don Evans, AIA, APA H. Terry Rasco, FAIA Jay Brizzolara IV, AIA Eldon W. Bock, AIA David Sargent, AIA John Greer. Jr.. AIA 14 ;2--9`3/3 (zp yS) January 25, 2008 Little Rock Board of Adjustment Department of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Application For Zoning Variances e-STEM Charter School 118 W. 3rd Street To Whom It May Concern, The e-STEM Charter School will be occupying the historic Gazette Building at 3rd & Louisiana Streets on July 14, 2008. This Charter School will house elementary, middle school, and high school grades in the same building and will be seperated by floors and operate as a stand-alone school. However, by occupying a common building there are functions that will be shared by each school for the economic benefits. Physical Education activities is one of these common threads. The existing Gazette Building is currently zoned as a UU, Urban Use District, which allows us to reconfigure and utilize the space within the building walls to the greatest extent possible. However, there is not enough square footage within the building to house a gymnasium or physical education / motor room. The school basically needs an outdoor playground / physical education area. The attached application *and conceptual design portray our request for a variance to convert the parking lot on the north side of the building to a playground and PE area. The area is within the property boundary and does not require acquisition of additional property. It is currently, and will continue to be, bounded on three sides by an 8-foot fence with sliding vehicle gates on the west and east sides. These gates will remain open to potentially allow drop-off of children in the morning and afternoon, but be locked during the day. The attached conceptual design portrays our intent to provide recreation areas for all ages. Each area will be designed to meet all playground safety guidelines as well as ADA regulations. Where some of the asphalt lot will be retained for basketball, hop scotch, and foursquare, the remainder of the paved surfaces will be replaced with concrete and landscaping of shrubs and trees. The intent of which is to soften the impact of city hard-scapes, which is so common in the downtown area. Increased landscaping reduces water runoff, heat sink, and solar reflection, and creates shade and aesthetic appeal to the rigid cityscape. Without this playground, the children are at a great disadvantage. Yes, the school can attempt to supplement the curriculum with classroom activities, but we all know the importance of outdoor activity. Especially in a school that operates for 9 hours a day, 200 days a year. We look forward to presenting this proposal to you and answering any questions you might have. Sincerely, jR chite Tanners Johi Gree , ., AIA cc: Walter Hussman, WEHCO Charlie Van Deventer, WEHCO Dr. Roy Brooks, e-STEM CEO Joe Mittiga, e-STEM COO Patrick Murray, East Harding ■ r � i. r1RC1i1TCCT5iF'IAVYF:RS WITSELL EVANS RASCO 901 West Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Phone 501-374-5300 Fax 501-374-5247 www.WERarch.com Charles Witsell, Jr., FAIA Don Evans, AIA, APA H. Terry Rasco, FAIA Jay Brizzolara IV, AIA Eldon W. Bock, AIA David Sargent, AIA John Greer, Jr., AIA T- _, A 9�/ 3 �`r-3-) March 13, 2008 Tony Bozynski City of Little Rock Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: e-STEM Charter School Dear Tony, Attached to this letter is the revised site plan that reflects the landscaping that was presented at the meeting with the city, adjoining neighbors, e-STEM administration, and owners of The Gazette Building. The following items were presented to the group and have received approval by the building owner and e-STEM: 1) Landscapiin : Nine Japanese Zelkova trees will be planted along the perimeter of the fence as shown. The asphalt will be cut back and tree grates installed at each tree. (Refer to Sheet L1 — attached) `2� Curfew: e-STEM administrators have agreed to limiting playground activity until 9:00 A.M. The first scheduled recess is at 9:45 A.M. each day. Realistically there will be very little activity on the playground, if any, until 9:45 A.M. (3) Fence: The existing decorative aluminum fence will be retained with the - exception of the fence on the east side of the playground. This section of the fence will be relocated 5-W to the west to allow construction of a sidewalk for the secondary drop-off / pick-up in the alley. It is in great shape and should be an acceptable "nice" fence for the neighbors. (4. Security: The playground will be locked after hours. It is monitored 24 hours a day by security cameras and will be illuminated at night. 5. Traffic Analysis: The revised traffic analysis has been presented to Bill Henry as of 3-12-08. Other than a request for more detail at Center Street and the intersections of 2nd, 3rd and 4th streets, everything appears to be working with the following criteria: Change Louisiana to 2-way traffic between 4th and 2nd Street. 2. Drop-off / pick-up on Louisiana 3. Drop-off / pick-up on 3rd Street. 4. Secondary drop-off / pick-up in the alley (northbound from 3rd Street). There is no longer any queing on 2nd Street. 5. e-STEM will staff drop-off points with teachers to maintain safety at all drop-off and pick-up times. 6. All models have assumed worst -case scenario —100% car riders. We feel that we have just about expended our solutions and hope that the Board of Adjustments can agree to these proposed modifications. If you should have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, ers City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201.1334 Subdivision Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax' (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 WER Architects Re: Case No. Z-831.3 John Greer Location: 118 W. 3`d Street 901 W. 3' Stxeet Little Rock AR 72201 Issue: UU District Variance Date: A ri12 2008 Dear Mr. Greer: This is to advise you that in connection with your application case no. Z-8313, the following action was taken by the Board of Adjustment at its meeting on March 31 2008. (a) (b) x (c) (d) (e) (f) X (g) Approved the application as filed. Approved the application with conditions. Denied the application. Deferred the application to the , Meeting. Withdrew the application. See attached Board of Adjustment minute record for conditions. Other: If a variance application is approved by the Board of Adjustment, all permits necessary for the initiation of work shall be obtained within two (2) years from the date of approval, unless an extension of time is granted by the Board. Otherwise, the Board approval of the application shall be considered void. According to the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 36-70: "Appeals from the decision of the Board of Adjustment shall be filed with the appropriate court of jurisdiction. This filing must Occur within thirty (30) calendar days of the action by the Board of Adjustment." If you have any questions, please call me at 371-4792. Sincerely, Monte oore, Zoning and Code Enforcement Administrator Department of Planning and Development MM/vy City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 �Ph9na:_(5A1.)-3Ii471g0—F.ax:_t501) 39R---33a5 ar.37.1-5863 WER Architects John Greer 901 W. 3rd Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Date: February 27, 2008 Dear Mr. Greer: Re: Case No. Z-8313 Location: 118 W. 3rd Street Issue: UU District Variance Planning Zoning and Subdivision This is to advise you that in connection with your application case no. Z-8313, the following action was taken by the Board of Adjustment at its meeting on February 25, 2008. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (g) Approved the application as filed. Approved the application with conditions. Denied the application. Deferred the application to the March 31, 2008 , Meeting (2:00 P.M.) Withdrew the application. See attached Board of Adjustment minute record for conditions. Other: If you have any questions, please call me at 371-4792. Sincerely, onto Moore, Zoning and Code Enforcement Administrator Department of Planning and Development MM/vy IOOHJS 213l"dVHD HJIH W31S-a ZNo Rl "`n'j'"'j' v'1t'11 ' IOOH:)S 2131bVH:) HJIH W31S-a Rl nJ • OOiD'BfF105 P1 • IOCll �WY iuY o� tuns p+� �M^S pZl ZONING CASE FILE NO. Z- 'V3 L BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING DATE DOCKET FOR: S doai AT ,;2 PM. Application is hereby made to the Little Rock Board of Adjustment pursuant to Act 186 of 1957, Acts of Arkansas, as amended, and Chapter 36 of the Little Rock, Ark. Rev. Code (1988), as amended, requesting a zoning variance(s) on the following described property: ADDRESS: 118 W. 3rd Street (General Location): Gazette Building, corner. of 3rd & Louisiana LEGAL DESCRIPTION. Lots 1, 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 and 6, Block 777 Original Ci of Little Rock, Pulaski County_ Arkangac Title to this property is vested in:Arkans,3,.3 Democrat Gazette. Inc. Subject property is currently zoned: UU Urban Use variances as follows are requested: District and (1) The Use Regulations W provisions of Section:�6.�1 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit: the use of the parking lot as a playground (2) The provisions of Section of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit: (3) The of Ordinances to permit: provisions of Section _ of the Little Rock Code Present Use of Property: Vacant but previously housed retail & office space Proposed Use of Property: a -STEM Charter School. Grades K-12 (There are) (there are no private restrictions pertaining to the proposed use/development of this property. The applicant feels that strict enforcement of these provisions would be a hardship and is requesting variance(s) in this case for the following reason(s): The school wishes to convert the adjacent parking lot to a playground and Phvsical Education activity area. It is hereby agreed that the required filing fee will be paid immediately after filing and acceptance of this application, and that the notice to property owners as well as the posting of the sign furnished, will be accomplished as required. , Applicant (owner or authorized agent): zzc . L,Tr-L-r 520c� Ag lzzr.,3 st>, - 31 a - 3 3 7-? (Address) (Telephone -Bus. and Home) BOARD OF ADJUSTME Approve 3 �2c09 Led; ,19 Conditions of approval: o 4 _ D J r-i- Signature of Board Secretary or Authorized Agent �I%%' !II k__ ARCHIECTS/PLANNERS WITSELL EVANS RASCO 901 West Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Phone 501-374-5300 Fax 501-374-5247 www.WERarch.com Charles Witsell, Jr , FAIA Don Evans, AIA, APA H Terry Rasco, FAIA Jay Brizzolara IV, AIA Eldon W Bock, AIA David Sargent, AIA John Greer, Jr., AIA A (z� ys 1 January 25, 2008 Little Rock Board of Adjustment Department of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Application For Zoning Variances e-STEM Charter School 118 W. 3rd Street To Whom It May Concern, The e-STEM Charter School will be occupying the historic Gazette Building at 3rd & Louisiana Streets on July 14, 2008. This Charter School will house elementary, middle school, and high school grades in the same building and will be seperated by floors and operate as a stand-alone school. However, by occupying a common building there are functions that will be shared by each school for the economic benefits. Physical Education activities is one of these common threads. The existing Gazette Building is currently zoned as a UU, Urban Use District, which allows us to reconfigure and utilize the space within the building walls to the greatest extent possible. However, there is not enough square footage within the building to house a gymnasium or physical education / motor room. The school basically needs an outdoor playground / physical education area. The attached application and conceptual design portray our request for a variance to convert the parking lot on the north side of the building to a playground and PE area. The area is within the property boundary and does not require acquisition of additional property. It is currently, and will continue to be, bounded on three sides by an 8-foot fence with sliding vehicle gates on the west and east sides. These gates will remain open to potentially allow drop-off of children in the morning and afternoon, but be locked during the day. The attached conceptual design portrays our intent to provide recreation areas for all ages. Each area will be designed to meet all playground safety guidelines as well as ADA regulations. Where some of the asphalt lot will be retained for basketball, hop scotch, and foursquare, the remainder of the paved surfaces will be replaced with concrete and landscaping of shrubs and trees. The intent of which is to soften the impact of city hard-scapes, which is so common in the downtown area. Increased landscaping reduces water runoff, heat sink, and solar reflection, and creates shade and aesthetic appeal to the rigid cityscape. Without this playground, the children are at a great disadvantage. Yes, the school can attempt to supplement the curriculum with classroom activities, but we all know the importance of outdoor activity. Especially in a school that operates for 9 hours a day, 200 days a year. We look forward to presenting this proposal to you and answering any questions you might have. Sincerely, WER ArchiteasfPlanners Gree)-�, AIA cc: Walter Hussman, WEHCO Charlie Van Deventer, WEHCO Dr. Roy Brooks, e-STEM CEO Joe Mittiga, e-STEM COO Patrick Murray, East Harding Nb.25. 2ii()8 11:L)AV 0. 1. R. Ar:hiterts NC., 0928 P. 1 Wifssll Evars Rasco 901 West Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 501 374.5300 FAX 501-374-5247 To: Tony Bozynski Date: February 25, 2008 From: John Greer Jr. Al ---�_ Re: Board of Adjustme eetinq February 25, 2008 Agenda Item #03 File # -8313 Memorandum In light of the recent developments that have transpired with this project, I would like to request that we defer our presentation to the Board of Adjustments today so that my client can reconsider the scope of work proposed. RECEIVED F =3 9 s 2008 2 nresvari.doc 3 THE LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ON AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONING VARIANCE To all owners of lands lying within 200 feet of the boundary of property at: Address: 118 West 3rd St., Little Rock, AR 72201 General Location: Intersection of 2nd St. & Louisiana St. Owned By: Arkansas Democrat -Gazette, Inc. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT an application for zoning variance(s) on the above property has been filed with the Department of Planning and Development, 723 West Markham, requesting variance(s) from: (1) The Use Regulations (d) provisions of Section36-342.lofthe Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit: the use of the parking lot as a playground (2) The of Ordinances to permit: provisions of Section of the Little Rock Code A public hearing on said application will be held by the Little Rock Board of Adjustment in the Little Rock Board of Directors Chamber, 2nd Floor, City Hall, 500 W. Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas, on: February 25 , 19 2008 at 2 : 00 P. M. All parties in interest may appear and be heard at said time and place or may notify the Board of Adjustment of their views on this matter by letter. All persons interested in this request are invited to call or visit the Department of Planning and Development, 723 West Markham, lst Floor to review the application and discuss same with the Zoning Administrator at 371-4790. AFFIDAVIT I hereby certify that 1 have notified all of the property owners of record within 200 feet of the above property, that subject property is being considered for zoning variance(s), and that a public hearing will be held by the Little Rock Board of Adjustment at the time and place described above. Applicant (Owner or Authorized Agent): Charles C . Van Deventer CA�C `A'd_3'6__ (Name) 2/13/2008 (Date) American Abstract and Title Company 12814 Cantrell Road Little Rock, AR 72223 501-227-8603 File # OS297 Date: 1-23-08 Legal Description: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 77, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Property Address: 3rd and Louisiana This is to certify that we have checked the records of Pulaski County, Arkansas relative to the above -described land and the following represents the apparent owners lying within 200 feet thereof: 1) 100 Main Building, LLC. 111 Center St., Ste 1220 Little Rock, AR 72201 2) First Commercial Bank 111 Center St., Ste 2500 Little Rock, AR 72201 3) LRDP 111 Center St., Ste 2500 Little Rock, AR 72201 4) Crystal, LLC. PO Box 25416 Little Rock, AR 72221 5) SMRTDM, LLC. c/o Industry Consulting Group PO Box 810490 Dallas, TX 75381 6) Doyle Rogers 111 Center St., Ste 1510 Little Rock, AR 72201 7) 123 West Third Associates PO Box 7420 Little Rock, AR 72217 8) Louisiana St Building, Inc. 2511 Greenbrier Jonesboro, AR 72401 9) Combined Comm Corp. 12 Lakeside Newport, AR 72112 10) KARK-TV PO Box 2558 Little Rock, AR 72203 11) Mrs. Catherine Rice Estate 5120 Stonewall Little Rock, AR 72207 12) Susan Rice Schmidt 2218 Malcolm Ln. Fayetteville, AR 72701 13) Marital Deduction Trust c/o Alley Mgmt PO Box 241218 Little Rock, AR 72223 14) 200 Louisiana St Dev Co, Inc. PO Box 2558 Little Rock, AR 72203,, 15) Cherokee Investments 200 Louisiana Little Rock, AR 72201 This ownership search is a limited search of the records and is not to be construed as a Title Insurance Policy, Legal Opinion, or Commitment to Insure. The addresses shown were obtained from the current tax records and directories. Therefore we cannot guarantee their validity. We limit our liability to the amount charged for this search. If any questions should arise please contact the Title Department of American Abstract and Title Company. Heath Sharp American Abstract & Title Company License # 325188 r_n - a 100 Main Building, LLC. . ru Little"RiOtA. AR 72201 h 1N r=l Certified Fee m Poatmark ] 0 Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) C.] � -!•�i[e t{+E} t"r' v 0 Reerrlc'odDelivaryFee (Ef:dorsemant Required) .v C7 cl O Total Postage & Fees /PS Name [Please Print G1'early) {to be co.npiefed by rasher] M C Vandeventer ................................ ..... I Sex No' Er ❑. Box 2221 o Gary, sraie: zrni4 .-_..--.-.._.. ---------------- M1 Little Rock 01 i Un m ' RDP, 111 Center St., Ste 2500 Litt a Roc ru Postage s' +� si } s� mCervw Fee%91f, Posh m* Rehm Receipt Fee �•-� `� (EtWorserrrene Requlredj O Rastrictod Dekvory Fee L� p (Endorsemeni Required( ' pp Total Pout"a & Fsra C3 gj = A4" f Charryj (< i'7e carrgofetad by mW101 rn C. an1evevnftV r Er 'zirreet Apt. No•; or P08ox No---------------------- --------- --------------------------••- O C SWK fjG 2W+4 `~ L' le R i Arlicle Sent To: a SMRTDM, LLC. c/o Industry f rn Consul�in Dall s Group,P.O. 8 4J0—i tA /V a M Certified Fee Pbsbrwrk 7 r, C3 Return Recelpt Fee (Endorsement Required) C:) w 0 O ReshlCted Delivery Fee (End`otTr1 nl Required) - r.3 Total Postage & Fees � Name ~a Pnn( CkwW flo be completed by fa+aJ C Vandeventer tr r - Ir o 0 m rL m r— O O O 0 O m Ir 0 t Postal MAIL RECEIPT (DomesticCERTIFIED . Provided) Fi mercial BGjnk ill St., Ste Little` Fla 1 r� Certified Fee ) ..r+ Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) r k?ostrnfuk C, F �11era f¢ I Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage &Fees f, 1/S PS Neme (Please ftnl Clearly] (m bs compfeW by rna" ....-VaLndP_v_e1itez------------ ----------- ------- ------ ----------- `:N0.190 x" 4h 21 Rock AR 72201 Ty�stal,LLC. r„ P.O. Bpax�e �416 Litt eru ; mCertlfledFee r• Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Q vy ry G Restnoted Delivery Fee •I,CQ� O (Endoryumnnt Required( %f' O C3 Total Postage & Fees j ��kJJ JJ M Name (Please Print Cf 9ar1yJ Po be coml.iated by nralfe¢ I. _Q.A.--•VandgVenterIr 117 o c;iyTs�ut 7jae... ito�cic ; AR -� 2 41--------------------------- - I Ln - -Doyle Rogers, 111 Center St., mSte 1519�l,e little Roc ZVI ru R �tRIIV moavrrerk� Certified Fee M1 Rulurn Receipt Fee (Endona•nant Required) f = H ale. i• �{ ] •v O G p Rp7trittad Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) i ' r Total Postage 8 Fees j ,$ "' N�.(anPrimc?evearly)e(ton(Fomerplered W medal) Ir l7' lO Cjjy 9awr CIA+Q • •............... »»._.._...-�-. ____---- --•—..._-._........... I` 1 Little Rock AR 72201 r- m rn ti rn r�- O 17 O O C7 7 m 13- Er 0 r` a m m ru a M r, O O C3 O C7 m fr o- 0 r- r m Er ru m ru .a m r- G C3 0 M C7 M IT o- 0 Postal Service MAIL RECEIPT (DomesticCERTIFIED Provided) P. O. B%ge Q 2 0 k&MN 0,r�. Little Rock, S` �+ .:,• ;, CertifledFee art: G Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required)_ Restricted Delivery Fee LV ',jr ,i• '@yy (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees 1 .$ f name {Aleasa Print CfsaeW (to be cornpiared by OSW S. R---VaAde.YP-P.tam ........... _..-.. ... _... ..... �. Streaf. Apt N0., or PO Sax No. L' AR 12 Lai e Newer t, . �R'���� fed Fee pV Pa�tiil)v1t�rt Return Receipt Fee r �] (Endorsemenr Required) .� ) i M Ramtncted Delivery Fee � - 'k,", (Endorsament Required) ; Total Postage & Fees Is lveme pkas+e Pdn: Ctaerlyl go be c-W*ted by ma&4 P.O. Box 2221 §fare: YrP+i ...................... ..__... Little Rock. AR 72201 O m ouisiana St. Building, Inc. m ru 2511 Gee n rier q Jonesboro, M Certified Fee r` Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Postmark -++ C3fT7. O p ReslriCletl Delivery Fea (EndorsementRequing 1 `• 1-V Postage & Fees !1 5�•5 OTotal ,$ MVEnter I— (pease Print Clearly) (to be completed by der) �`.. .. Q---------------- ---- .. ................�...... Q- SMIA Aw.. AID.; or PO Box No_ 1=3. P a aQ.__ z z z------- r` Little Rock, AR 72201 rr 0 s .'KARK-TV P.O. Box 2558 m LittlP,ggR0;k, AR A lei ru MCertHied Fee CL- OW r- C3 Receipt Fee (Endorsement (Endorsement Required) 1� P. . 0 O Restriced Delivery Fee (Endorsement Requlred) Total Postage 6 Fees s S I" es (W Ame Prbrf Ore,") (to be c'omplefodbymtr8sr) ndeventer ...__._._------•----•--•-•-- Sheet, L PPi or PO Box No- P .�0 . Box 22 21 o...... F` I _ 4 ..... ------------------ she , �rv,a a tie Rock, AR _. . 72201 w ' ru �qiiq;in Rice Schmidt 2218 Malcolm rn ru Lane, 4teville, A rn Certified Fee r Return Receipt Fee rwnl Requ red} (� .p r ��44 c !?7 C3iEndorae O p Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) + • Postage 6 Fees $ GTotal "' AWne (Please Print CM"; (to be completed by mailer} �A?ndeventer ... ... 0 Box 2 Z-1--- ------- ------------ _ P O o r` - ................. ............. .. C7tjt Stare. �fPi1 •••••• Little Rock AR 72201 a CU r- ---I- �ar Trust m c/o Al�gtyge gmt P.O. Box 2 1218 a Little Rock, Certified Foe 2 �G�, AR 2f 0 Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) �F O p Delivery Fee (Endursow,-rit Required) = EM 0 Total Postage & Fees Is Y zr m Name (Phase Prrnr Clo") go be complereCby rnoaad .C.....Va-ladeve� e.4............................ .................. °- Sheer, Apt No.; or PQ BX Z O@a2�a 21 r.O. `iErfe'o Rock, AR .. _ .. 72201 r` m a 200 Louisiana St De v PO Box' pC q� ^u Little Ro , mCartitled Fee y r Pd k 0 C3 Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) >--- O FI=WCetd ❑t C3 RiFee enered) C3 Is ....._ O Total Postage & Fees ? m Name (Please Print Clearly) (to be completed by mailer) C-•--_V a n de v e n t e r---------------------------------- --------------- [r Street, Api. No.; or PO Box No. 117 t` City Stela, irPid i Rock AR 72201 r r� m 200 LQ na, Li ock, AR � K 1 m Certified Fee M1 Return Receipt Fee 0 (Endorsement Required) �•• �f O Restricted Delivery Fee •,? O XWorsemont Required) C3 Total Postage & Fees $ V Z7 t +'s� 4 = m Name (Please Prlrrt Claarly) (ro be cornpletsd by ❑+aaar) -•••--•-•• ................................. p— Street Apr. No.; or PO Bar No. n- P.O. Box 22221 C3'�i' : srsr........... ................................................................. ittle Rock, AR 72201 Wilsall Evans Rasco 901 West Third Street Lillie Rock, Arkansas 72201 501 374.5300 FAX 501-374-5247 To: Tony Bozynski I �{ Date: February 25, 2008 From: John Greer Jr. All Re: Board of Adjustme erring February 25, 2008 Agenda Item #03 File # -8313 In light of the recent developments that have transpired with this project, I would like to request that we defer our presentation to the Board of Adjustments today so that my client can reconsider the scope of work proposed. ARCH ITECTSI PLANNERS WITSELL EVANS FIASCO 901 West Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Phone 501-374-5300 Fax 501-374-5247 www.WERarch.com Charles Witsell, Jr , FAIA Don Evans, AIA, APA H Terry Rasco, FAIA Jay Brizzolara IV, AIA Eldon W Bock, AIA David Sargent, AIA John Greer, Jr., AIA March 13, 2008 Tony Bozynski City of Little Rock Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: e-STEM Charter School Dear Tony, Attached to this letter is the revised site plan that reflects the landscaping that was presented at the meeting with the city, adjoining neighbors, e-STEM administration, and owners of The Gazette Building. The following items were presented to the group and have received approval by the building owner and e-STEM: Landscaping: Nine Japanese Zelkova trees will be planted along the perimeter of the fence as shown. The asphalt will be cut back and tree grates installed at each tree. (Refer to Sheet L1 — attached) 2. Curfew: e-STEM administrators have agreed to limiting playground activity until 9:00 A.M. The first scheduled recess is at 9:45 A.M. each day. Realistically there will be very little activity on the playground, if any, until 9:45 A.M. 3. Fence: The existing decorative aluminum fence will be retained with the exception of the fence on the east side of the playground. This section of the fence will be relocated 5-0" to the west to allow construction of a sidewalk for the secondary drop-off / pick-up in the alley. It is in great shape and should be an acceptable "nice" fence for the neighbors. 4. Security: The playground will be locked after hours. It is monitored 24 hours a day by security cameras and will be illuminated at night. 5. Traffic Analysis: The revised traffic analysis has been presented to Bill Henry as of 3-12-08. Other than a request for more detail at Center Street and the intersections of 2nd, 3rd and 4th streets, everything appears to be working with the following criteria: Change Louisiana to 2-way traffic between 4th and 2nd Street- 2- Drop-off / pick-up on Louisiana 3. Drop-off / pick-up on 3rd Street. 4. Secondary drop-off / pick-up in the alley (northbound from 3rd Street). There is no longer any queing on 2nd Street. 5. e-STEM will staff drop-off points with teachers to maintain safety at all drop-off and pick-up times. & All models have assumed worst -case scenario - 100% car riders. We feel that we have just about expended our solutions and hope that the Board of Adjustments can agree to these proposed modifications. If you should have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, WER Architp-cts/Planners John} Gre , Jr., Vice) Preside .I s ARCHITECTSIPIANNERS WITSELL EVANS RASCO 901 West Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Phone 501-374-5300 Fax 501-374-5247 www.WERarch.com Charles Witsell, Jr., FAIA Don Evans, AIA, APA H. Terry Rasco, FAIA Jay Brizzolara IV, AIA Eldon W. Bock, AIA David Sargent, AIA John Greer, Jr., AIA March 13, 2008 Tony Bozynski City of Little Rock Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: e-STEM Charter School Dear Tony, Attached to this letter is the revised site plan that reflects the landscaping that was presented at the meeting with the city, adjoining neighbors, e-STEM administration, and owners of The Gazette Building. The following items were presented to the group and have received approval by the building owner and e-STEM: () Landscaping: Nine Japanese Zelkova trees will be planted along the perimeter of the fence as shown. The asphalt will be cut back and tree grates installed at each tree. (Refer to Sheet L1 — attached) Curfew: e-STEM administrators have agreed to limiting playground activity until 9:00 A.M. The first scheduled recess is at 9:45 A.M. each day. Realistically there will be very little activity on the playground, if any, until 9:45 A.M. �3. Fence: The existing decorative aluminum fence will be retained with the exception of the fence on the east side of the playground. This section of the fence will be relocated 5-0" to the west to allow construction of a sidewalk for the secondary drop-off / pick-up in the alley. It is in great shape and should be an acceptable "nice" fence for the neighbors. �4. Security: The playground will be locked after hours. It is monitored 24 hours a day by security cameras and will be illuminated at night. 5. Traffic Analysis: The revised traffic analysis has been presented to Bill Henry as of 3-12-08. Other than a request for more detail at Center Street and the intersections of 2nd, 3rd and 4th streets, everything appears to be working with the following criteria: Change Louisiana to 2-way traffic between 4th and 2nd Street. 2. Drop-off / pick-up on Louisiana 3. Drop-off / pick-up on 3rd Street. 4. Secondary drop-off / pick-up in the alley (northbound from 3rd Street). There is no longer any queing on 2nd Street. 5_ e-STEM will staff drop-off points with teachers to maintain safety at all drop-off and pick-up times. 6. All models have assumed worst -case scenario — 100% car riders. We feel that we have just about expended our solutions and hope that the Board of Adjustments can agree to these proposed modifications. If you should have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, WER Architects/Planners Gre , Jr., A Preside O _ a ka c v d cun -q /Qc__ o .�-6-pke o S_ - cat- r _AF A N rQ v �,Asf�' G wt wQ . ©r eS`r4WCT -ram s bed r 1 Qc_k - 41� JF55 �s� .10re-- M�tT1 cE,A Sht�tz�.S yT T3XYAC%t V4:11/- 5'r� v � l- i Lampkin, Janet M. To: a -Stem High Charter School Cc: Day, Bryan Subject: a -Stem Charter School Per Bryan Day, I am providing you the revised site plan for the playground and John Greer's letter addressing items that were discussed at the March 6 meeting. Please review and provide Bryan with any comments. Thank you. It is staffs understanding that no on -street parking will be lost and parking on the east side of Louisiana will be time restricted. Tony Bozynski 1 !M r eSTEM Charter eSTEM Charter School0001.pdf School sketch000... Pr Witsell Evans Rasco 901 West Third Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 501-374-5300 FAX 501-374-5247 Project: E-STEM Charter School Project Number: ESTEMS07.00 Attn: Tony Bozynski City of Little Rack 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Enclosed herewith C! Forwarded under separate cover # Conies Drwg. # Descrimion Transmittal Date Transmitted: 2/22/08 Date Received: Submitted By: John Greer, Jr. Reviewed by: Enclosures: Shop drawings Report Product data Prints Addendum Letter Schedule Submittal Dated 1 Site Access Study February 2008 2 Playground Phasing Plan (Sheet L 1) 2-21-08 Transmitted as indicated below: Accepted Returned for corrections - resubmit PI For approval Ifl For review/comment Accepted as noted Rejected For your use For your files Remarks: Enclosure Copies to: File SITE ACCESS STUDY FOR E-STEM CHARTER SCHOOL February 2008 E]'JACOBS Carter Burgess 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Introduction and Background.....................................................................1 Existing Peak Hour Traffic.......................................................................2 Site Generated Peak Hour Traffic................................................................3 Site Generated Traffic Assignments............................................................4 Analyzing Projected Peak Hour Traffic With School Traffic.................................6 Traffic Circulation Plan ..........................................................................10 Proposed Improvements.........................................................................13 Tables Page Table 1 — School Trip Distribution.............................................................4 Table 2 — Level of Service Criteria — Unsignalized and Signalized ........................6 Table 3 — AM Level of Service..................................................................9 Table 4 — PM Level of Service..................................................................10 Table 5 — Drop-off/Pickup Locations and Times.............................................13 Fieures Page Figure1 — Vicinity Map............................................................... ............ I Figure 2 — Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic......................................................2 Figure 3 — Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic......................................................3 Figure 4 — Percent AM Peak Hour Traffic Assignments.......................................4 Figure 5 — Percent PM Peak Hour Traffic Assignments.......................................5 Figure 6 — Proposed AM Peak Hour Traffic....................................................7 Figure 7 — Proposed PM Peak Hour Traffic....................................................8 Figure 8 — Traffic Circulation Plan ............................................................... I I Figure 9 — Pickup Name Plaque.......................................................... ,, ........12 Figure 10 —Recommended Improements........................................................15 ADDendix Appendix A — Trip Generation Appendix B — Turning Movement Counts Appendix C — Level of Service Analysis SITE ACCESS STUDY — E-STEM CHARTER SCHOOL INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The E-Stem Charter School will start classes during the summer of 2008 with grades K through 9 with an enrollment of 856 students. The charter school will be located in the Gazette Building at Third and Louisiana in downtown Little Rock in the central business district. A vicinity map is shown in Figure 1. There is not any on -site parking, metered parking exist along Second Street and Louisiana Street. Second Street currently is a one-way (westbound) minor arterial. Third Street is a four lane minor arterial without left turn lanes. Louisiana Street is a one-way (southbound) collector street. Figure 1— Vicinity Map 1/14 SITE ACCESS STUDY — E-STEM CHARTER SCHOOL EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC The City of Little Rock provided traffic counts for the following intersections: • Second & Louisiana ■ Second & Main • Second & Scott • Third & Louisiana • Third & Main • Third & Scott • Fourth & Louisiana Each of these intersections are currently signalized and operate on the City's downtown traffic system with fixed signal timing and coordination. The existing traffic is shown in Figures 2 and 3. Signal timing and coordination plans were provided by City of Little Rock staff and used to analyze the impacts of the school on the project area. Figure 2 — Existing AM Peak Hour Traffic 2/14 SITE ACCESS STUDY — E-STEM CHARTER SCHOOL Figure 3 — Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic SITE GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC The enrollment breakdown is listed below in Table 1 with associated trips for the AM and PM peak hours. The school will operate from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. To develop the trip generation for the school, 100% of the students were assumed to arrive at the school via private vehicle to determine the "worst -case" scenario for impacting the project area. The school is encouraging carpooling and is working with Central Arkansas Transit (CAT) Authority to also encourage students and teacher to use CATA's buses. The trip were assigned using ITE's Trip Generation, Seventh Edition (Land use code 536 — Private School). 3/14 SITE ACCESS STUDY — E-STEM CHARTER SCHOOL Table 1- School Trip Distribution Grade Students AM Trips* PM Trips** K 60 47 47 1 S` 60 47 47 2° 72 57 57 Y 80 63 63 &h 88 70 70 Elementary Total 360 284 284 5` 96 76 76 6 th 100 79 79 7` 100 79 79 8` 100 79 79 Middle School Total 396 313 313 91 100 79 79 High School Total 100 79 79 Grand Totals for School 856 1 676 676 * 0.79 Average Trip Rate per ITE's Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. ** 0.79 Average Trip Generation Rate used for study. ITE's Trip Generation Rate is 0.17 for PM peak hour flow. E-Stem will not dismiss until 5:00 PM, therefore the PM peak hour will occur during the downtown peak hour. SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTS The school will have two drop-off/pickup zones, one in the alley east side of the school and the other on Louisiana west side of the school. The alley drop-off/pickup zone will be for grades Kindergarten through fourth grade. The Louisiana drop-off/pickup zone will be for grades fifth through ninth grade. Figure 4 shows the proposed school traffic assignments to the roadway network for the AM peak hour, and Figure 5 shows the proposed school traffic assignments to the roadway network for the PM peak hour. The traffic was assigned using the traffic circulation plan discussed later in the study. 4/14 SITE ACCESS STUDY — E-STEM CHARTER SCHOOL Figure 5 — Percent PM Peak Hour Traffic Assignments 5/14 SITE ACCESS STUDY — E-STEM CHARTER SCHOOL ANALYZING PROJECTED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC WITH SCHOOL Preliminary traffic models were developed to determine the traffic impacts to the surrounding street network for the following scenarios: 1. Existing AM traffic without the school traffic 2. Existing PM traffic without the school traffic 3. Existing AM traffic with the school traffic using the alley along the east side of the school to drop off the students, one starting time 4. Existing PM traffic with the school traffic using the alley along the east side of the school to drop off the students, one starting time 5. Existing AM traffic with half of the school traffic using the alley along the east side of the school and the other half using Louisiana, one starting time 6. Existing PM traffic with half of the school traffic using the alley along the east side of the school and the other half using Louisiana, one starting time 7. Existing AM traffic with half of the school traffic using the alley along the east side of the school and the other half using Louisiana, staggered starting/dismal times 8. Existing PM traffic with half of the school traffic using the alley along the east side of the school and the other half using Louisiana, staggered staring/dismal times After performing preliminary analysis on the different traffic scenarios and discussing the results with school officials and City Traffic Engineering staff, scenarios 5 and 6 were selected for further analysis and refinement. TABLE 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA- UNSIGNALIZED LOS Mg. Control Dela s/veh A 0-10 B >10-15 C > 15-25 D >25-35 E >35-50 F >50 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA- SIGNALIZED LOS Avg. Control Delay s/veh A 0-10 B > 10-20 C >20-35 D >35-55 E >55-80 F >80 6/14 SITE ACCESS STUDY — E-STEM CHARTER SCHOOL The criterion for measuring the impact of the school of the surrounding street network is Level of Service. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, based on service measures such as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, and convenience as defined by the Highway Capacity Manual. Stop Controlled. The LOS for a stop controlled intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. LOS is not defined for the intersection as a whole. LOS Criteria are defined in Table 2. Signal Controlled. The LOS for a signal controlled intersection is determined using delay by approach and for the intersection as a whole. LOS Criteria are defined in Table 2 from the Highway Capacity Manual. Figure 6 — Proposed AM Peak Hour Traffic 7/14 SITE ACCESS STUDY — E-STEM CHARTER SCHOOL Figure 7 — Proposed PM Peak Hour Traffic The intersections of Second & Louisiana, Second & Main, Third & Louisiana, Third & Main and Fourth & Louisiana were analyzed to determine the existing LOS for each intersection using SYNCHRO. The results of the analysis are summarized in Tables 3 and 4. A detailed report for each analysis is available in Appendix C. Figures 6 and 7 show the proposed traffic for the AM and PM peak hours. 8/14 SITE ACCESS STUDY — E-STEM CHARTER SCHOOL Table 3 — AM Level of Service Exist Prop Second & Louisiana Movement EB WB NB SB Approach LOS A I A B B I B HCM INT. LOS A A Second & Main Movement EB WB NB SB Approach LOS I B I B A I A I B I B HCM INT. LOS B B Third & Louisiana Movement EB WB NB SB Approach LOS A 1 A I A 1 A C C I C HCM INT. LOS A B Third & Main Movement EB I WB NB SB .Approach LOS A A A A C C B B HCM INT. LOS A A Fourth & Louisiana Movement EB WB NB SB .Approach LOS A A C C HCM INT. LOS B B Two different drop-off/pickup zones will be utilized at the school — one on Louisiana (west side of school) and one in the alley (east side of school). The attached graphic shows the proposed drop off locations as well as times, and modifications to the site and street network. 9/14 SITE ACCESS STUDY — E-STEM CHARTER SCHOOL Table 4 — PM Level of Service Exist Prop Second & Louisiana Movement EB WB NB SB Approach LOS A A C B B HCM INT. LOS B B Second & Main Movement EB WB NB SB .Approach LOS B I B A I A B I B HCM INT. LOS A B Third & Louisiana Movement EB WB NB SB A roach LOS A A A A C D D HCM INT. LOS B B Third & Main Movement EB WB NB SB Approach LOS A I A A A C C B I B HCM INT. LOS A A Fourth & Louisiana Movement EB WB NB SB Approach LOS A I A C C HCM INT. LOS B B TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PLAN E-Stem Charter School Traffic Rules and Circulation Plan A traffic circulation has been developed to help decrease delays during drop-off/pickup times and increase the street network capacities. The traffic circulation plan is shown in Figure 8. Parents needed to stop and go into the school will need to stay out of the drop- off/pickup zones and find surface parking off -site. 10/14 SITE ACCESS STUDY - E-STEM CHARTER SCHOOL Figure 8 - Traffic Circulation Plan 11/14 SITE ACCESS STUDY — E-STEM CHARTER SCHOOL Drop-off/Pickup Zone Rules When waiting in line to drop off or pickup children: ■ Don't block intersections or crosswalks • Pull forward as far as possible • Stay in your car ■ Be ready to load or unload quickly to keep the line moving • Absolutely no parking in the alley or northbound on Louisiana • Watch out for children and pedestrians • Pedestrians should only cross at designated crosswalks • Display child's name plaque provided by the school in right-hand corner of windshield (see Figure 6). ■ Keep backpacks with the children (not in the trunk) • Carpool to reduce traffic at the school and decrease time necessary to deliver/pickup children Figure 9 — Pickup Name Plaque (front side) LAST NAME/ TEACHER (back side) .r ff/ k ."TonsAd- Whenx inkNlinemJopaRorpidupOil— • Om'I hlorY inh:meaiansmmozsxaLLs • Pull fomard u Lr u possible • Slay in Ivm or • Bcmadytoloadmunlio WicRly to keW We One moving • W.1h Ina pmkinp in lhpil,e mmWbwndwlaunam • vamM1oulfachild.1y peIm L • DaPNYans should only muss u Ii u by OmossxaLLx • fl- ch, name p.We.-I- by Ne ubmlin rib'hl-land cmwaf uiMC�icld lsa fpurc5l • Kc�buskpacks uilh We chJtrrnlM in v,==—Y 12/14 SITE ACCESS STUDY — E-STEM CHARTER SCHOOL Kindergarten to Fourth Grade Drop-off/Pickup Zone (Alley) Grades kindergarten to fourth will use the alley to drop-off/pickup children. Parents are encouraged to approach the school using Second Street from Scott Street. The figure below illustrates the traffic circulation. Fifth to Ninth Grade Drop-off/Pickup Zone (Louisiana) Grade fifth to ninth will use Louisiana Street to drop-off/pickup children. Parents are encouraged to approach the school using westbound Third Street or Louisiana south of Third Street. Figure 8 illustrates the traffic circulation. Table 5 — Drop-off/Pickup Locations and Times Drop Off/Pick Up Location Grades Proposed Start Time Proposed Dismal Time Alley K-4 8:00 am 5:00 pm Louisiana 5-9 8:00 am 5:00 pm PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The recommended improvements to the site and surrounding street network are shown in Figure 10 and listed below: • Change Louisiana between Second and Fourth Streets to bi-directional traffic flow (1 lane southbound and 1 lane northbound with metered parking both sides). Currently Louisiana in these blocks is two lanes southbound with metered parking on both sides. The drop off point would be at the northwest corner of the building. Providing a northbound lane of Louisiana will allow children to exit/enter a vehicle on the right side increasing safety. • Modify traffic signals at Second & Louisiana and Third & Louisiana for the proposed northbound traffic. ■ Convert the alley on the east side of the school from one way northbound to one way southbound. The 45 degree angled parking will need to be restriped for the conversion. Changing the direction of travel will allow children to exit/enter a vehicle on the right side increasing safety. The drop off point will be at the northeast corner of the school. • Add an 8 feet wide sidewalk from the northeast corner of the school north to Second Street. This will give the students/teachers a safe zone after entering/exiting vehicles. • The metered parking on the south side of Second Street from Scott Street to the alley will be removed. This parking lane will provide a queuing area for the alley deliveries/pick ups. • The traffic circulation plan will be published with the following limitations: o Vehicles will be encouraged to deliver students during the 30 minutes prior to school starting and picking up students after the dismal time. o Vehicles delivering/picking up students at the Louisiana drop off point must travel westbound on Third Street to make a right turn onto Louisiana 13/14 SITE ACCESS STUDY — E-STEM CHARTER SCHOOL or eastbound on Fourth Street to make a left turn onto Louisiana. Vehicles traveling eastbound on Third Street attempting to make a left turn onto Louisiana will interrupt the existing traffic circulation. This left turn should be prohibited. o Vehicles delivering/picking up students at the alley drop off point must turn right onto Third Street. Vehicles attempting to turn left onto Third Street will disrupt the traffic circulation plan and cause problems along Second Street. Left turns out of the alley onto Third Street should be prohibited. 14/14 TRIP GENERATION Gazette Building -Private School K-12 LAND USE: 1000 STUDENT PRIVATE (K-12) SCHOOL TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS' TRIP GENERATION, SEVENTH EDITION. THE ITE LAND USE CODE IS PRIVATE SCHOOL K-12 (536) .m WEEKDAY Average Rate 2.48 T = 149 VPD ENTER: 50% 74 VPD EXIT: 50% 74 VPD AM PEAK HOUR ONE HOUR BETWEEN 7 AND 9 Average Rate 0.79 T = 47 VPH ENTER: 61 % 29 VPH EXIT: 39% 18 VPH PM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 4 AND D 6 PM) Average Rate 0.79 T o 47 VPH ENTER: 43% 20 VPH EXIT: 57% 27 VPH TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 7 AND 9 AM) PM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 4 AND 6 PM) 0.17 ITE Trip Gen. 10 VPH 4 VPH 6 VPH 149 VPD 47 VPH 47 VPH TRIP GENERATION Gazette Building -Private School K-12 LAND USE: 1000 STUDENT PRIVATE (K-12) SCHOOL TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS' TRIP GENERATION, SEVENTH EDITION. THE ITE LAND USE CODE IS PRIVATE SCHOOL K-12 (536) 60 First WEEKDAY Average Rate 2.48 T = 149 VPD ENTER: 50% 74 VPD EXIT: 50% 74 VPD AM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 7 AND 9 Average Rate 0.79 T = 47 VPH ENTER: 61% 29 VPH EXIT: 39% 18 VPH PM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 4 AND 6 PM) Average Rate 0.79 T = 47 VPH ENTER: 43% 20 VPH EXIT: 57% 27 VPH TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 7 AND 9 AM) PM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 4 AND 6 PM) 0.17 ITE Trip Gen. 10 VPH 4 VPH 6 VPH 149 VPD 47 VPH 47 VPH TRIP GENERATION Gazette Building -Private School K-12 LAND USE: 1000 STUDENT PRIVATE (K-12) SCHOOL TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS' TRIP GENERATION, SEVENTH EDITION. THE ITE LAND USE CODE IS PRIVATE SCHOOL K-12 (536) 72 Second WEEKDAY Average Rate 2.48 T = 179 VPD ENTER: 50% 89 VPD EXIT: 50% 89 VPD AM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 7 AND 9 AM) Average Rate 0.79 T = 57 VPH ENTER: 61 % 35 VPH EXIT: 39% 22 VPH PM PEAK HOUR [ONE HOUR BETWEEN_ 4 AND 6 PM] Average Rate 0.79 T = 57 VPH ENTER: 43% 24 VPH EXIT: 57% 32 VPH TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 7 AND 9 AM) PM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 4 AND 6 PM) 0.17 ITE Trip Gen. 12 VPH 5 VPH 7 VPH 179 VPD 57 VPH 57 VPH TRIP GENERATION Gazette Building -Private School K-12 LAND USE: 1000 STUDENT PRIVATE (K-12) SCHOOL TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS' TRIP GENERATION, SEVENTH EDITION. THE ITE LAND USE CODE IS PRIVATE SCHOOL K-12 (536) 80 Third WEEKDAY Average Rate 2.48 T = 198 VPD ENTER: 50% 99 VPD EXIT: 50% 99 VPD AM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 7 AND 9 AM) Average Rate 0.79 T = 63 VPH ENTER: 61% 39 VPH EXIT: 39% 25 VPH PM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 4 AND 6 Average Rate 0.79 T 63 VPH ENTER: 43% 27 VPH EXIT: 57% 36 VPH TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 7 AND 9 AM) PM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 4 AND 6 PM) 0.17 ITE Trip Gen. 14 VPH 6 VPH 8 VPH 198 VPD 63 VPH 63 VPH TRIP GENERATION Gazette Building -Private School K-12 LAND USE: 1000 STUDENT PRIVATE (K-12) SCHOOL TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS' TRIP GENERATION, SEVENTH EDITION. THE ITE LAND USE CODE IS PRIVATE SCHOOL K-12 (536) 88 Fourth WEEKDAY Average Rate 2.48 T = 218 VPD ENTER: 50% 109 VPD EXIT: 50% 109 VPD AM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 7 AND 9 AM) Average Rate 0.79 ENTER: 61 % EXIT: 39% PM PEAK HOUR Average Rate ENTER: 43% EXIT: 57% T - 70 VPH 42 VPH 27 VPH HOUR BETWEEN 4 AND 6 0.79 T 70 VPH 30 VPH 40 VPH 0.17 ITE Trip Gen. 15 VPH 6 VPH 9 VPH TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY WEEKDAY 218 VPD AM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 7 AND 9 AM) 70 VPH PM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 4 AND 6 PM) 70 VPH TRIP GENERATION Gazette Building -Private School K-12 LAND USE: 1000 STUDENT PRIVATE (K-12) SCHOOL TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS' TRIP GENERATION, SEVENTH EDITION. THE ITE LAND USE CODE IS PRIVATE SCHOOL K-12 (536) 96 Fifth WEEKDAY Average Rate 2.48 T = 238 VPD ENTER: 50% 119 VPD EXIT: 50% 119 VPD AM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 7 AND 9 AM) Average Rate 0.79 T = 76 VPH ENTER: 61% 46 VPH EXIT: 39% 30 VPH PM PEAK HOUR fONE HOUR BETWEEN 4 AND 6 PM Average Rate 0.79 0.17 ITE Trip Gen. T = 76 VPH 16 VPH ENTER: 43% 33 VPH 7 VPH EXIT: 57% 43 VPH 9 VPH TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY WEEKDAY 238 VPD AM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 7 AND 9 AM) 76 VPH PM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 4 AND 6 PM) 76 VPH TRIP GENERATION Gazette Building -Private School K-12 LAND USE: 1000 STUDENT PRIVATE (K-12) SCHOOL TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS' TRIP GENERATION, SEVENTH EDITION. THE ITE LAND USE CODE IS PRIVATE SCHOOL K-12 (536) 100 Sixth WEEKDAY Average Rate 2.48 T - 248 VPD ENTER: 50% 124 VPD EXIT: 50% 124 VPD AM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 7AND 9_AM) Average Rate 0.79 T = 79 VPH ENTER: 61% 48 VPH EXIT: 39% 31 VPH PM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 4 AND 6 PM_) Average Rate 0.79 T = 79 VPH ENTER: 43% 34 VPH EXIT: 57% 45 VPH TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 7 AND 9 AM) PM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 4 AND 6 PM) 0.17 ITE Trip Gen. 17 VPH 7 VPH 10 VPH 248 VPD 79 VPH 79 VPH TRIP GENERATION Gazette Building -Private School K-12 LAND USE: 1000 STUDENT PRIVATE (K-12) SCHOOL TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS' TRIP GENERATION, SEVENTH EDITION. THE ITE LAND USE CODE IS PRIVATE SCHOOL K-12 (536) 100 Seventh WEEKDAY Average Rate 2.48 T = 248 VPD ENTER: 50% 124 VPD EXIT: 50% 124 VPD AM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 7 AND 9 AM) Average Rate 0.79 T = 79 VPH ENTER: 61% 48 VPH EXIT: 39% 31 VPH PM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 4 AND 6 PM Average Rate 0.79 T = 79 VPH ENTER: 43% 34 VPH EXIT: 57% 45 VPH TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 7 AND 9 AM) PM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 4 AND 6 PM) 0.17 ITE Trip Gen. 17 VPH 7 VPH 10 VPH 248 VPD 79 VPH 79 VPH TRIP GENERATION Gazette Building -Private School K-12 LAND USE: 1000 STUDENT PRIVATE (K-12) SCHOOL TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS' TRIP GENERATION, SEVENTH EDITION. THE ITE LAND USE CODE IS PRIVATE SCHOOL K-12 (536) 100 Eighth WEEKDAY Average Rate 2.48 T = 248 VPD ENTER: 50% 124 VPD EXIT: 50% 124 VPD AM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 7 AND 9 AM) Average Rate 0.79 T = 79 VPH ENTER: 61% 48 VPH EXIT: 39% 31 VPH PM PEAK FLOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 4 AN❑ 6 Average Rate 0.79 T = 79 VPH ENTER: 43% 34 VPH EXIT: 57% 45 VPH TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 7 AND 9 AM) PM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 4 AND 6 PM) 0.17 ITE Trip Gen. 17 VPH 7 VPH 10 VPH 248 VPD 79 VPH 79 VPH TRIP GENERATION Gazette Building -Private School K-12 LAND USE: 1000 STUDENT PRIVATE (K-12) SCHOOL TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS ARE BASED ON THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS' TRIP GENERATION, SEVENTH EDITION. THE ITE LAND USE CODE IS PRIVATE SCHOOL K-12 (536) 100 Ninth WEEKDAY Average Rate 2.48 T = 248 VPD ENTER: 50% 124 VPD EXIT: 50% 124 VPD AM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 7 AND 9 AM) Average Rate 0.79 T = 79 VPH ENTER: 61% 48 VPH EXIT: 39% 31 VPH PM PEAK HOUR {ONE HOUR BETWEEN 4 AND 6 PM) Average Rate 0.79 T = 79 VPH ENTER: 43% 34 VPH EXIT: 57% 45 VPH TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 7 AND 9 AM) PM PEAK HOUR (ONE HOUR BETWEEN 4 AND 6 PM) 0.17 ITE Trip Gen. 17 VPH 7 VPH 10 VPH 248 VPD 79 VPH 79 VPH HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Second Street & Louisiana 2/12/2008 } --I,. 1- 4-- Movement EBL EBT EBR VVBL 'NBT VVBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4t it tt r Volume (vph) 0 0 0 68 251 79 0 0 0 0 114 55 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 1583 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 1583 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 74 273 86 0 0 0 0 124 60 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 35 44 0 0 0 0 0 36 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 312 42 0 0 0 0 124 24 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8 u Permitted Phases 8 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 34.0 34.0 28.0 28.0 Effective Green, g (s) 34.0 34.0 28.0 28.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1701 769 1416 633 v/s Ratio Prot c0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.03 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.05 0.09 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 10.2 9.5 13.1 12.8 Progression Factor 0.38 0.74 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 4.1 7.2 13.2 12.9 Level of Service A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 4.7 0.0 13.1 Approach LOS A A A B Intersection Summary -- - -- - - - -- - - _ HCM Average Control Delay 7.2 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.14 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 1s c Critical Lane Group E-Stem Charter School Existing AM Synchro 7 - Report BLV Pagel HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Fourth Street & Louisiana 2/12/2008 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WST WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations W. 0 Volume (vph) 0 158 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 254 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.95 Frt 0.94 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4761 3529 Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4761 3529 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 172 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 276 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 248 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 287 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 4 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 42.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 42.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2857 1008 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 5.9 19.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.31 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.7 Delay (s) 6.0 26.1 Level of Service A C Approach Delay (s) 6.0 0.0 0.0 26.1 Approach LOS A A A C tnterseetian Summary HCM Average Control Delay HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.15 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group E-Stem Charter School Existing AM Synchro 7 - Report BLV Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Second Street & Main Street 1I2/12/2008 --p. i 41 Movement EBL EBT EBR W131- WBT WBR N8L NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 411: I t Ti Volume (vph) 0 0 0 14 341 10 51 103 0 0 77 6 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3518 1770 1863 1843 At Permitted 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perml 3518 1300 1863 1843 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 15 371 11 55 112 0 0 84 7 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 Lane Group_ Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 394 0 55 112 0 87 0 Turn Type Perm Perm TO Protected Phases 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green. G (s) 32.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Effective Green, g (s) 32.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.46 0.43 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1608 557 798 790 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.11 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.10 0.14 0.11 Uniform Delay, dl 11.6 11.9 12.2 12.0 Progression Factor 1.00 0.43 0.44 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 Delay (s) 12.0 5.5 5.7 12.3 Level of Service B A A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 12.0 5.6 12.3 Approach LOS A B A B Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 10.4 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.19 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group E-Stem Charter School Existing AM Synchro 7 - Report BLV Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Third Street & Louisiana 2/12/2008 Movement EBL EST EBR WBL WB'F WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SSR Lane Configurations +T. 4+ +TT Volume (vph) 0 361 81 71 357 68 0 0 0 25 118 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.97 0.98 0.97 Flt Protected 1.00 0.99 0.99 Said. Flow (prot) 3442 3442 3403 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.83 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm) 3442 2874 3403 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 392 88 77 388 74 0 0 0 27 128 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 28 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 453 0 0 521 0 0 0 0 0 165 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 3 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 45.0 17.0 Effective Green, g (s) 45.0 45.0 17.0 Actuated g1C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2213 _ _ _ 1848 _ 826 v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm c0.18 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.28 0.20 Uniform Delay, d1 5.1 5.5 21.1 Progression Factor 1.00 0.65 1.59 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.4 0.5 Delay (s) 5.3 3.9 34.0 Level of Service A A C Approach Delay (s) 5.3 3.9 0.0 34.0 Approach LOS A A A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 9.4 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.26 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) i5 c Critical Lane Group E-Stem Charter School Existing AM Synchro 7 - Report BLV Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Third Street & Main Street II 2/12/2008 ---* --I. 4--- '1- 4\ i Movement EBL EBI EBR INK WB'f WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 + 411� -T r 4 r Volume (vph) 60 286 40 62 366 12 31 82 6 11 49 31 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3458 3500 1837 1583 1846 1583 At Permitted 0.83 0.85 0.92 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 2898 2990 1710 1583 1772 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 65 311 43 67 398 13 34 89 7 12 53 34 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0 0 3 0 0 0 5 0 0 25 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 407 0 0 475 0 0 123 2 0 65 9 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 44.0 44.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g Is) 44.0 44.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1822 1879 440 407 456 407 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 c0.16 c0.07 0.00 0.04 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.25 0.28 0.00 0.14 0.02 Uniform Delay, dl 5.6 5.7 20.8 19.3 20.0 19.4 Progression Factor 0.46 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 0.41 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.3 1.6 0.0 0.7 0.1 Delay (s) 2.8 6.1 22.4 19.4 14.2 8.0 Level of Service A A C B B A Approach Delay (s) 2.8 6.1 22.2 12.1 Approach LOS A A C B Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 7.3 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.26 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group E-Stem Charter School Existing AM Synchro 7 - Report BLV Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Second Street & Louisiana --I. -'v ■-- t 1I2/12/2008 t Movement EBL EB-I' EBR WBL WB'I' WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations I'+ t tt if Volume (vph) 0 0 0 68 251 79 196 196 0 0 114 55 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.99 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3502 1583 1770 1863 3539 1583 Fit Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3502 1583 1254 1863 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 74 273 86 213 213 0 0 124 60 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 36 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 347 42 213 213 0 0 124 24 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 34.0 34.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 Effective Green, g (s) 34.0 34.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1701 769 502 745 1416 633 v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 0.04 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.03 c0.17 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.05 0.42 0.29 0.09 0.04 Uniform Delay, dl 10.3 9.5 15.2 14.2 13.1 12.8 Progression Factor 0.29 0.41 0.89 0.87 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.1 2.3 0.8 0.1 0.1 Delay (s) 3.2 4.0 15.8 13.2 13.2 12.9 Level of Service A A B B B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 3.4 14.5 13.1 Approach LOS A A B B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 9.6 _ HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.30 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 33.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group E-Stem Charter School Proposed AM Synchro 7 - Report BLV Pagel HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Fourth Street & Louisiana I 2/12/2008 _# __I,-IF--4_I * i Movement EBt_ EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations *TtT. *Tt Volume (vph) 216 158 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 254 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.95 Frt 0.96 1.00 Fit Protected 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 4798 3529 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 4798 3529 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 235 172 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 276 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 293 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 42.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 42.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2879 1008 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.29 Uniform Delay, dl 6.2 19.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.29 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.7 Delay (s) 6.4 25.8 Level of Service A C Approach Delay (s) 6.4 0.0 0.0 25.8 Approach LOS A A A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay t 3.2 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.21 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26 1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group E-Stem Charter School Proposed AM Synchro 7 - Report BLV Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Second Street & Main Street 2/12/2008 Movement ESL EBT EBR WBL WBT VVBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4T+ Volume (vph) 0 0 0 14 625 10 51 103 0 0 77 6 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 At Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3527 1770 1863 1843 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.70 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3527 1300 1863 1843 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 15 679 11 55 112 0 0 84 7 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 703 0 55 112 0 0 87 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Effective Green, g (s) 32.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.43 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1612 557 798 790 v/s Ratio Prot c0.06 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.44 0.10 0.14 0.11 Uniform Delay, dl 12.9 11.9 12.2 12.0 Progression Factor 1.00 0.44 0.45 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.3 Delay (s) 13.7 5.6 5.8 12.3 Level of Service B A A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 13.7 5.7 12.3 Approach LOS A B A B Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Deiay 122 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.29 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.2% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group E-Stem Charter School Proposed AM Synchro 7 - Report BLV Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Third Street & Louisiana 2/12/2008 � � '� f- � i Movement EBL EBT EBR W8L WBT VVBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 *Tt t +TT Volume (vph) 0 389 81 71 641 176 0 216 0 25 118 39 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.97 0.97 1.00 0.97 At Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 3448 3420 1863 3403 At Permitted 1.00 0.87 1.00 0.90 Satd. Flow (perm) 3448 2983 1863 3073 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 423 88 77 697 191 0 235 0 27 128 42 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 25 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 486 0 0 934 0 0 235 0 0 165 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 45.0 17.0 17.0 Effective Green, g (s) 45.0 45.0 17.0 17.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time [sl 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2217 1918 452 746 v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 c0.13 v/s Ratio Perm c0.31 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.49 0.52 0.22 Uniform Delay, dl 5.2 6.5 23.0 21.2 Progression Factor 1.00 0.62 0.82 1.54 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.9 4.2 0.7 Delay (s) 5.4 4.9 23.1 33.2 Level of Service A A C C Approach Delay (s) 5.4 4.9 23.1 33.2 Approach LOS A A C C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 10.2 HCM Levei of Semite B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.7% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group E-Stem Charter School Proposed AM Synchro 7 - Report BLV Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Third Street & Main Street 2/12/2008 Movement EBL EBT EBR VVBL NIBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SB7 SBR Lane Configurations *'T 41 4 r 4 r Volume (vph) 60 314 40 62 542 12 31 82 6 11 49 31 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3463 3511 1837 1583 1846 1583 Flt Permitted 0.81 0.87 0.92 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 2808 3062 1710 1583 1772 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 65 341 43 67 589 13 34 89 7 12 53 34 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 12 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 25 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 437 0 0 667 0 0 123 2 0 65 9 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 44.0 44.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 44.0 44.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time is1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1765 1925 440 407 456 407 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.16 c0.22 c0.07 0.00 0.04 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.35 0.28 0.00 0.14 0.02 Uniform Delay, dl 5.7 6.2 20.8 19.3 20.0 19.4 Progression Factor 0.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.66 0.38 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.5 1.6 0.0 0.7 0.1 Delay (s) 2.8 6.7 22.4 19.4 14.0 7.6 Level of Service A A C B B A Approach Delay (s) 2.8 6.7 22.2 11.8 Approach LOS A A C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay T 7.3 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.33 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group E-Stem Charter School Proposed AM Synchro 7 - Report BLV Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Second Street & Louisiana 2/12/2008 Movement EBL EBT EBR VVBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 r tt r Volume (vph) 0 0 0 18 117 30 0 0 0 0 168 108 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 3515 1583 3539 1583 At Permitted 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3515 1583 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0-92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 20 127 33 0 0 0 0 183 117 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 10 17 0 0 0 0 0 70 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 137 16 0 0 0 0 183 47 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 34.0 34.0 28.0 28.0 Effective Green, g (s) 34.0 34.0 28.0 28.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time ss1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1707 769 1416 633 v/s Ratio Prot c0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.01 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.02 0.13 0.07 Uniform Delay, dl 9.6 9.4 13.3 13.0 Progression Factor 0.79 0.85 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 Delay (s) 7.7 8.0 13.5 13.2 Level of Service A A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 7.7 0.0 13.4 Approach LOS A A A B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 11.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.10 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.1 % ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group E-Stem Charter School Existing PM Synchro 7 - Report BLV Pagel HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Fourth Street & Louisiana 1I2/12/2008 --,, f- 4\ i 4/ Movement EBL EBT ESR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations tti� 4+ Volume (vph) 0 444 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 197 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.95 Frt 0.96 1.00 Fit Protected 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 4860 3498 Fit Permitted 1.00 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm) 4860 3498 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 483 203 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 214 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 605 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �T 238 0 Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 4 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 42.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 42.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2916 999 v/s Ratio Prot c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.07 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 6.4 19.2 Progression Factor 1.00 1.25 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.5 Delay (s) 6.6 24.4 Level of Service A C Approach Delay (s) 6.6 0.0 0.0 24.4 Approach LOS A A A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Way 11.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.22 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group E-Stem Charter School Existing PM Synchro 7 - Report BLV Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Second Street & Main Street 2/12/2008 } Movement EBB EBT EBR VVBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SSL SBT SBR t.ane Configur bons +1T+ + T+ Volume (vph) 0 0 0 34 109 13 52 152 0 0 99 4 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 At Protected 0.99 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3457 1770 1863 1854 Flt Permitted 0.99 0.68 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3457 1276 1863 1854 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 37 118 14 57 165 0 0 108 4 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 161 0 57 165 0 0 110 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green, G (s) 32.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Effective Green, g (s) 32.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.43 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1580 547 798 795 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.10 0.21 0.14 Uniform Delay, dl 10.8 12.0 12.5 12.2 Progression Factor 1.00 0.29 0.28 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.4 Delay (s) 10.9 3.8 4.1 12.5 Level of Service B A A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 10.9 4.0 12.5 Approach LOS A B A B Intersection Summary _ HCM Average Control Delay 8.2 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.15 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70,0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 20.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group E-Stem Charter School Existing PM Synchro 7 - Report BLV Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Third Street & Louisiana II 2/12/2008 --I. 'r 4\ i 41 Nlovement EBL EBT EBR WK UUBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 0 a"T+ Volume (vph) 0 722 152 24 229 0 0 0 0 89 81 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.97 1.00 0.99 At Protected 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 3447 3523 3413 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.86 0.98 Satd. Flow (perm) 3447 3038 3413 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 785 165 26 249 0 0 0 0 97 88 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 925 0 0 275 0 0 0 0 0 192 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 45.0 17.0 Effective Green, g (s) 45.0 45.0 17.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2216 1953 829 v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.06 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.14 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 6.1 4.9 21.3 Progression Factor 1.00 0.86 1.87 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.1 0.7 Delay (s) 6.7 4.4 40.3 Level of Service A A D Approach Delay (s) 6.7 4.4 0.0 40.3 Approach LOS A A A D Intersection Summa HCM Average Control Delay 11.0 HCM Level of Service 6 HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.37 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group E-Stem Charter School Existing PM Synchro 7 - Report BLV Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Third Street & Main Street 1I2/12/2008 ---► -'�r -- i Movement EBL EBT EBR WK WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 4 Tr 411� +T if 4 r Volume (vph) 19 752 40 13 159 35 48 150 20 38 49 46 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 0.97 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3509 3439 1840 1583 1823 1583 Flt Permitted 0.95 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.82 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3325 3125 1696 1583 1528 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0-92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0-92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 21 817 43 14 173 38 52 163 22 41 53 50 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 14 0 0 0 16 0 0 37 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 876 0 0 211 0 0 215 6 0 94 13 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 44.0 44.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 44.0 44.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Clearance Times 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2090 1964 436 407 393 407 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm c0.26 0.07 c0.13 0.00 0.06 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.42 0.11 0.49 0.01 0.24 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 6.6 5.2 22.1 19.4 20.6 19.5 Progression Factor 0.62 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.44 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.1 3.9 0.1 1.4 0.1 Delay (s) 4.6 5.3 26.1 19.4 15.8 8.8 Level of Service A A C B B A Approach Delay (s) 4.6 5.3 25.5 13.4 Approach LOS A A C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 8.9 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.44 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.1 % ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group E-Stem Charter School Existing PM Synchro 7 - Report BLV Page 5 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Second Street & Louisiana 2/12/2008 * II Movement EBT EBR VVBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 r +T tt r Volume (vph) 0 0 0 18 117 30 196 196 0 0 168 108 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Said. Flow (prot) 3515 1583 1817 3539 1583 Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.74 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3515 1583 1387 3539 1583 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 20 127 33 213 213 0 0 183 117 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 70 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 147 16 0 426 0 0 183 47 Turn Type Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 34.0 34.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 Effective Green, g (s) 34.0 34.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.49 0.49 0.40 0.40 0.40 Clearance Time fs1 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1707 769 555 1416 633 v/s Ratio Prot 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.01 c0.31 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.02 0.77 0.13 0.07 Uniform Delay, dl 9.7 9.4 18.2 13.3 13.0 Progression Factor 0.41 0.37 1.02 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 7.9 0.2 0.2 Delay (s) 4.1 3.5 26.3 13.5 13.2 Level of Service A A C B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 4.0 26.3 13.4 Approach LOS A A C B Interseclion Summaa HCM Average Control Delay 17.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.39 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group E-Stem Charter School Proposed PM Synchro 7 - Report BLV Pagel HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Fourth Street & Louisiana 12/12/2008 } Movement ESL EBT EBR WBL 4WBT W8R NBL NBT NBR 5BL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 40 *Tt Volume (vph) 294 444 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 197 0 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.95 Frt 0.97 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 0.99 Satd. Flow (prot) 4854 3498 Flt Permitted 0.98 0.99 Satd. Flow (perm) 4854 3498 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 092 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 _ 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 320 483 203 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 214 0 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 943 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 279 0 Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 42.0 20.0 Effective Green, g (s) 42.0 20.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2912 999 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 0.08 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.28 Uniform Delay, d1 7.0 19.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.16 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.6 Delay (s) 7.2 23.2 Level of Service A C Approach Delay (s) 7.2 0.0 0.0 23.2 Approach LOS A A A C Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 10.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.31 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group E-Stem Charter School Proposed PM Synchro 7 - Report BLV Page 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: Second Street & Main Street 2/12/2008 Movement EBL EST EBR WBL WBT UhlBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SST SBR Lane Configurations *" Ti I t 1� Volume (vph) 0 0 0 34 393 13 52 152 0 0 99 4 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3510 1770 1863 1854 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.68 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 3510 1276 1863 1854 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 _ 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 37 427 14 57 165 0 0 108 4 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 475 0 57 165 0 0 110 0 Turn 'type Perm Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 2 Actuated Green. G (s) 32.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Effective Green, g (s) 32.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.46 0.43 0.43 0.43 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1605 547 798 795 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09 0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.14 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.30 0.10 0.21 0.14 Uniform Delay, dl 11.9 12.0 12.5 12.2 Progression Factor 1.00 0.29 0.29 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.5 0.4 0.5 0A Delay (s) 12.4 3.8 4.1 12.5 Level of Service B A A B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 12.4 4.0 12.5 Approach LOS A B A B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 10.1 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.25 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group E-Stem Charter School Proposed PM Synchro 7 - Report BLV Page 3 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: Third Street & Louisiana 2/12/2008 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBP. SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 0 +Tt t 4T Volume (vph) 0 750 152 24 513 98 0 294 0 89 81 16 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 Frt 0.97 0.98 1.00 0.99 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 Satd. Flow (prot) 3450 3451 1863 3413 Flt Permitted 1.00 0.90 1.00 0.59 Satd. Flow (perm) 3450 3123 1863 2072 _ Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 0 815 165 26 558 107 0 320 0 97 88 17 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 24 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 956 0 0 670 0 0 320 0 0 192 0_ Turn Type Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 8 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 45.0 45.0 17.0 17.0 Effective Green, g (s) 45.0 45.0 17.0 17.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.64 0.64 0.24 0.24 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2218 2008 452 503 v/s Ratio Prot c0.28 c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.21 0.09 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.33 0.71 0.38 Uniform Delay, dl 6.2 5.7 24.2 22.1 Progression Factor 1.00 0.84 0.78 1.82 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.4 8.7 2.2 Delay (s) 6.8 5.2 27.7 42.5 Level of Service A A C D Approach Delay (s) 6.8 5.2 27.7 42.5 Approach, LOS A A C D Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 12.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70,0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 66.1 % ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group E-Stem Charter School Proposed PM Synchro 7 - Report BLV Page 4 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10: Third Street & Main Street 2/12/2008 --1 --0- .4- .4\ t 1 Movement ESL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations +"Fi +Tlt+ *T r 4 r Volume (vph) 19 780 40 13 257 35 48 150 20 38 49 46 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 0.99 0.98 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 3510 3471 1840 1583 1823 1583 Flt Permitted 0.94 0.92 0.91 1.00 0.82 1.00 Satd. Flow(perm) 3319 3191 1696 1583 1528 1583 Peak -hour factor, PH 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 21 848 43 14 279 38 52 163 22 41 53 50 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 5 0 0 14 0 0 0 16 0 0 37 Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 907 0 0 317 0 0 215 6 0 94 13 Turn Type Perm Perm _ Perm Perm Perm Perm Protected Phases 4 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 44.0 44.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Effective Green, g (s) 44.0 44.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.63 0.63 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2086 2006 436 407 393 407 v/s Ratio Prot v/s Ratio Perm c0.27 0.10 c0.13 0.00 0.06 0.01 v/c Ratio 0.43 0.16 0.49 0.01 0.24 0.03 Uniform Delay, d1 6.6 5.4 22.1 19.4 20.6 19.5 Progression Factor 0.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.68 0.41 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.2 3.9 0.1 1.4 0.1 Delay (s) 4.5 5.5 26.1 19.4 15.5 8.1 Level of Service A A C B B A Approach Delay (s) 4.5 5.5 25.5 12.9 Approach LOS A A C B Intersection Summary HCM Average Control May 8.5 HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.45 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time (s) 8.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.5% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group E-Stem Charter School Proposed PM Synchro 7 - Report BLV Page 5 - R 9 ct lk ,A I ro I IOOH:)S b3lNVH:) H9IH W31S-9 Z 1 IM W Its �v ° OOiO'BL['105 Y1 ° IOCi[>°�+�wry 9°tl °Wfl +°°45 M9 �P^°5 OZI •I»Il . IOOHJS ii3l"dVHD HJIH W31S-9 �a N N1 Z 0 N Q J all IUWwrl US nJ- OOwwriU5Pl• 1U -inn SP W^ ULI v chi a°o c g ® o •� Q m U Ws a o. c4 N �"' • N as � a� C � � N z z x y A J r